Garri the 1st:

You still don't get ACN's point. There's a 20 year jail term for anyone who supports such an organization. The question is: WHAT CONSTITUTES "SUPPORT"??

If for example a journalist publishes a video recording released by BH, is that support??

Garri the 1st:

You still don't get ACN's point. There's a 20 year jail term for anyone who supports such an organization. The question is: WHAT CONSTITUTES "SUPPORT"??

If for example a journalist publishes a video recording released by BH, is that support??

Deep Sight:


Square scenario; you are a journalist. Shekau grants you an interview. You therefore know his hideout. But your ethics as a journalist prevent you from disclosing this and facilitating his capture. How is this ethical or moral?[/b][/color]

donchris999: So, the proscription of boko haram is affecting ACN as a party? How does ACN connect to boko haram that they are crying than the bereaved? How will banning of boko haram affect ACN and its fortunes? How does it affect ACN's right to association? There was no place i saw in the proscription of boko haram were ACN was mentioned. Is it that if boko haram is banned, then ACN is banned too or will cease to exist? What is really the connection with ACN and bokoharam? How does this boko haram ban stop ACN from their right to associate? Did FG ban any opposition party along with ACN? Hmmmmm!

donchris999: So, the proscription of boko haram is affecting ACN as a party? How does ACN connect to boko haram that they are crying than the bereaved? How will banning of boko haram affect ACN and its fortunes? How does it affect ACN's right to association? There was no place i saw in the proscription of boko haram were ACN was mentioned. Is it that if boko haram is banned, then ACN is banned too or will cease to exist? What is really the connection with ACN and bokoharam? How does this boko haram ban stop ACN from their right to associate? Did FG ban any opposition party along with boko haram? Hmmmmm!

Uyi Iredia:

Reason demands he report the location. He will be indirectly abetting Shekhau's activities by ommision of information.

Deep Sight:

Exactly. ACN is a legitimate and registered political party and boko haram is an illegitimate and unregistered group of mass murdering terrorists.

No link, no comparison, no connection.

donchris999: My dear! I don't understand how this ban on boko haram is affecting ACN? Did they ban ACN in the process? Am just asking oo because i may be missing something i dont really know oo. #just confused#

Uyi Iredia: The fear of CAN and people like eGuerilla is that the phrase 'the dissemination of terrorist information' is vague and could be used to clamp down media reports of terrorist activities. Not so. Let's look at a part of the subsection.

". . . incitement to commit a terrorist act through the internet, or any electronic means or through the use of printed materials or through the dissemination of terrorist information; . . ."

The highlighted phrase defines that such disseminated information must be one that INCITES terrorist act. Need I precent what incite means ? Are media reports of BH an incitement (or a description) ?

naptu2: Another example (question that was asked). Shekau makes a new video and posts it on youtube. Someone posts that video on nairaland. Are Seun, nairaland and the nairalander guilty of disseminating terrorist information (of course Shekau will be inciting violence in the video)?

ACN: Boko Haram’s ban violates Constitution
Posted by: Our Reporter in Featured, News 1 day ago 68 Comments

The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) has said that the recent proscription of Boko Haram and Ansaru, desirable as it may be in tackling the terrorist organisations, violates the Constitution.
According to the party, the proscription stifles the press and tampers with the fundamental human rights of Nigerians.
In a statement yesterday by its National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the ACN said the order also makes it easy for an increasingly intolerant government to clamp down on the opposition, which it sees more as an irritant than an indispensable part of democracy.
It urged professional media organisations to challenge the Order in court to save journalists from long jail terms “simply for carrying out their constitutional duties”.
The ACN urged the Federal Government to clarify “the knotty and vague areas” of the open-ended Order, that may end up punishing journalists and infringing on the civil liberties of the citizens more than it will curtail the activities of the sects.

‘’Against the background of insinuations in government circles, let us be clear that we do not condone the activities of these sects that have killed and maimed innocent Nigerians and turned a section of the country into a battle field. Terrorism in all its ramifications is condemnable, and no responsible government will allow any group, no matter its name, grievances or ideology, to carry out terrorist acts unchecked.
‘’But we believe that whatever action government takes – even in an emergency – must pass the Constitutional test, especially since the relevant sections of the Constitution have not been suspended,’’ the party said.
[b]It said the offensive section of the Order is Section 5 (1), which prescribes a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years ‘’for any person who knowingly, in any manner, directly or indirectly, solicits or renders support for the commission of an act of terrorism or to a terrorist group’’.
The ACN said “support”, as defined by the Order, includes ‘’incitement to commit a terrorist act through the Internet, or any electronic means or through the use of printed materials or through the dissemination of terrorist information.
‘’Is this subsection not in conflict with Chapter II Section 22 of the Nigeria constitution, which says ‘The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media, shall AT ALL TIMES BE FREE (emphasis ours) to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people?’
‘’By stifling the press, is the Order not abridging a part of the fundamental human rights guaranteed every citizen under Chapter Four of the Nigerian Constitution in Section 39 (1), which states thus: ‘Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference?’(emphasis ours).
‘’Can journalists escape being sentenced to 20-year jail terms for publishing statements issued by the sects? Can they freely report on videos periodically posted on YouTube by Boko Haram leader Shekau? Can the media freely report the kind of massacre that took place in Baga in April without being held liable for ‘supporting’ terrorism? Can radio and television stations organise talk shows on terrorism without the discussants being held liable for ‘supporting’ terrorism?
‘’Can the opposition criticise the government’s strategies against the terrorist sects, through its regular intervention, without being perceived as offering support to the sects? Does this Order cover the satellite broadcast channels that can be accessed in many homes across the country? Who determines when this Order has been breached? These are some of the questions that arise under the proscription Order,’’ the party said.[/b]

It said the government must take a cue from what obtains in other countries, especially in the US, which are also battling terrorism, adding that the media in those countries have continued to report freely on the activities of the global terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda, despite the horrendous attacks it has carried out in the US and Europe, among others.
‘’In a statement we issued on May 5th, we said inter alia: ‘The Jonathan Administration is steadily descending into despotism with a brazen assault on the freedom of expression and the press, the use of national institutions against perceived enemies and a growing inclination to denigrate opposition leaders.
‘’The Jonathan Administration is anchored on a Transformation Agenda. But the only transformation that we can see is the one from a democratically-elected
President to an Emperor, a despot…If the President is not prevailed upon to change course, Nigeria may be in for another season of anomie, reminiscent of the days of the maximum ruler who took the country to the brink before his sudden demise.’
‘’We hate to say this has turned out to be prescient, in view of the dangerous provisions of the Boko Haram’s and Ansaru’s proscription Order. The Order’s assault on the press freedom and the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of ordinary Nigerians is unprecedented in the country’s history. We call on the Federal Government to take a second look at this Order, with a view to resolving any conflict it may have with the Constitution,” the ACN said.
In a reaction to the AC N statement, House of Representatives Minority Leader Femi Gbajabiamila said: “You make a controversial butb an interesting and valid point. The order itself is in order but for the word support which is ambiguous n needs interpretation.”

Gbawe: Taking unthinkingly at face value, it may appear contentious to most but the specific point the ACN raises are clear enough and with a basis in solid argument. I just try and refrain from talking about Boko Haram and certain 'sensitive' issues here because GEJ fans are entirely clannish with no capacity for logical reasoning. Go back to the period after the fuel subsidy riot.

Many of us here openly warned that Ribadu would be rubbished if he worked with the Government because GEJ is insincere, dishonest, ultra-corrupt and the main perpetrator, along with Allison-Madueke et al, of the subsidy scam. We were insulted here as "unpratriotic elements" asking Ribadu to "shun his national obligation". What is the state of affairs today? Did we not see them openly compromise Ribadu via drafting Orasanye and Otti into the NNPC board , which was one of the body under investigation, while the duo were still members of Ribadu's task force? Are we not vindicated today and are those who backed Ribadu then and touted it a mini-victory that GEJ could get him on board not the same characters insulting the man today?

Ditto for when I said devoting the largest budgeted sum ever to security in the National budget would not solve the Boko Haram issue if there is no sincere effort to bring soponsors of terror to book. I was even a "boko Haram sponsor" because I said the GEJ government can simply not meet it's insincere and facetious pledge that the Boko Haram will be brought to an end by June 2012.

Even now I have specific views about the handling of the Boko Haram issue but this is not the forum to discuss it. The article below hopefully clears things up because I certainly will not talk much about the issue. Had it not been that you are a decent poster who addressed me directly, then I am comfortable not talking at all about the government's actions over Boko Haram. Where we find ourselves is where we find ourselves since grown adults want to be sentimental and biased kids who blind themselves to what is obvious and logical.

http://thenationonlineng.net/new/news/acn-boko-harams-ban-violates-constitution/

Uyi Iredia: The fear of CAN and people like eGuerilla is that the phrase 'the dissemination of terrorist information' is vague and could be used to clamp down media reports of terrorist activities. Not so. Let's look at a part of the subsection.

". . . incitement to commit a terrorist act through the internet, or any electronic means or through the use of printed materials or through the dissemination of terrorist information; . . ."

The highlighted phrase defines that such disseminated information must be one that INCITES terrorist act. Need I precent what incite means ? Are media reports of BH an incitement (or a description) ?

The UK Parliament just passed a new Anti-Terrorism Act after an extraordinary conflict between the Blair Government in the Commons, and the Conservative Peers in the Lords. The Lords repeatedly sent the Bill back to the Commons because the Bill impacted the rights of the individual. The Blair government, in reply, said that they were protecting the UK from terrorist threats that have no respect for liberal democratic niceties. The Lords insisted as well on a Sunset Clause for the Bill, calling for a replacement in short order.

Hanging over this political drama was a legal reality. This Bill replaces the previous Anti-Terrorism Act passed after 9-11 – an Act rejected by the Courts because it violated the rights of the accused.

eGuerrilla:

Thanks for making an attempt to bring some focus to the discussion at hand.

My original qualm with @OP was actually more to do with his implied suggestion that our government should be able to take a carte blanche approach to issues bordering on civil liberties just because we are "at war".

To begin with, I had merely sought to present the other side of the argument, while stating my own position on the concerns raised

While I am fully in support of the SoE and most of what it entails, I refuse to trade my right to ask questions.

@All, matters like this are generally handled differently in more advanced climes...



Source: http://www.thelawjournal.co.uk

Deep Sight: ^^^ Uyi made an important distinction between describing an event and actively inciting, etc, nevertheless you should see and respond to my explanation above on the conflict between civic responsibility and journalistic codes on such matters.

I should also ask you if you were a Journalist who, by reason of being invited for an interview with shekau, knew his location, what would you do with that information? Nothing?

nuclearboy: @DS:

Let's look at GEJ's own mediation panel - do you realise that it could be argued they are law breakers if they do have any contact with boko haram?

Which returns us to the real fear - that the above means if say, Sambo is discovered fraternising with BH, GEJ can say "he works for me and thus I decide he is NOT wrong" but if Amaechi (example) is, then same GEJ can say "I don't like his face so I pronounce him terrorist"!

Being a lawyer, you surely understand the concept of "definition"! The absence of such in this issue is bot to be lauded as it grants sweeping powers, accuser, witness, judge and executioner - ALL

naptu2:

1) The act prohibits you from distributing "inciting" information. Therefore, if Shekau's speech is inciting and you post it on nairaland (as has often been done here) you have committed an offence. This is different from a reporter "saying" that Shekau posted a video.

2) If you were "invited" to an interview with Shekau, you would noot know his location (one of the reasons why I haven't seen an interview with Shekau). The terrorists will not trust you either. What usually happens here is that they would either e-mail you or drop off messages for you. However, let's use the BBC example. Someone drops off a message asking if you want to interview Shekau. You reply via an e-mail. One day people appear out of no where and pick you off the streets and blindfold you. They take you to somewhere where Shekau is waiting and you interview him. Can you be arrested for associating with him? Can you publish your interview?

3) If you want to know how Nigerian security agents respond to these kinds of things, try and find out what's going on at Giwa Barracks.

Remember, it's the duty of the various organs of the political system to protect the interests of ordinary members of society who may or may not have a voice. These organs include the legislature, the judiciary, the media (as the fourth estate of the realm), the opposition, complaints commission, etc. In raising this question, CAN is performing their job as the opposition. I would have been disappointed if they didn't raise the question. It is also the duty of the government to reply and assure the populace that innocent people will not be victimised as a result of this order. It is also their duty to assure that freedom of speech will be protected.

Ii support the government in the war against terror, but I'm opposed to a situation where innocent people will suffer needlessly because of this. That innocent person could be you or me or someone we know.

naptu2:

Ii support the government in the war against terror, but I'm opposed to a situation where innocent people will suffer needlessly because of this. That innocent person could be you or me or someone we know.

Deep Sight:

^^^ My friend, I have been personally detained for 2 hours by Homeland Security at an Atlanta airport and rigorously interoggated just because I was reading a book about Saudi Arabia ("Inside the Kingdom " ) on the flight, an academic book written by a Brit, which was a gift to me from a Swedish Colleague in Kenya.

The incident was irritating, but I more than understood their paranoia, especially in light of Abdulmuttallab and all that. Terrorism is VERY random and fighting it also takes a bit of randomness!

Deep Sight:

Please remember that the accused still have to stand before a court and be tried and found to actually have aided terrorism.

Deep Sight:

Quite inevitable in situations such as this.

Deep Sight:

^^^ The point is that there is some necessary unpleasantness in every situation of emergency powers. Go look at the Homeland Security Act in the USA, there are many unpleasant but necessary things there.

Desperate situations demand desperate solutions, this is well known.

naptu2:
That's why I mentioned Giwa Barracks. Please try and find out what was happening there.

1) There is no guarantee that the person will appear before a judge.

2) Even if the person does appear before a judge, what would have happened to him before he gets to court?

naptu2: For me this is not even about GEJ or the current government. Like others have said, who knows what kind of government we'll have after GEJ's government? Who knows what they'll use these powers for?

Deep Sight:

Have you looked at the Homeland Security Act?

It appears you do not realize the seriousness of the situation.

You say to me that I would only recognize your point if a loved one of mine or myself, happened to be at the receiving end of these powers.

I say to you that you would only recognize my point if a loved one or yourself happened to be at the receiving end of the acts of these terrorists.

Then you would recognize just how important it is to take desperate steps to end this madness.

That's the essence of emergency rule. A situation where there is no more time for being academic and arguing fine points.

Doctrine of Necessity, Kinda.

# Daz All.

hercules07:

What you should argue for is the government to seek the co-operation of those who are sincere, our newspapers have a role to play by not glorifying the acts of BH, but, GEJ can not do it by threats, it does not work, civilized behaviour requires that the government rises above BH, there are better ways to handle these things, how anybody can be in favour of giving blanket powers to those in position of authority who have shown over and over again that they can not be trusted with basic powers is beyond me.

hercules07:

What you should argue for is the government to seek the co-operation of those who are sincere, our newspapers have a role to play by not glorifying the acts of BH, but, GEJ can not do it by threats, it does not work, civilized behaviour requires that the government rises above BH, there are better ways to handle these things, how anybody can be in favour of giving blanket powers to those in position of authority who have shown over and over again that they can not be trusted with basic powers is beyond me.