To the Civil Society Organizations, Lawyers, Lawmakers, NJC, Benchers, etc Call on President Buhari to Resign From Office for His Disobedience to Court Orders

On May 29th 2015, a former Military Dictator, Muhammadu Buhari sequel to a contested election in March 2015 against a sitting President in Nigeria, the first time in Africa, an incumbent handed power peaceably, smoothly, heroically to a political rival. Whereupon Mr Buhari then took the Oath of Allegiance to protect the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the President’s Oath of office to discharge his duties faithfully, in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws of Nigeria.

Within President Buhari’s first year in office, too soon after he took the revered Oaths, he and state agents acting under his supervision, now demonstrate total lack of respect for Court Orders and at his maiden media chat on Wednesday 30th Dec., instant, Mr President made puerile attempts to justify these breaches, he said inter alia that some persons his regime locked up in cells dehumanized against court orders, Nnamdi Kanu had travelled without his passports. But under the Immigration Act, the President or the Minister may deport anyone who travels without a valid travel document or detain for a period not exceeding 7 days. In holding Mr Kanu beyond the required period they have infracted on the Immigration Act, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and subsisting court orders.

With regard to issues of “self-determination”, the crux of Nnamdi Kanu’s campaign of the Independent People of Biafra, IPOB, having communicated IPOB’s intent to all and the United Nations as required by UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Nigeria, that people of any community or group may wish to exercise the right of self-determination with a view to pursuing their economic, social and cultural development; aware that their dignity as human persons had deteriorated and been consciously degraded under the present dispensation, sadly appearing power inebriate.

Call on President Buhari to resign from office or face impeachment proceedings. Alternatively avoid another Burundi, call him to comply with the Orders of Courts.

Attorney Carol Ajie, LLB(Hons) Benin; B.L(Lagos); MCIArb(UK); LL.M Int’l Legal Studies (Georgetown)

www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-respect-court-orders-or-resign-president-buhari-2

Signature

Signatures

lol.... what a confused group and elites. please stop misleading our youths. Do your research very well. For avoidance of doubt. Let me educate you guys on why buhari is right to detain them and disobey court orders.

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 rest my case.