Let us be one Nigeria, they refused equality for all, let us divide Nigeria, they killed us, it is obvious they are enjoying stagnant nation because in my view, you can not hold me down and move, we all must remain down.

Ever since some law courts admitted former National Security Adviser Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.) and Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu to bail and they were not promptly released, there has been lots of hot air released, either backing or attacking their continued detention.

Today, I write to say that I think President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) and the Federal Government are right in law, contrary to the loud crowd’s assertion of ‘human rights’. first, let me state it clearly here, I am not against anybody nor group. I am an Igbo man from Agu-ukwu Nri in Anaocha Local Govt of Anambra State. but we must always do things in accordance with the laws of the land.

The detention of Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.) and Nnamdi Kanu has generated a lot of debate and even criticisms against the Federal Government and the person of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari (PMB). These criticisms reached their peak after the President’s responses to some questions on the issue in his maiden presidential media chat of Wednesday December 30. Some legal luminaries and human rights activists vehemently contend that the Government violated court orders granting the said accused persons bail.

The Vanguard of Monday January 4 reported several senior lawyers, including the current NBA president, contending that the Government is guilty of disregarding court orders on the issue. Some argue that the Federal Government should have released Kanu or deported him after seven days. These critics have turned the trial of the duo into the trial of the State that is accusing them. I put it to 2/3 of Our so called lawyers even those in the rank of SANs that they do not know the true position of our laws. most of them who claim to be so good and sound in the field of law do not know the law itself. Even the ones claiming to be standing for Nnamdi Kanu and Dasuki do not know the true position of laws of the land.

The one million dollar question now begging for answer is therefore: Is the Federal Government really in breach of Court Orders? The answer to this question is NO. Let me say outright here that the President’s opinion on this matter is in accord with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dokubo-Asari v. F.R.N. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 375) p. 558 where the Supreme Court held at page 585 thus:

“…Where national security is threatened or there is the real likelihood of it being threatened, human rights or the individual rights of those responsible take second place. Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until the national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new. The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right.”

This is the law as enunciated by a unanimous decision of the apex court of the land during Yar'dua regime. The law is what the courts say it is, and not what we see in statute books. Therefore, PMB’s opinion on this matter is more in tandem with the spirit of the constitution and the law than that of those senior legal minds and human rights activists.
It is true Kanu was granted bail on October 17. On the day he claimed to have perfected his bail conditions, he was already too late as the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had already filed a fresh six-count charge against him. Thus, in law, Kanu was released on bail for the earlier charges and then re-arrested on the new charges, which charge sheet was served on him the day he perfected those conditions.

When Kanu was arraigned on the fresh charges before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, he declined to enter his plea and objected to the jurisdiction of the court to try him, accusing the judge of bias. Consequently, the judge rightly disqualified himself and remitted the case file to the Chief Judge for redirection.

Like Kanu, Dasuki and three others were arraigned before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory by the EFCC on a 19-count charge bordering on money laundering and criminal breach of trust. On December 18 Dasuki and others were granted bail on the said 19-count charge. The former NSA perfected his bail conditions and was released on bail. Later, the government found fresh pieces of evidence against him and he was re-arrested and re-arraigned on a 22-count charge.

He was again granted bail and, after his release, the government re-arrested him at the gate of the court on yet another fresh set of charges.

The law is settled that any bail granted an accused is completely related to the offence(s) for which he is charged. So, if after he has been granted bail the prosecution charges him for another offence for which no bail has been granted and no plea taken, then the accused can be re-arrested.

Some of the lawyers seem to have admitted this leg of the argument. However, the problem they seem to have is the timing of the re-arrest. They opine that even though the Government has a right to re-arrest them on fresh charges, that should not come immediately after release. They further reason that the FG should have lumped the charges together instead of bringing them piecemeal.

Again, these submissions are without any basis. It is within the exclusive prerogative of the prosecution (and not anybody else) to decide whether, when and how to charge accused persons. In these matters, the AGF is the law unto himself! He is not subject to the control of anyone as far as the exercise of his powers is concerned. See State v. S.O. Ilori & 2 others (1983) 2 S.C. 155 and Amaefule v. State (1988) 2 NWLR (part 75) page 156.

One lawyer argued that Kanu should have been released after seven days of detention or deported from Nigeria in accordance with the Immigration Act. The lawyer even initiated an online petition on December 31 calling on the President to resign from office or be impeached for the alleged breaches. It was countered by another petition of Buhari supporters on www.ipetition.com <http://www.ipetition.com>. At the time of writing (noon Friday January cool, the anti-Buharis have gathered 2,997 signatures in 9 days while the pro-Buharis have gathered 12,343 in 5 days, and still counting.

This aside, is seven days detention and/or deportation the punishments for the offence Kanu is charged with? Kanu is facing a 6-count charge, one of which is treason. By section 41 (c) of the CCA, treason is a capital offence which attracts the Death Sentence. It is a matter of common knowledge that Kanu has threatened to wage war against Nigeria and has taken several steps to make his threat real.

Dasuki, on the other hand, is charged with crimes bordering misappropriation of funds set aside for the procurement of arms to battle the Boko Haram insurgency and illegal possession of firearms. Furthermore, there is the fear he may jump bail; in fact he has said he wants to jet out to receive ‘medical attention’ abroad; the habit of many a high profile figure charged with crime.

And could the opinion of the President in the said media chat influence the judge? It depends: for some judges it may make no difference; for some, it may influence the judge against the accused persons; for yet others, it may influence them in favour of the accused persons (true for judges who want to assert their authority and independence). There is no certainty as to whether and in which way the influence of that opinion goes.

So, finally, we resort again to the Supreme Court “Where national security is threatened…individual rights of those responsible take second place...” and say PMB is right by law. At this point, I am calling on my Igbo brothers to come back home. Let us reason on the way forward. Violence does not pay. I call upon the wife of Late Ikemba Ndi Igbo as a matter of urgency to build a sound and digital Library for Ikemba if it at Nnewi His Country Home or at Enugu where people mostly the younger generation who did not witness the Civil war to know more and equally to tap from what went wrong in the past and the way forward. Before 2011 elections, when IBB visited Ojukwu at His Residence before the Northern Elders did mock primaries between Atiku and IBB, Ojukwu addressed Ndi Igbo urging us to support the Northerners. what happened the press statement. I will come up with issue and many more at appropriate time. I rest my case.

DANILSA:
They came for Dasuki and I was happy because I am Apc not pdp. he should be killed I yelled.
They came for Kanu and I said let him rot in Jail, am not an ipob member.
They came for El-zakzaky and I rejoiced, sho t the man again I screamed because he was shiite and they said he formed a parallel government.
When Buhari came for me, no court again, the whole country was afraid to talk because he had instilled unwholesome fear in all.
MY TURN TO BE BEHEADED.
Danilsa Prince T.

If I am corrupt, committed a crime and culpable, yes they should come for me...................

PASCHAL28:
Ever since some law courts admitted former National Security Adviser Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.) and Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu to bail and they were not promptly released, there has been lots of hot air released, either backing or attacking their continued detention.

Today, I write to say that I think President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) and the Federal Government are right in law, contrary to the loud crowd’s assertion of ‘human rights’. first, let me state it clearly here, I am not against anybody nor group. I am an Igbo man from Agu-ukwu Nri in Anaocha Local Govt of Anambra State. but we must always do things in accordance with the laws of the land.

The detention of Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.) and Nnamdi Kanu has generated a lot of debate and even criticisms against the Federal Government and the person of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari (PMB). These criticisms reached their peak after the President’s responses to some questions on the issue in his maiden presidential media chat of Wednesday December 30. Some legal luminaries and human rights activists vehemently contend that the Government violated court orders granting the said accused persons bail.

The Vanguard of Monday January 4 reported several senior lawyers, including the current NBA president, contending that the Government is guilty of disregarding court orders on the issue. Some argue that the Federal Government should have released Kanu or deported him after seven days. These critics have turned the trial of the duo into the trial of the State that is accusing them. I put it to 2/3 of Our so called lawyers even those in the rank of SANs that they do not know the true position of our laws. most of them who claim to be so good and sound in the field of law do not know the law itself. Even the ones claiming to be standing for Nnamdi Kanu and Dasuki do not know the true position of laws of the land.

The one million dollar question now begging for answer is therefore: Is the Federal Government really in breach of Court Orders? The answer to this question is NO. Let me say outright here that the President’s opinion on this matter is in accord with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dokubo-Asari v. F.R.N. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 375) p. 558 where the Supreme Court held at page 585 thus:

“…Where national security is threatened or there is the real likelihood of it being threatened, human rights or the individual rights of those responsible take second place. Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until the national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new. The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right.”

This is the law as enunciated by a unanimous decision of the apex court of the land during Yar'dua regime. The law is what the courts say it is, and not what we see in statute books. Therefore, PMB’s opinion on this matter is more in tandem with the spirit of the constitution and the law than that of those senior legal minds and human rights activists.
It is true Kanu was granted bail on October 17. On the day he claimed to have perfected his bail conditions, he was already too late as the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had already filed a fresh six-count charge against him. Thus, in law, Kanu was released on bail for the earlier charges and then re-arrested on the new charges, which charge sheet was served on him the day he perfected those conditions.

When Kanu was arraigned on the fresh charges before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, he declined to enter his plea and objected to the jurisdiction of the court to try him, accusing the judge of bias. Consequently, the judge rightly disqualified himself and remitted the case file to the Chief Judge for redirection.

Like Kanu, Dasuki and three others were arraigned before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory by the EFCC on a 19-count charge bordering on money laundering and criminal breach of trust. On December 18 Dasuki and others were granted bail on the said 19-count charge. The former NSA perfected his bail conditions and was released on bail. Later, the government found fresh pieces of evidence against him and he was re-arrested and re-arraigned on a 22-count charge.

He was again granted bail and, after his release, the government re-arrested him at the gate of the court on yet another fresh set of charges.

The law is settled that any bail granted an accused is completely related to the offence(s) for which he is charged. So, if after he has been granted bail the prosecution charges him for another offence for which no bail has been granted and no plea taken, then the accused can be re-arrested.

Some of the lawyers seem to have admitted this leg of the argument. However, the problem they seem to have is the timing of the re-arrest. They opine that even though the Government has a right to re-arrest them on fresh charges, that should not come immediately after release. They further reason that the FG should have lumped the charges together instead of bringing them piecemeal.

Again, these submissions are without any basis. It is within the exclusive prerogative of the prosecution (and not anybody else) to decide whether, when and how to charge accused persons. In these matters, the AGF is the law unto himself! He is not subject to the control of anyone as far as the exercise of his powers is concerned. See State v. S.O. Ilori & 2 others (1983) 2 S.C. 155 and Amaefule v. State (1988) 2 NWLR (part 75) page 156.

One lawyer argued that Kanu should have been released after seven days of detention or deported from Nigeria in accordance with the Immigration Act. The lawyer even initiated an online petition on December 31 calling on the President to resign from office or be impeached for the alleged breaches. It was countered by another petition of Buhari supporters on www.ipetition.com <http://www.ipetition.com>. At the time of writing (noon Friday January cool, the anti-Buharis have gathered 2,997 signatures in 9 days while the pro-Buharis have gathered 12,343 in 5 days, and still counting.

This aside, is seven days detention and/or deportation the punishments for the offence Kanu is charged with? Kanu is facing a 6-count charge, one of which is treason. By section 41 (c) of the CCA, treason is a capital offence which attracts the Death Sentence. It is a matter of common knowledge that Kanu has threatened to wage war against Nigeria and has taken several steps to make his threat real.

Dasuki, on the other hand, is charged with crimes bordering misappropriation of funds set aside for the procurement of arms to battle the Boko Haram insurgency and illegal possession of firearms. Furthermore, there is the fear he may jump bail; in fact he has said he wants to jet out to receive ‘medical attention’ abroad; the habit of many a high profile figure charged with crime.

And could the opinion of the President in the said media chat influence the judge? It depends: for some judges it may make no difference; for some, it may influence the judge against the accused persons; for yet others, it may influence them in favour of the accused persons (true for judges who want to assert their authority and independence). There is no certainty as to whether and in which way the influence of that opinion goes.

So, finally, we resort again to the Supreme Court “Where national security is threatened…individual rights of those responsible take second place...” and say PMB is right by law. At this point, I am calling on my Igbo brothers to come back home. Let us reason on the way forward. Violence does not pay. I call upon the wife of Late Ikemba Ndi Igbo as a matter of urgency to build a sound and digital Library for Ikemba if it at Nnewi His Country Home or at Enugu where people mostly the younger generation who did not witness the Civil war to know more and equally to tap from what went wrong in the past and the way forward. Before 2011 elections, when IBB visited Ojukwu at His Residence before the Northern Elders did mock primaries between Atiku and IBB, Ojukwu addressed Ndi Igbo urging us to support the Northerners. what happened the press statement. I will come up with issue and many more at appropriate time. I rest my case.

Paschal28, I doubt whether you took the time to read your own post.

First of all, when one is accused and/or prosecuted, he/she is presumed innocent until the court finds him/her guilty. Even for the offense of treason.

The judges have the authority to decide, based on the facts submitted before the court, whether to grant bail or not.That decision lies with the judge, not the prosecutor. And when the prosecution fails to convince the court to withold bail, then the accused will be admitted to bail. You cannot be both prosecutor and judge. And when the court decides, the decision is binding on both parties.

And in the case of Dasuki, how does a corruption case amount to a national security threat?

Don't come here with lengthy articles meant to look convincing, but based purely on lies, on falsehood, and on sentiments. And do not claim that Kanu was released and re-arrested. He has not been released for even a whole 60 second time frame.

And for the president, (I am now really ashamed of that man) to defend this travesty, this disobedience of the judiciary, it is clear that we have not yet gotten the leader we need in this country. The fight against corruption is not a one-man fight. If it was, EFCC wouldn't lose its bite after Ribadu left. Despite the accolades my late heroine Akunyili garnered in the fight against fake drugs, it was a losing battle as soon as she left NAFDAC. To truly fight corruption, you have to strengthen the institutions that lead the onslaught as well as those that adjudicate the issues. Buhari is just wasting his time and that of Nigerians. That contempt for the judiciary is the reason every corrupt politician is defecting to the APC. Because the writing on the wall is clear - the party, and not our institutions, reign supreme. And by the time the president would have used up the goodwill he enjoys from gullible Nigerians, we would be struggling, not to enthrone good governance, but to enthrone the rule of law.

Lastly, if you know Ndigbo well, then identifying yourself as being from Agukwu-Nri was a waste of time. We believe in institutions, not just public figures. That was the only reason Ngige lost an election woefully, when he is loved by Anambrarians, including yours truly.

Before you write anything again on this forum, Paschal28, read it aloud to yourself before you click the "SUBMIT" button.

GIYAZZ:
Please, can you provide the video where Nnamdi KANU was soliticiting for arms?

Have you been hiding under a rock all these months? So you have not seen the video? Or you think because you guys have removed it from YouTube the evidence has disappeared? I am sure the DSS has several copies of said video......and many clips of where the foolish old man was running his mouth like someone who has diarrhoea! Listening to radio biafra last year I was so sure that the buffoon had an army and a stash of weapons......chemical, nuclear, biological everything with which to invade Nigeria and remove the "paedophile" . I no know say na d usual chest beating tinz.

anticabal1:
In short, let me make it clear. Treason oh no treason oh. Fulani cannot kill a popular Igbo activist without paying through their nose in full measure. This no be yoruba matter or adaka boro issue. There will be grave repercussions.

Chest beating tinz

zendy:



I have seen this video many times same way I heard Kanu talk about radically getting Biafra through force of arms. The man never hid his choice of armed confrontation with Nigeria to achieve Biafra same way he never hid that he would be coming back to Nigeria.


The main issue is, has he actually committed a crime?

He called Nigeria a zoo, insulted Buhari, called for the killing of of non Biafrans, solicited for arms in this video, called for the destruction of Nigeria........


But the question remains "has he committed a crime?'


If you think he has commited a crime then all of you better start reporting your selves to the nearest police station because if "talking" is a crime, we should all be in DSS custody.

Soliciting arms to attack a country in public That's a big crime ! It's called treason It's punishable by death in Nigeria

joromi:


Soliciting arms to attack a country in public That's a big crime ! It's called treason It's punishable by death in Nigeria

Sorry but that is not a crime. Nobody can commit treason just by mere 'talking'. Soliciting for arms is one thing, actually getting arms and fighting the government is another thing. So far, all Kanu did was 'talk'. It is not possible to jail a person for talking.

joromi:


Soliciting arms to attack a country in public That's a big crime ! It's called treason It's punishable by death in Nigeria

I suggest you go and read the constitution well. Soliciting for arms is not a crime. What is a crime is getting arms and what you do with it. But the solicitation its self is not a crime. It's like saying that you want to rob a bank. You cannot be charged to court for bank robbery just because you said you want to do it.