I think Mr Femi Falana made the most reasonable argument in this case

Buhari should let a court of competent jurisdiction determine what is a threat to national security

Buhari cannot be the prosecuting council and the judge at the same time

Ok

reingoff:
And who determines what is national interest? And who ensures that national interest is separated from the personal interest of the people in government?

The Court.

nwabobo:


The Court.

Exactly, that is why I completely disagree with a government that refuses to obey court orders under the guise of national security

phase1:
Every case has is determined on it's peculiarity and buhari does not have the right to determine what constitutes national interest. Only the courts can.

Buhari is a tyrant that will arbitrarily arrest, detain and even kill journalists, activists, judges in his second tenure. Mark it.

You are the one given him second tenure bah?

@Naptu2, I sight you

Let the court decide the cases in which national interest supersedes individual interest. The presidency or executive government should not be the judge in a case whereby govt is in dispute.

Who determines the rule of law?The court I think.

roundman:
Beautiful once again PMB has been vindicated...national interest above any individual in any serious country...

You don't get the point. It is only the court that can determine when national interest should override individual right as you read above. PMB can't determine that.

No matter whether national or individual interest, rule of law supersedes all

Even American government , the grand user of national interest, do so most times covertly, if found out, the Congress chew them apart

Who decides when a person's freedom or rights should be overridden in favour of national interest or national security? Corrupt politicians who want everyone to kow-tow to them? Certainly not!

In the same way the courts decide to issue an arrest warrant against an individual in public interest, same way the courts should decide. Along very clear guidelines about how, in what form, when, where, what circumstances and how long such denial of individual right should be.

And only the law courts should interpret the law and apply it.

reingoff:
And who determines what is national interest? And who ensures that national interest is separated from the personal interest of the people in government?

Don't mind the lifeless tyrant and his goons they think the can turn the law on its heads for their personal interest

slivertongue:
YES. bt National Interest(NI) is a collection of individual interest. there is no nation witout individuals. NI is vague

.


When it becomes all or majority individual, it has become National Interest. As you said, various individuals make a nation.

But the interest of all other individuals that make up the nation will always nation supersedes that of an individual in the nation.


That's why Minority will have their say, but Minority will have their way

This was how Hitler started. He came in as an elected president only to destroy the democratic system that brought him to power and turned Germany into a brutal dictatorship. People are cheering out of ignorance ’cause they don’t know that Buhari is sinking the nation into the abyss of authoritarianism. The wise should be worried ...

roundman:
Beautiful once again PMB has been vindicated...national interest above any individual in any serious country...

Sorry to say but you are not thinking about this clearly

And Buhari is now the court who decides when to withhold or uphold bail. These illiterates are sick. If a man is already granted bail by court, who is Buhari to refuse to release the person? God what have we done to have ourselves governed by illiterates from Daura?

krendo:
Let the courts decide when to override the law

That’s the issue!

u know too many people are educated but not intelligent...U are graciously different..Bless ur mama.

The courts determine what is National Interest and not one individual.

Lilimax:
@Naptu2, I sight you

Hello dear

ITbomb:
No matter whether national or individual interest, rule of law supersedes all

Even American government , the grand user of national interest, do so most times covertly, if found out, the Congress chew them apart

In America, National Interest supersedes individual human rights

That's why Obama could order the US marine to go to another nation and execute an individual who is a threat to the nation. And subsequently dump the body in the ocean. In this case the United States acted as policeman, judge and executioner, and heaven did not fall.

We also have the issue of Guatanano Bay

roundman:
Beautiful once again PMB has been vindicated...national interest above any individual in any serious country...

Another illiterate from Daura here. You can't even interpret what was written there. The court only has the right to detain or free people, not the chief illiterate from Daura. He has no such power, once the court grants people bail, no one has the right to continue to detain them. Mumu, hope you can understand now? Go to school, they won't. They will rather drop out to constitute nuisance to human race.

phase1:
Every case has is determined on it's peculiarity and buhari does not have the right to determine what constitutes national interest. Only the courts can.

Buhari is a tyrant that will arbitrarily arrest, detain and even kill journalists, activists, judges in his second tenure. Mark it.

Yes the court decides what constitutes national interest. If u take N. Kanu case he was unlawfully detained agreed and when finally realeased on bail based on the courts orders and conditions he Nk went ahead to disregard his bail conditions that alone shud send him back to detention with no bail. Even in civilised clime if u flout ur bail or parole conditions u get a severe purnishment by the court also.

In dasuki’s case if he’s realeased it will be on strict conditions, maybe on house arrest and no media discussion. If he flouts that bail condition he will get charged severely for that with no bail. That’s how the law shud work. It applies both ways not just to Buhari alone.

tete7000:
And Buhari is now the court who decides when to withhold or uphold bail. These illiterates are sick. If a man is already granted bail by court, who is Buhari to refuse to release the person? God what have we done to have ourselves governed by illiterates from Daura?

In the case of Osama bin laden's death, the United States acted as policeman, judge and executioner.

President Obama ordered the killing without any court judgement or order.
How about that?

Is that not how it is supposed to be. Now go and reign in on those so called traditional rulers. Remind them that every land in their said community do not belong to them. Nobody has to see them before they do anything big in that community; especially if the person(s) have satisfied the L.G or state requirements.


We need to have one set of rules/ sequence of operations from the authorized authorities and not every corner you reach, new rules.

backnbeta:
Where do we draw the line?

This is the most important question.



The constitution is not clear on where the line is to be drawn so there’s no basis for the court to determine what matter is of national interest.

Since there’s no line drawn, it all lies with the convincing ability of the two opposing counsels.

If the defendant should win the battle it becomes a precedent no matter how grievous the crime was and same goes for the appellant.

In a situation like this where the constitution is silent on where the line is to be drawn and there’s no extant law that draws the line, the federal government cannot afford to leave the matter of national interest(security) at the gambling alter of who wins or who losees the argument in court all in the name of rule of law or democracy.

A lot of buhari supporter have this mentality of "Let buhari be right and let every other Nigerian and Nigeria herself be wrong " and this is why they go around looking for just anything to justify everything buhari says no matter how stupid it sounds.
One thing is sure, strong and independent systems and institutions protect everybody and also punishes anybody if required.
Whatever stupid thing you support now because of the love you have for "one man" may be used against you tomorrow when the man is gone and another man takes charge.
Every Nigerian should support building strong independent institutions because this is what will make the country great not an individual. People will come and go but institutions will always remain.

Minjim:


In the case of Osama bin laden's death, the United States acted as policeman, judge and executioner.

President Obama ordered the killing without any court judgement or order.
How about that?

I have problem with this kind of ignorant reasoning. Was Osama bin laden declared a terrorist by the international community or not? Was he on the list of the most wanted criminals endorsed by the international community or not? How do you say Obama unilaterally ordered the killing of the most wanted internationally-recognised fugitive, a man responsible for September 11 terror attack on twin tower and other terror killings, the leader of alqueda group? This comparison is ludicrous, smack of no intelligence and shows you guys need serious education.

national interest should be at the court's discretion & not some lifeless cow's!..... EOD.

Asari Dokubo’s Case did not sanction departure from the rule of law.

In law, cases are decided upon their peculiar facts and circumstances.

Asari Dokubo was charged with treasonable felony, punishable with death. In our general jurisprudence in Nigeria, bail (enforcement of the liberty of a suspect) is only granted upon exceptional circumstances in capital offenses. This has been part of our laws for a long time. This is what the Supreme Court restated in this case, namely that any citizen accused of trying to overrun the nation may not enforce his right to liberty except he shows exceptional circumstances.
Now this is an exception to the general constitutional provision that anyone charged with a criminal office is entitled to bail.
Our main argument then is that in a democracy, you cannot elevate the rule of exception to be the norm of governance generally.
In the circumstance of the President’s speech at the Bar Conference, he wrongly stated (with due respect to Mr President) this exception to be the general rule.
So our point of objection therefore is that it is when a leader has other hidden intentions (bending towards dictatorship) that he falls in love with the exception to the general rule, as his policy for governance, if the main aim of such preference is to enable a leader curtail the rights and liberties of citizens.
And even when the rights and liberties of the individual are to be derogated from in the national interest, it is still the court that will make that determination, not the President or any security or law enforcement agency, as was the case with the former DSS Director.
Indeed in Asari Dokubo’s case, that decision was taken by the Supreme Court, within the ambit of the exercise of his right of appeal, still under the rule of law and due process.
And when the courts have weighed the options and decided that the citizen’s right should be enforced by granting him bail or release, such as in the case of Dasuki or El Zak Zaky, then you cannot turn around to rely on Asari Dokubo’s case, to perpetuate contempt of court and disregard for a lawful order of court.
So the Supreme Court decided Asari Dokubo, rightly or wrongly, but the court NEVER gave the President or the Executive arm the powers to determine how, when and if a citizen’s rights should be circumscribed under national security or national interest.
When that decision is taken ultimately by the court as in Asari Dokubo’s case, then the rule of law has prevailed.

This is our main point and not that you arrest a journalist and lock him up for two years without trial, under the bogus allegation that he is threat to national security!

God bless Nigeria.

Ebun-olu Adegboruwa, Esq.,
Abuja, Nigeria.
29/08/2018.

Minjim:



In America, National Interest supersedes individual human rights

That's why Obama could other the US marine to go to another nation and execute an individual who is a threat to the nation. And subsequently dump the body in the ocean. In this case the United States acted as policeman, judge and executioner and heaven did not fall.

We also have the issue of Guatanano Bay

In case you didn't get the full gist, Senate hearings on those issues has indicted many and some convicted

The law was made for man,man was not made for the law.Decisions should be for the benefit of man and not for the benefit of the law.

tete7000:


I have problem with this kind of ignorant reasoning. Was Osama bin laden declared a terrorist by the international community or not? Was he on the list of the most wanted criminals endorsed by the international community or not? How do you say Obama unilaterally ordered the killing of the most wanted internationally-recognised fugitive, a man responsible for September 11 terror attack on twin tower and other terror killings, the leader of alqueda group? This comparison is ludicrous, smack of any intelligence and shows you guys need serious education.

Which court stripes Osama of his fundamentals human right to life ?
With Osama's terrorist anticident, what stopped the US govt from getting a court judgment?
Is there ever a case where a criminal (that was captured) was just killed without going thru trials?
All serial killers from Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, John Wayne Gracy and co were all put on trial before execution.


Osama was killed out rightly because keeping him alive is not in the nation's interest regardless of his fundamental human rights to a fair trial.