Articles by "Politics"
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Biafra News Team Sunday, 12 March 2017 0

(Intersociety, Onitsha Nigeria: 9th March 2017)-The gross rights abuses in the past 21 months of the ailing Buhari’s Government of Nigeria can never be investigated by the same perpetrators of the heinous crimes (i.e. Nigerian Army and its COAS: Tukur Yusuf Buratai, etc). Any so called special investigation panel set up by the Nigerian Army is manifestly a kangaroo and totally rejected. As a matter of fact, the Nigerian Army should be barred from meddling into investigations associated with same; except its right to be heard. There shall be proper criminal investigation and punitive measures against Buratai and Company; followed by an unbiased and balanced Special Judicial Commission of Enquiry set up by the Government of Nigeria, for the purpose of victims’ remedies or compensatory justice and serious administrative reprimands-Emeka Umeagbalasi-Criminologist & Graduate of Security Studies; and Board Chairman of Intersociety.
The forgoing represents the key stand of the leadership of International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law. That is to say that the Nigerian Army’s latest special panel to investigate itself concerning its basket-load of gross rights abuses in the country is not only a kangaroo, but also panicky, escapist and totally unacceptable. It is also a grave affront to the two famous rule of law principles of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should not be a judge in his/her own case or cause) and audi alteram partem(let the other side be heard or no one should be condemned unheard).

It is on indisputable record that the Nigerian Army including its Chief of Staff, Lt Gen Tukur Buratai; is responsible for over 70% of the gross rights abuses including custodial deaths, terminal wounding, grave torture, enforced disappearance, illegal detentions, mass shooting and killing of unarmed and defenseless ethnic and religious activists and mass killing of civilians or non combatants in conflict zones. Others grossly anti human rights and anti constitutional conducts of the Nigerian Army are violent conducts by way of physical threats and psychological intimidations; ethnic cleansing, ethno-religious bias, undermining of constitutional liberties, promotion and escalation of policy of militarization and encouragement of citizens’ militancy and radicalization as well as fueling the rapid and uncontrollable inflow of illicit Small Arms & Light Weapons (SALWs) in wrong or recalcitrant hands particularly in the Northeast and Niger Delta regions.

Apart from the foregoing, our forensic look at the so called “Eight-Man Military Panel of Investigation”, its composition and highly restricted terms of reference; clearly shows that the kangaroo panel is not only an exonerative panel, but also evidence cleanser and a fire brigade approach. When a similar panel was set up in March 2016 by Nigerian Army and its COAS through its Provost Marshall; it was mired in obvious conflict of interest and lack of moral compass. As expected, its investigation was dead on arrival. To make the matter worse, 13 slain bodies of IPOB members strongly suspected to have been killed and dumped inside an Aba burrow pit by the 144 Battalion of the Nigerian Army in the area; were suspiciously set ablaze by the culprit State agents, for the purpose of erasing traces and evidence destruction.

Also, a critical look at the composition of the so called “Army Investigative Panel” has further exposed the dubious and devious intents of the authorities of the Nigerian Army headed by Lt Gen Tukur Yusuf Buratai. The composition under reference is a total replica of the present gross lopsidedness in the Nigerian Army; which is patently Jihadist or Islamism friendly.
Shockingly too, the same Nigerian Army that says it wants to investigate the conduct atrocities of its personnel including the mass killing of Pro Biafra Campaigners of Southeast and South-south extractions has no single serving or retired army officers from the two areas; particularly from the Southeast as members of its so called “Special Military Panel”.

For the avoidance of doubt, the names of members of the kangaroo panel are: Major Gen Ahmed Tijani Jibrin, rtd (chairman), Brigadier General Dadan Garba, rtd; Brigadier General Abdulqadir Guide, rtd; Brigadier General O. Olayinka; Col. L. B. Mohamme; Col. UM Wambai ;Mr Olawole Fapohunda and Lt. Col. CM Akaliro, who is the panel’s secretary. The composition is not only ethnically sectional, but utterly Muslim and military dominated. It also has cabalistic outlook. It has no iota of regards for the individual and group victims as well as the generality of Nigerians.

Another glaring dubious intent associated with the so called “Army Special Panel” is its restricted terms of reference; such as “not revisiting areas covered by State Governments and the National Human Rights Commission”. That is to say that the kangaroo panel will not look into the mass killing of over 1000 unarmed and defenseless members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria. Strong attempts have been made by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Kaduna State Government and leprous National Human Rights Commission to exonerate the Nigerian Army and its lead-perpetrators including COAS Lt Gen Tukur Buratai from the Zaria butchery. The link to the Army statement, announcing the setting up of the kangaroo Special Military Panel is here: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/03/army-sets-panel-investigate-alleged-ex-judicial-killings-rights-violations-personnel/


As if these were not enough, the COAS, Lt Gen Tukur Buratai and his Nigerian Army have the audacity to criminalize and stigmatize the 240 unarmed and defenseless civilians including 29 children aged between new born and five years that died in its Giwa Military Barracks custody in 2016; by referring to them as “arrested Boko Haram terrorists”; yet they want to “investigate allegations of extra judicial killings, etc, involving Nigerian Military”.

 We, therefore, make bold to say that the so called “Special Military Panel” totally lacks constitutional contents, moral compass, acceptability and credibility to look into the widespread rights abuses perpetrated against the Federation of Nigeria, the Constitution and innocent and defenseless citizens of the country. Addressing the abuses is far beyond the scope, capacity and capability of the lopsidedly composed Nigerian Army of present time.


Consequently, we strongly recommend as follows:
a.     If the present Federal Government of Nigeria is repentantly and remorsefully concerned over its current atrocious human rights records; by way of redressing them and avoidance of international criminal justice wrath (i.e. vide principles of complementarity and no impunity); then there shall a matching order to the Attorney General of the Federation and the Office of the Inspector General of Police by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to constitute a high powered Special Criminal Investigation Team into gross rights abuses committed by State agents as contained in the Amnesty International Report and reports of other notable rights groups and victim groups and individuals.

b.    The composition of such Special Criminal Investigation Team shall be expertly headed by Office of Police DIG in-charge of Criminal Investigations and; composed of  representatives of Directorate of Military Intelligence, Military Police, State Security Service, National Intelligence Agency and their legal departments as well as office of the Attorney General of the Federation. The investigative personnel so chosen who must be serving members of the Nigerian Armed Forces and the Police; must be drawn from all the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria.

c.     The draft composition of the Special Criminal Investigation shall be prepared by the Attorney General of the Federation and taken to the Federal Executive Council for amendment, modifications and ratification.

d.    After ratification, the FEC shall make same public and its scope of criminal investigation shall mandatorily include: killings perpetrated by Army and other security personnel in time and areas of peace or areas not under insurgency; otherwise called crimes against humanity; mass killing of unarmed and defenseless members of an ethnic or religious group particularly in non war situations; otherwise called genocide; and killing or death in military or security custody of civilians or non combatants in areas of conflict (such as Giwa Military Barracks custodial deaths that killed 240 civilians including 29 children aged between new born and five years; and the Rann IDP bombing that killed not less than 236 civilians), otherwise called war crimes.

e.     The Special Criminal Investigation Team must also embark on visitations to crime victims and group-victims as well as crime scenes. Administrative invitations with associated threats and intimidations to individual and group victims and their advocates as well as all forms of arm-chair syndromes shall be discouraged and prohibited by the Special Criminal Investigation Team.

f.     At the conclusion of the Special Criminal Investigations, reports shall be issued and approved by FEC; after which those indicted shall be diligently prosecuted by the AGF, in accordance with Section 174 (1) of the Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution; while those indicted for war crimes (i.e. death of 240 civilians including 29 children aged between new born and five years; as well as the Rann IDP killing of 236 civilians) and genocide (i.e. killing of Pro Biafra Campaigners and Shiite Muslims) shall either be tried locally or handed over to ICC for  further international investigation and prosecution).

g.    There shall be set up separately by the present Federal Government of Nigeria a Special Judicial Commission of Enquiry to ascertain as follows: (i) the roles of top security personnel such as immediate past IGP and his successor as well as the current Chief of Army Staff, the National Security Adviser, the Chief of Defense Staff, the Chief of Air Staff and the Minister of Interior in the referenced killings perpetrated by security personnel; (ii) those responsible for the massacre of Christians by the Nomad Fulani Jihadists (this is because till date the Federal Government of Nigeria has not declared the violent activities of same as armed rebellion or insurgency);  and (iii) the identities of slain victims of Shiite Muslims, Pro Biafra Campaigners and Christian activists killed by Government security operatives and the Nomad Fulani Jihadists.

h.     The Special Judicial Commission of Enquiry shall be constituted by the Office of the AGF and approved by FEC. It shall have representatives drawn from (1) Amnesty International, (2) Nigerian Rights Groups including those based in the Southeast Zone; (3) the Federal Government of Nigeria bearing in mind its federal character; (4) Nigerian Armed Forces and Police; (5) Nigerian Bar Association; (6) the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria and its Kafanchan Archdiocese; (7) the ECWA Church; (8) the Christian Association of Nigeria including the PFN; (9) relevant Muslim groups; (10) the Islamic Movement of Nigeria; (11) the Indigenous People of Biafra; (12) Nigerian Union of Journalists, (13)  etc.


i.      The Special Judicial Commission of Enquiry shall come out with three major recommendations: (1) punitive and administrative reprimands, such as dismissal or sack of those public office holders found culpable-vicariously and individually; as well as their criminal prosecution; (2) proscription of violent groups found culpable and criminal prosecution of its principal officers and foot perpetrators; and (3) adequate compensation of the individual and group victims of State killings as well as those killed by the Nomad Fulani Jihadists.

j.      Adequate and well publicized State apologies and constitution of the National Sorry Day for those killed outside the law in Nigeria.

Signed:
For: International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety)
·         Emeka Umeagbalasi, Board Chairman
 Mobile Line: +2348174090052

·          Obianuju Joy Igboeli, Esq., LLB, BL
Head, Civil Liberties & Rule of Law Program
Mobile Line: + 2348180771506

·         Ndidiamaka C. Bernard, Esq., LLB, BL
Head, Int’l Justice & Human Rights Program
Mobile Line: +2348067557308


Continue reading

Biafra News Team Friday, 3 March 2017 0

(Intersociety, Onitsha Nigeria: 3rd March 2017)-First of all, we make bold to say that the dismissal of six count charges out of the eleven charges as contained in a judgment delivered yesterday, being 2nd March 2017 by the Abuja Division of the Federal Court, presided over by Hon Justice Binta Murtala Nyako was totally correct; though it was grossly belated. The entire eleven spurious and persecutorial charges levelled against Citizens Nnamdi Kanu, Dave Nwawuisi, Ben Madubugwu and Chidiebere Onwudiwe should have been dismissed in totality.

Though the dismissal is long overdue and long expected but it is legally and constitutionally grounded. It is a victory for the Fundamental Human Rights provisions in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution and their counterparts in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenants on Civil & Political Rights and Economic, Social & Cultural Rights as well as the  African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights. It must be pointed out that matters involving human rights transcend all the boundaries of all regions of the world without hindrances and restrictions.

Other victors of the dismissed spurious charges are the pacifist and nonviolent Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its global and local leaders especially Citizen Nnamdi Kanu (POC); the conscientious segment of the Nigerian media; international leading rights groups like Amnesty International; local leading rights groups like Intersociety and Southeast Based Coalition of Human Rights Organizations; other respected Igbo groups and individuals residing locally and internationally; and the entire Igbo Race and Southern Nationalities.

Conversely, the worst losers following the long overdue judgment are the Nigerian Army and its COAS, Lt Gen Turkur Yusuf Buratai; ailing President Muhammadu Buhari and the SSS and its DG, Alhaji Musa Daura. Other losers are the Nigeria Police Force and its incumbent and immediate past IGPs, Alhaji Ibrahim Kpotum Idris and Solomon Arase; treacherous and rotten Igbo politicians; to mention but a few.

It is recalled that Hon Justice Binta Nyako had in her judgment dismissed six out of eleven spurious and persecutorial charges leveled against Citizen Nnamdi Kanu and ors. That is to say that the Hon Pre-trial Court held that: (1) owing to want or lack of evidence before it from the prosecuting body (i.e. AGF/SSS); IPOB is not an illegal or unlawful society/organization and the defendants do not belong to an illegal or unlawful society/organization; (2) that the defendants do not own and manage or operate unlawful or illegal society/organization; (3) that the claims by the prosecution that the defendants are researching how to make improvised explosive devices (IEDs) cannot hold waters, because there was no proof that they were doing it; (4) that there was no evidence before the Court showing that the importation of radio transmission equipment was illegal and contravened the Custom & Excise Act of 2004. It is also important to note that the eleven spurious charges were repeated or duplicated in some areas. 

For the avoidance of doubt the entire nine watery and spurious count charges, duplicated into eleven count charges are: count one: conspiracy to commit treasonable felony; in which Nnamdi Kanu, Ben Madubugwu, Dave Nwawuisi and Chidiebere Onwudiwe were accused of using the Radio Biafra  London in diverse dates in 2014 and 2015 to campaign for the independence of Biafra; count two: treasonable felony by using Radio Biafra for the same purpose; count three: managing an unlawful society by forming the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) around 2012; count four: publication of defamatory materials/matter on 28th April 2015 against President Muhammadu Buhari; count five: improper importation of goods contrary to Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of the Custom & Excise Management Act of 2004.

Others are: count six: improper importation of goods contrary to Section 47 (2) (a) of the Custom & Excise Management Act 2004; count seven: management of an unlawful society by keeping a large container housing a Radio Transmitter in Ubuluisiuzor (Ihiala LGA) per  Ben Madubugwu known as TRAM 50L; count eight: illegal possession of firearms (two pump action guns) by Ben Madubugwu, said to be contrary to Section 27 (b) (i) of the Firearms Act 2004; count nine: conspiracy to commit treasonable felony per Chidiebere Onwudiwe and Dave Nwawuisi by installing Radio Biafra Transmitters along Ogui Road in Enugu; and count ten: terrorism per Chidibere Onwudiwe, said to be contrary to Section 2 (1) (a) of the Terrorism (Prevention (Amendment) Act of 2013; by “being caught committing an act preparatory to act of terrorism by researching for the purpose of identifying and gathering of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) making materials to be used against Nigerian security forces”.


It is very striking to note that nowhere in the entire nine charges or duplicated eleven count charges was the defendants or IPOB linked with armed rebellion or caught with evidence as armed opposition group with defined war boundaries, weaponry and records of human and material casualties or destructions. Another important fact to note is that President Muhammadu Buhari became the President of Nigeria on 29th May 2015 and cannot therefore seek legal remedies for an alleged defamatory publication that took place on 28th April 2015 (see count four of the charges). The Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution also prohibits criminalization of acts/conducts in retrospect or by way of retroactive criminality. See Section 36 (8) & (12) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

Consequently, the following critical and unresolved questions have arisen from Hon Justice Binta Nyako’s selective dismissal of six charges and sustaining of five controversial others. Our first critical question is: (1) on what ground is the charge of terrorism retained in the spurious charges since the same Court held that “there is no evidence showing that Citizen Chidiebere Onwudiwe was caught in Enugu around June 2015 committing an act preparatory to act of terrorism by researching for the purpose of identifying and gathering of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) making materials to be used against Nigerian security forces”. See count eleven, which originally is count nine of the spurious charges.

Our second critical question is: how come count four is retained for trial when it is clear to every Tom, Dick and Harry that President Muhammadu Buhari was a mere president-elect as at 28th April 2015 when the prosecutors claimed he was injured by a defamatory publication that took place on 28th April 2015 per Nnamdi Kanu and his Radio Biafra London; whereas he was sworn in as President of Nigeria as from 29th May 2015?

Our third critical question is: if in the judicial notice and opinion of Hon Justice Binta Murtala Nyako and her honourable Federal Court; IPOB is not an unlawful or illegal organization/society and its leaders led by Nnamdi Kanu (POC) are not managing or operating an illegal or unlawful society/organization per IPOB; how come the same Honourable Court approved the trial of the same citizens and their group for offences of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony, treasonable felony and terrorism?

Our fourth critical question is: when have democratic free speeches by way of radio transmission and communications with total absence of force of arms or armed rebellion or insurgency or insurrection or terrorism; translate to intent or act to violently overthrow the present Government of Nigeria? How many Boko Haram and Nomad Fulani Jihadists have been arrested and standing trials for offences of treason, treasonable felony and terrorism?

Our reasons for pointing out the forgoing with accompanying critical questions are for all Nigerians and members of the international community to take note of how the law abiding citizens are being pursued, hunted, hounded, tortured, killed and persecuted in Nigeria; while the lawless ones are being protected, amnestied and presidentially cuddled and rewarded. They are also for defensive and legal notice of the legal team of Citizen Nnamdi Kanu (POC) and ors so as to get the entire spurious charges quashed judicially by the same Pre-Trial Court or the Appellate or the Apex Court without further delays.

Signed:
For: International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety)
Emeka Umeagbalasi, Board Chairman
Mobile Line: +2348174090052
Email: emekaumeagbalasi69@gmail.com
Website: intersociety-ng.org
Obianuju Joy Igboeli, Esq.
Head, Civil Liberties & Rule of Law Program
Mobile Line: +2348180771506




Continue reading

Biafra News Team Thursday, 15 December 2016 0

December 15, 2016

Press Statement

JUSTICE BINTA FATIMAT MURTALA-NYAKO IS A DISGRACE TO THE JUDICIARY AND COURSE OF JUSTICE

Without any shred of doubt, Hon. Justice Binta Fatimat Murtala-Nyako (57 years old) is a monumental disgrace to the Judiciary and the greatest purveyor of injustice ever known to man. The world must be put on notice that this female Judge lacks basic understanding of her job as well as the capability to differentiate between a private citizen and a public servant at the level of the President of a country. In  her gaffe on the 1st of December 2016 which was the day she denied bail for Nnamdi Kanu, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako averred that Muhammadu Buhari’s prejudicial statement on Nnamdi Kanu’s case during his Presidential media chat of December 30, 2015, was a mere comment from a private citizen which he (Buhari) is entitled to as part of his fundamental human right. We are not surprised that on the night of the same day of her gaffe, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako had a dinner at the Presidential Villa with Muhammadu Buhari. 

It is on record that Muhammadu Buhari has written four letters to Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako concerning Nnamdi Kanu. In one of the recent letters, Buhari reminded Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako that her eldest son was implicated in a fraud involving her husband. The letter which was personally signed by Buhari stated that probe would commence into the activities of her son unless she jails Nnamdi Kanu before Mr. Donald Trump's inauguration on the 20th of January 2017. Therefore it does not come to us as a surprise that on December 13, 2016, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako was blackmailed into delivering the ruling for the secret trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. 

For those who do not know, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako is one of the four wives of Mr. Murtala Hamman-Yero Nyako, a retired Naval officer and an impeached governor of Adamawa state who is currently being prosecuted along with his son (Abdul-aziz Nyako) for stealing over twenty-nine billion naira.  

Further research has revealed that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako is the wife of a terrorist in the person of Mr. Murtala Hamman-Yero Nyako. On the 30th of May, 2014, Pointblanknews reported as follows: “no fewer than five hundred Fulani mercenaries trained in Sudan were imported into the state and are camped at the border village of Typsen in Toungo Local Government Area of Adamawa State on the instruction of the state governor. The Fulani men are kept at the expense of the state government, fed, well taken care of and paid a stipend of about N50,000.00 each monthly by the state government with the tax payers’ money (Pointblanknews May 30th, 2014).“


It will also be recalled that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako is being fingered on the mysterious death of Justice Evoh Chukwu of Federal High Court Abuja who was initially presiding over the case of fraud and stealing against her husband and her son. For the records, Mr. Murtala Hamman-Yero Nyako had in October 2012 sent the name of his wife, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako of the Federal High Court, to the National Judicial Commission (NJC) as his nominee for state Chief Judge but the request was thrown out by the NJC. With all these affronts on ethics and the Constitution, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako has the temerity to continue to serve as a Judge in a Nigerian Court.

We recall that on the 15th of July 1996, as the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Katsina state, Mrs. Binta Fatimat Murtala-Nyako categorically stated that “as the chief law officer of the state, my decision must be informed by the supreme law of the country which is the Constitution.“ Can this same Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako point us to the section of the Constitution that supports secret trial for the offences in which Nnamdi Kanu and others are being tried? Why is Binta Murtala-Nyako operating outside the Constitution of Nigeria which she swore to uphold as a Judge? By approving secret trial, is Binta Murtala-Nyako invalidating section-36 (especially sub-section 3 & 4) of Nigerian Constitution? Is Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako aware that section-1(3) of the Constitution is inviolable and supersedes any and all parts of ACJA-2015 that conflict with the said section-1(3) of the Constitution? 


It smacks of hypocrisy that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako’s husband who is a known terrorist and big thief was granted bail but she refused to grant bail to non-violent persons such as Nnamdi Kanu and other Biafrans. These Biafrans were neither accused of stealing any money nor were they accused of funding Boko Haram terrorists like Mr. Murtala Hamman-Yero Nyako has done. Again, this is the same Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako who, on the 7th of June 2016, granted bail to a former Chief of Air Staff, Mohammed Umar, who was being tried on a seven-count charge of laundering 4.8 billion naira, while he was Chief of Air Staff.

We are moved to ask Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, why try Nnamdi Kanu in secret when the accusation against him was made in the open? Where and when in the history of Nigerian court system have civilians been tried in secret on civil/criminal matters? Is Binta Murtala-Nyako mistaking Nigeria’s Common Law with Sharia Law which she is very comfortable with? 

We understand that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako is trading-off justice for the freedom of her terrorist husband and thieving son. We also know that Buhari targets weak and corrupt Judges like John Tsoho and now Binta Murtala-Nyako who’s  son and terrorist husband appear to be caught up in something illegal to warrant Buhari to use the illegal and unconstitutional organization called Department of State Services (DSS) to be blackmailing her.

From her conduct in the ongoing case, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) can infer that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako is a disgrace to the Judiciary and the course of justice and we no longer have confidence in her impartial adjudication on the matter concerning Nnamdi Kanu and the other Biafrans. She should honourably resign because she cannot be a Judge and the wife of a terrorist at the same time. Also, she should confess her culpability in the death of Justice Evoh Chukwu who’s life she terminated in order to save her terrorist husband and thieving son. We fervently pray that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako does not also terminate the life of the 19-year old Aisha B. Dauda of Unguwan Rimi—Kaduna whom she sees as snatching away her terrorist husband, Mr. Murtala Hamman-Yero Nyako. 

Finally, IPOB maintains that it behooves the Judiciary of Nigeria to demonstrate that they understand basic English language even if they don't know what Law means. The Constitution is the supreme document that supersedes any Law that is in conflict with it. An abuse of the so-called “discretionary powers of Judges“ in resolving minor legal wrangling is now being deployed by corrupt Judges in Nigeria to justify their illegal judgments. The next Judge that will handle this case must prove that he or she has a basic grasp of English language and willing to interpret the Law the way it is written. No system on this earth, no matter how primitive, can circumvent the Constitution in order to please a dictator because the Constitution is sacrosanct. 

Muhammadu Buhari and his sister Binta Murtala-Nyako who doubles as the wife of a terrorist must be notified that there shall be no secret trial because the Constitution does not have provision for secrecy in criminal trials.


Signed
Barrister Emma Nmezu        Dr. Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya

Spokesperson for IPOB        Spokesperson for IPOB
Continue reading

Biafra News Team Monday, 3 October 2016 0
Barr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor With Chukwuemeka Chimerue And Anyikwa Kelechi Cynthia Of Biafra Writers
Wednesday 28 September, 2016

Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor the defense counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, after the court proceedings on Monday, 26th September, had an exclusive chat with CHUKWUEMEKA  CHIMERUE and ANYIKWA KELECHI CYNTHIA of Biafra Writers, wherein he shed more light on the recent court trial of his client and the underlying circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the trial judge, Justice John Terhemba Tsoho.

He also expressed confidence in the new judge who will take up the trial, saying that what transpired between them and the outgoing judge will serve as a deterrent to erring judges who are bent on perpetration of judicial misconduct and biasness.
He hinted on what is contained in the petition against Justice Tsoho, adding that the warning given to erring judges against judicial recklessness by the NJC will go a long way in ensuring that judges will henceforth conduct themselves in an appropriate manner, upholding the rule of law in order to avoid sanctions from the judicial commission.
Excerpts.

Can you give us a brief rundown of what transpired in court  and what informed the new development?

Thank you. As from the last adjournment, we filed an application on 20th of June, urging the court to disqualify itself from proceeding with the hearing of this application on the ground of bias. There is a manifestation of bias in conduct, so that if allowed to continue the proceedings, it is possible that something untoward will happen.

What actually informed this application was principally because of the petition we wrote against him(Justice Tsoho) to the NJC, rising from his judicial misconducts, the manner in which he delivered a ruling, refusing application to conduct a civil trial on 19th February, 2016 and then on the 7th of March, the matter was slated for hearing, he made a volte-face and vacated that order upon an oral application which is unheard of. It is not obtainable in the law of practice.

So that’s the fulcrum of our petition before the NJC and the excessive delay in availing us the rulings of the court delivered within constitutionally provided time and his conduct in the open court, the way and manner in which he attacked me in person and also some other lawyers, his remarks and swipes taken on me. So, all these are combination of factors that gave rise to the petition written against him before the NJC.

So, on that note, there’s no reason why the petition should be pending, the CJN had already acknowledged the seat of the Attorney General of the Federation and the NJC is currently investigating it. So, on the face of that development, it would only be tidy and honourable for him to disqualify himself without giving formal application because of the fact that it’s no longer his right in the circumstance to deliver justice in the matter being subject of investigation before the NJC and the judicial officers.

You saw what happened in court, there was a smart attempt on their side to find a way in refusing that application which we stood on the ground and said “No, you can’t have that petition against you, hanging on your neck and you’re proceeding with this application.” “You cannot be a judge in your own case and knowing fully well that you’re limited in confidence.”

The defendants has expressed lack of confidence in the ability of the court to dispense justice and in the circumstance, what is expected of an honourable judge to do is to pull himself out from the matter.
So that was what actually informed what transpired in court. And during the hearing, he advised himself properly and consciously relinquish himself from the matter.

Following the circumstance, the case file will be sent to the CJN for reassignment and once that is done, we’ll file a formal application before the new judge who’ll handle the bail on behalf of Nnamdi Kanu because once that file is assigned to the new judge, in law, the matter is “den oeuvre” and when a matter is stating den oeuvre, it is assumed that all that has taken place or transpired before the former judge goes with him. So the matter is starting a new, it’s starting afresh.

It is assumed that nothing has happened in the matter at all. That is the meaning of the matter starting den oeuvre. So, in that case, we’ll now be allowed to come up with another bail application which will be fortified this time around to ensure that the court works towards granting him bail. Because the grounds upon which he was refused bail amidst former bail, was not substantial.

You mentioned that the petition you filed against Justice Tsoho before the NJC has not been disposed of. What do you think was the major factor that influenced his decision to withdraw from further presiding over the case?

The fact is that justice is a three-way traffic. It’s for the prosecution, for the state and also for the defendants.
Now, ordinarily, common sense will tell you that when a petition is hanging around your neck, you’re presiding over a matter which a defense team wrote a petition against you right? And you’ll not be seen... Because if that petition succeeds, there must be sanctions that will be judicially meted out against you, not only for you to transfer the case to another person.

It’s a petition that has to do with what is accessed to be a gross misconduct on his path and abuse of oath.
So if the NJC finds merit in that petition, there must be sanctions and that sanction does not have anything to do with whether you transfer the case file or not.
So what we’re saying is that in the circumstance under which that petition is hanging on his neck, he cannot be in a position to take further steps in that matter.

Talking about sanctions, Justice Tsoho told the honourable court that he wouldn’t continue with the case even if the NJC absolves him of wrong doings, what do think will be the reaction of the NJC after going through the investigation even after the assigning of the case to another judge?

No! What am telling you is that it’s not part of our prayer before the NJC to ask him to transfer the case file, no! Our petition was based on what we call gross misconduct, abuse of office and manifest case of bias and breach of judicial oath.  Now, if the NJC finds that petition meritorious, they’ll sanction him, they’ll exercise appropriate judicial actions against him and it has nothing to do with whether he transferred the case file or not.

It is on the basis of that petition, based on certain conducts that we expressed dissatisfaction with, that we urged him to disqualify himself.
Remember that we had earlier filed a formal application to that effect. We had filed a motion formally urging him to disqualify himself, but we reminded him of the need for him to do that without necessarily listening to that motion because the defendants has already expressed their lack of confidence for him to continue with the matter. It is their constitutional right to do that.

The Prosecution counsel S.N Labaran, was saying that the motion was so voluminous for him to study and that he needed to extract the main details before the next sitting, can you shed more light on what is contained in that motion that made it so?

Don’t mind him. The motion was not in any way voluminous. I filed that motion and I don’t see it as being voluminous.  You know usually they have a way of going about their prosecution because in number of occasions of several problems, I have been able to let the world know that the Prosecution team are not ready to go into the trial of Nnamdi Kanu because they have no witnesses to testify against him on the offenses they said he committed. They just want a condition whereby they continue to detain him and hold him in captivity.

Now, let me say this to you, the motion was filed on 20th of June, 2016, served to them on the same day, then it was adjourned for hearing today being the 26th of September, then the court adjourned the matter for tomorrow, Wednesday, and Thursday for hearing but it said it will hear the motion today and dispose of it before proceeding to the hearing of the main trial.

Now, they said they filed their own response since June 30th, and up till now, the rule of service is not even found in the court file, neither do they have the rule of service. And I can assure you that they didn’t serve and process, because if they did, I would have received it before now. You can see when they were asking the court to allow them serve us in court.

So, that’s their delay tactics which they usually introduce and once they introduce that their delay tactics, we’ll now take another day to go and come back. We said “No.” We told the court that this application before you ought not to have been attacked in any form by the Prosecution because if they filed a counter to it, that means they are hiding something from the court, they have skeleton in their cupboards because this is a petition challenging the competency and impartiality of the judge to continue with the proceedings.

So, it’s directed at the judge, it’s a petition attacking the integrity of the judge, not the prosecution. So if the prosecution can file a counter challenging it, that means they’re laying credence to fears already expressed by us that the court is biased.


Now that according to John Tsoho, that the case file will be handed over to a new judge, what advice do you have for him and what confidence do you have that the next judge taking over this case will dispense justice in an appropriate manner devoid of bias and partiality?*


No! The point is that of recent, the NJC has come out publicly to announce some series of measures to checkmate the excesses of judicial officers and what transpired in this case will serve as a deterrent. It will be an eye-opener and it will serve as a lesson to other people coming to take over the case because it’s a matter that is very straight-forward--- somebody was accused in the open and they want to try him in secret and I said “No!”

Two, if you look at the proof of evidence attached to the charge, it has no semblance of the offense alleged to have committed.

Three, Nnamdi Kanu has severally being granted bail by both the Magistrate and the high court; this same Federal High Court. And this bail order granted him to be released unconditionally was not obeyed.
So, coming from this foundation, any judicial officer who is taking over the matter will thread with serious caution in handling the matter. What we believe in is the justice in the case and nothing more.
Let the person(new judge) look at what is before him, handle the case, judge the case based on the facts and evidence before him, not on sentiments being expressed by persons in the higher authority.


Still talking about handing the case to another judge, will the trial start afresh, I mean, are you going to file new processes or application or would it continue from the point where Tsoho stopped?

I said it before that the matter is starting “den oeuvre”. It’s starting afresh and before this new judge that will be taking over, it’ll assume that nothing has taken place in the matter before. So that’s how we’re going to begin to file a fresh bail application before him.

So what happens to the appeals filed at the appellate courts, does that mean it will no longer be valid?

Yes, actually you’re right. Apparently, the matter before the Appeal court and the Supreme court has been affected by this development.


Recently, a coalition of human rights groups has thrown their weight behind the release of your client, Nnamdi Kanu, and has condemned the manner in which his continued detention and trial has been going for a while now. Would you say this contributed to the pulling out of Tsoho from the case?

Well, I can’t just say but you know we have to act on facts and what is before us. We can understand from what happened in court, our arguments revolved around the petition we wrote against him which in substance, is accusing him of bias and improper conduct. So the court restricted itself to those point of argument at the time he was considering the request for him to disqualify himself from continuing with the proceedings.  So it’s nearly impossible that what we’re saying now has other external effects but then we appreciate the actions of the human rights groups.

There was also a heated debate and some kind of rumbling particularly from the side of the newly injected defense lawyers, can we also attribute the resignation of Tsoho from the case to the robust and active reactions of the newly constituted defense team?

(Laughs)....Well, the fact is that we're working as a team. Those people you’re talking about, I brought them in to fortify the defense. You see, when three persons are speaking at the same time, on the same tone, the message will be stronger and so they were able to express how they feel both on points of law and facts which was galvanized by our very Senior advocate (Barr. Chuks Muoma), who admonished the court, speaking from inner bar, that it’s better for him to concur and disqualify himself from the case. So the efforts of the new lawyers whom we brought in are also useful.

Now, what is the way forward, what would form your final words and expectations Sir?

We have infinite confidence in the judiciary and we’re of firm belief that certainly, the new judge the matter will be assigned to will dispense justice in this matter without fear or favour. I don’t want to go into the attitude of John Tsoho, his conduct or whatever because there’s already a petition against him pending at the NJC which is likely they’ll call me to come and give some insights if necessary, so let me not go into his judicial misconduct in the matter.

But I have the confidence that the new judge taking over this case will dispense justice without fear or favoritism. And am urging all his(Nnamdi Kanu) followers and supporters to still remain calm because we have made a serious progress in court today and that is the way forward.  I can assure you by His grace that Nnamdi Kanu will be released once a new bail application is filed, he’ll be out.

And when will that be constituted?

Well, apparently within the next 72 hours, the case file will be assigned and a new judge will be picked. It doesn’t take much time. The CJ of the High Court will hand the case over to the next judge and then they’ll communicate to us on the next adjourned date for the resumption of trial. By next tomorrow, I’ll go to the Federal High Court to find out their position. Once they assign it, they’ll serve us the notice, we shall know the date for arraignment and we’ll then start afresh.

Alright, thank you Sir for keeping a time with us

You’re welcome.

Published By Nwosu C.S
For Biafra Writers

 Source 
Continue reading

Monday, 8 August 2016 0
Aisha Buhari


The wife of President Muhammadu Buhari, Alhaja Aisha Buhari, has over the weekend threatened the Ekiti State Governor, Mr. Ayodele Fayose over his repeated criticism of the President Buhari-led administration; saying the monthly  federal government allocations going to Ekiti State may be withheld if the governor continues to unleash verbal war on the president and herself as the first lady.

She said despite the fact that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lost the 2015 general elections convincingly to the All Progressive Congress (APC), the Ekiti State governor had refused to put the general election behind him.

Commenting on the legal battle with Fayose during an interview with VOA, she said she has the right to take him to court.

The president’s wife sued the governor after he refused to retract his allegations that she was indicted in the Halliburton scam.

She had initially given Fayose a five-day ultimatum to apologise, but the governor did not budge, insisting that he had evidence to substantiate his claim. He even challenged her to visit the US if she was sure that she was not afraid of being arrested.

Buhari’s wife is currently in the US, where she is expected to spend a full week.Tracing the origin of the issue to the electioneering period, the president’s wife said it was not only Fayose who was abusing her, but added that while others “kept quiet after the election, the governor continued.

She said it was God who made it possible for her husband to win the election.

“All these started during the campaign period. He was not the only who was abusing me, others did that, but after the election, which Allah made us to win, and they to lost, everybody kept quiet, but Fayose kept on abusing people and eventually he started abusing me too,” she said.

“I don’t know those places and people he mentioned,” she said. “I never chose myself for this post, but God chose it for me. I am not even the one who contested election. “I have never abused him; I don’t even know him as a person. How can he be accusing me of what I have no idea of? I won’t let this go.

“Apparently Fayose has presented himself as the sole enemy of this government, and according to law of the nature, you don’t feed your enemy to have strength to wrestle power with you. Hence, Ekiti State monthly allocations may be ceased for a while to teach him (Fayose) a lesson,” Aisha frankly threatened.

Source: https://oodua.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/fg-allocation-to-ekiti-may-be-withheld-if-fayoses-criticism-continues-aisha-buhari-threatens/?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C6006934860
Continue reading

0


Legal luminaries in the country have said there was nothing wrong in the members of the National Assembly, opting to pad the federal budget. Such action, they said, falls within their constitutional duty of budget appropriation.

A House of Representatives member and former chairman of Appropriation Committee, Hon Abdurahim Jibrin levelled the accusation of surreptitiously inserting figures into the 2016 Budget, presented to the House by President Buhari against the speaker of the House of Representatives, Honourable Yakubu Dogara and other principal officers of the House.

Malam Yusuf Ali, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN,  said there was nothing wrong with lawmakers appropriating money to their constituencies in the budget. According to Malam Ali, the figure inserted into the budget, if used for what it is meant for, violates no law.

“If the figures inserted into the budget is used for what it is meant for, there is nothing wrong with that. But it is unfortunate that in this country we abuse a lot of things”.

Another SAN, Mr. Ahmed Raji, said that padding as an act is not known to the law of the country, but can lead to crime when you insert figures into the budget without executing the project it is meant for. Raji said, “Padding as an act is not known to law but it can lead to crime when you pad the budget without executing the project money appropriated are meant for.”

Chief Godwin Obla (SAN), said padding has to do with tinkering with the budget. He said the budget is sent to the National Assembly in the first place to be tinkered with. “Lawmakers in the process of tinkering with the budget can pad it. If they are padding the budget for the good of their constituencies, there is nothing wrong with that”, he said.

A Constitutional lawyer, Dr Tunji Abayomi, described budget padding as constitutionally wrong and not criminally wrong.

Abayomi said, “It is a constitutional wrong but not a criminal wrong. NASS has no power to raise budget heads. It is a moral wrong. It is against separation of powers in government”.

But for Festus Okoye, a Kaduna-based constitutional lawyer, “there is nothing like budget padding in the constitutional frame work.” Okoye who spoke to our correspondent in a telephone interview said, the National Assembly has the powers to add or remove from the budget proposals and projects estimates as it deems fits.

According to him, “What the executive sent to the national assembly are proposals and estimates and NASS is entitled to subtract or add to the proposals and estimates, they are also entitled to change a few things in what has been sent to them and that is what is called the power of appropriation, to appropriate funds for certain projects, so,the executive can propose one billion for a project and the NASS can change it and say the project can be executed for two billion, based on the budget estimates and proposals sent to them. Constitutionally there is nothing like padding in the constitutional frame work. What is provided for in our constitutional framework is the power of appropriation and screening. So, if members of the NASS decide to add projects to what has been submitted to them, for me there is nothing wrong with that constitutionally. We have budget proposals and project estimates which the NASS can tamper with.”

Okoye who says padding does not exist in law and in the constitution, regarding appropriation said, “Let us remove semantics from what is presently going on at the NASS
regarding budget padding or no padding, the truth of the matter is that there is nothing called budget padding, secondly, it is the constitutional right of NASS to look at budget proposals and projects estimates and make amendments where necessary.”

Meanwhile, amidst controversy over allegation of padding of the 2016 budget by the former chairman, House Committee on Appropriation, Hon Abdurahim Jibril , the national chairman of Citizens Popular Party (CPP). Chief Sam Eke has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to investigate the weighty allegation against the speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara and three other principal officers.

The former presidential candidate noted that any attempt to sweep the allegation under the carpet will not augur well with the anti-corruption fight of the federal government.

Chief Eke said it was necessary that the principal officers who were mentioned by the former chairman of House Appropriation Committee in the budget scandal be investigated by an independent committee to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of such claims. He warned that if the speaker and other three principal officers fail to resign and present themselves for proper investigation, it will
create credibility question for the House leadership, adding that the budget scandal should not be treated like previous scandals that were ignored by the government.

He said “The revelations by Jibrin is heavy and it cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet, I call for the probe of the allegation against Dogara and the principal officers on the budget padding. The president can set up an investigation committee to tell us why projects in the budgets are not executed and are represented in the budget every year and never executed. There is need for a holistic audit of the National Assembly since the return of democracy in 1999”

On its part, the U.K chapter of Nigerians in the Diaspora Monitoring Group has said speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara deserves commendation for sacking Abdulmumin Jibrin as House of Representatives Committee chairman on Appropriation.
The group accused Jibrin of engaging in a media war against the speaker of the House of Representatives as a ploy to gain sympathy of Nigerians after he was sacked for his alleged role in the budget padding scandal.

In an electronic message to journalists, UK Representative of the group, Adeka Onyila said “it was sad that at a time when parliaments of other nations are exploring ways to protect their economies from  the global slowdown, our lawmakers are robbing the populace in the name of working on the budget.”

The group said, “Instead of showing remorse as one would expect, he (Jibrin) went on denial – first he claimed he resigned and not sacked only for him to turn around and start making spurious accusations against others.We hereby call on members of the House of Representatives to stop giving Nigeria a bad name abroad. We say this because we have observed with alarm that some of them are lining up behind Jibrin to back him against the House leadership when he should be censured. Such ridiculous support could only be driven by a desire to make political gains out of the lies cooked up by Jibrin to save his hide.”

According to the UK group, “We rather demand that the Speaker of the House, Honorable Yakubu Dogara should be commended for triggering the anti-corruption fight in the National Assembly and having the political will to challenge the status quo by relieving the former Appropriation chairman of his post. Hon. Dogara deserves an award for sacking Jibrin since it is now clear that the action he took against his colleague saved the parliament and the ailing Nigerian economy from total collapse.”

The Nigeria in Diaspora Monitoring Group urged the people of Kiru/Bebeji Federal Constituency of Kano State to immediately commence the recall of Jibrin in the spirit of joining the fight against corruption. The group said without looking closely, they can easily see that instead of representing them in line with the mandate they gave him he has built for himself a life of living above his means.”

Source: http://dailyglobewatch.com/index.php?url=2016%2F08%2Fbudget-padding-not-a-criminal-offence-not-actionable-nigerian-lawyers.html#.V6gvLm9Fybg.facebook
Continue reading

Biafra News Team Sunday, 13 March 2016 0
Nnewi. The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB has asked Justice John Tsoho, the Judge handling their leader and Radio Biafra Director Mr. Nnamdi Kanu’s case to resign, just as it has asked the National Judicial Council, NJC to force him to resign an discipline him to stop alleged ridiculing the Nigerian legal system by quoting unrelated Ivorian law, a Francophone country practicing a different legal system which does not apply in Nigeria. IPOB United Kingdom branch after its monthly meeting in a statement signed by its spokespersons Emma Mmezu and Dr Clifford Iroanya, said the Judge in justifying his alleged dramatic u-turn on his previous ruling, before he allegedly “subjected himself to the whims and caprices of the All Progressives Congress, APC, led government of President Muhammadu Buhari, and now appear to be under pressure by the government, ruled that witnesses should be hidden from the court. Accusing the judge of inconsistency in the way he is handling the proceedings, IPOB said “today the Judge will rule on one thing and tomorrow he changes his mind in the next sitting on the same thing, how can we trust such a Judge”. “In justifying his dramatic u-turn on his previous ruling, this Judge who appear to be under serious pressure from Aso Rock ruled that witnesses should be hidden from the court. 

 How can we trust a judge that rules one way and changes his mind at the next sitting” they said. Also the IPOB Media and Publicity Officer Mr Emma Power while addressing newsmen after their meeting in Nnewi called on Justice Tosho to resign from the case to save his face and the face of the Judiciary in Nigeria because the world has started mocking Nigeria judges for his alleged inconsistency he has displayed in Mr Kanu’s case. “You see we respect Nigerian Judges who have shown respect to themselves, and the same thing is happening in their so call anti corruption cases where court orders are not respected, known laws are being turned upside down by judges like this one, just to impress a government or one person, this will not continue, he must resign so that others will take correction” he said. Continuing, IPOB United Kingdom called on the National Judicial Council to discipline Justice Tsoho for him to stop ridiculing the Nigerian legal system, especially, on his inconsistent ruling and quoting unrelated Ivorian law, a Francophone country practicing a different legal system to what obtains in Nigeria. “We know that Nigeria has respected and respectable Judges who does not look at the face of the President or consider the feeling of the Federal Government and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice before they give their impartial and incontrovertible rulings, and for this the Nigerian Judiciary and NJC should maintain the dignity of such judges by disciplining Justice Tosho before he becomes an embarrassment. “We want to equally tell Him and Judges like him that eminent, respected and respectable Judges does not earn respect by impressing or trying to impress government and President in power but through the incontrovertible and flawless rulings and judgements they give, those who dance to the tunes of government and President in power end up being disgraced by the same government they worked to impress right or wrong” they said.

  IPOB called for the dismissing of Justice Tosho before he becomes an international embarrassment to the legal profession in Nigerian legal profession, adding that IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu’s case has become an international legal test case for Nigerian Judges and Tosho will definitely mess Nigeria up. IPOB alleged that without appealing a court ruling the Judge changed his mind, thereby turning his previous ruling upside down without adherence to the appeal process. Ipob do not have any iota of trust in the capability of John Tsoho to handle such high profile case because of his blatant disregard for rule of law, and his judicious interpretation in this matter is becoming alarming. “This judge is acting like the prosecuting Attorney rather, than a judge. All over the world reasonable people will be wonder where such judge comes from. We have no trust in his continued participation in this matter and advice the Chief Judge of the Abuja High Court to replace him with immediate effect” they said.

 By Chimaobi Nwaiwu

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/03/ipob-ask-justice-john-tsoho-to-resign-urge-njc-to-discipline-him/
Continue reading

Biafra News Team 0
A TIV MAN FROM JOS, JUSTICE JOHN TSOHO IS A WILLING TOOL BEING USED BY HAUSA/FULANI-YORUBA OLIGARCH TO CONVICT OUR INNOCENT LEADER, A FREEDOM FIGHTER NNAMDI KANU


A TIV MAN FROM JOS JUSTICE JOHN TSOHO IS A WILLING TOOL BEING USED BY HAUSA/FULANI-YORUBA OLIGARCH TO CONVICT OUR INNOCENT LEADER, A FREEDOM FIGHTER NNAMDI KANU. 

THE SAME WAY THE HAUSA/FULANI-YORUBA OLIGACHY USED YAKUBU GOWAN AND T.Y DANJUMA; TIV MEN TO ANNIHILATE MILLIONS OF BIAFRAN DURING THE NIGERIAN AGGRESSIVE WAR!

 AS THEY SAY HISTORY HAS A FUNNY WAY OF REPEATING ITSELF. THE NORTHEN CHRISTIAN MINORITY MUST RESIST THE TEMPTATION OF BEING USED TO KILL BIAFRANS.

THEY MUST ASK THEMSELVES, WHY HAVE THEY HELPED THE HAUSA FULANI TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BUT, ARE BEING KILLED AND MAIMED ON DAILY BASIS?????????

Last Friday witness another traverse in the Islamic Republic of Nigeria criminal judicial system when Justice John Tsoho delivered a ruling on the bail application of the IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu.

 The so called learned gentleman did not disappoint, as he lived up to the alleged 100million naira bribe to convict Nnamdi Kanu. His basis of judgement was mind boggling as it was not based on the argument presented in the court by the prosecutor and the defendant but, it was based on the script from Buhari as demonstrated on his last media chart where he announce that Nnamdi Kanu could not be granted bail base on the fact that he hold a dual nationality and that he imported a sophisticated equipment. This is why white people claim that black people are backward for they lack common sense.

John Tsoho told the world that he refused Kanu’s application based on the fact that Kanu who has never killed a fly possess a national security risk- what then would he tell Boko Haram members or those politicians that have stolen the country dry? “It is evident that the activities of the defendants were inimical to national security”, Justice Tsoho added”.

As Kanus and the other two Biafrans trial are yet to commence, Justice Tsoho had already concluded that, if they are allowed bail, they would commit further offences as if it has already been established beyond every reasonable doubt that they have committed any offence in the first place. He stated that “It can be curtailed in other to prevent a person from committing further offence”
IPOB worldwide therefore do not have confidence in this trial because the judge has breach the principle of fair hearing.

 By Emeka Onyebuchi
Continue reading

Biafra News Team Saturday, 12 March 2016 0

As a Sovereign member of the international community, Nigeria is a subject of international law.

As a result, the jurisdiction of various tribunals at the regional or global level, are applicable to varying degrees, oN Nigeria as an international entity, or to persons (individuals or corporations) resident in the country.

The obligation to acquiesce to the jurisdiction of those international tribunals usually arises out of multilateral or bilateral treaties entered into by the country or, in certain cases, out of international peremptory norms or obligation erga omnes which apply to every international subject.

This segment of LawNigeria.Com is dedicated to the reconnection of Nigeria's people with the energy of those judicial centers invoked through  the sovereignty or treaty-making powers of their nation.

It is about full measure of Nigeria's Judicial authorities and exposure in the lives of Nigeria's people.
Continue reading
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)