ON THE SHIITES' PROSCRIPTION

WHY THE PROSCRIPTION OF SHIITES GROUP IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Section 36(1) of our Constitution loudly proclaims and eloquently insists that everyone is entitled to fair hearing whenever the determination of his civil rights and obligations are to be determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction impartially constituted. A clinical survey of all judicial authorities in Nigeria and other commonwealth jurisdictions shows that any decision arrived at by any Court in circumvention of this fair hearing right cannot stand and should be declared a nullity. Such is the fate of the Ex-parte order of the Federal High Court issued on the 26th of July, 2019 prescribing the Shiites as a terrorist organisation. In any event, the crime or offence of terrorism is created by the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013 (TPA). Our constitution declares that it is only when a Court of law finds a citizen guilty of an offence that conviction and sentencing can follow. Unfortunately, the ex-parte order of the Federal High Court appears not to have reflected this constitutional safeguard in that without any plenary criminal trial the Shiites have been found guilty of being "terrorists" which is a grave label world over. This is because, the Ex-Parte order of proscription has a somewhat perpetual effect of which under our laws an Ex-parte can only last for a few days. In fact, the Federal High Court Rules itself proclaims in the clearest of language that every ex-parte order expires after fourteen days of its issuance.

The agglomeration of all the analysis so far advanced, affords us with the jurisprudential beacons in arriving at the inevitable conclusion that the Proscription Order of the Federal High Court sanctioned under Section 2 of the TPA bears many dead wounds on its face, Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi [2001] 33 WRN 1, 14 -15 just as the Section 2 of the TPA from which the order flows is equally standing on a wobbly wicket, Onyeneh v. Egbuchula (1996) 5 NWLR (pt. 448) 255. This is because, within the wide domain of the law on fair hearing, Courts of law are without powers to make ex-parte order with a tenor of perpetuity as if eventuating from the merit of the case. Kotoye v C.B.N (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 89) 418, 448. Such a strange order is redolent with raw injustice, State v Onagoruwa (1992) LPELR -3228 (SC) 33 and does not resonate with the peremptory dictates of natural justice, Galas Hired v. The King (1944) A.C. 149. This can only be so since the weight of all existing authorities, Bakare v L.S.C.C. (1992) 8 NWLR (pt.266) 641, lean heavily against the making of such order, Ekunola v CBN (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1377) 224.

Being labeled a “Terrorist” presupposes that you have been tried and found guilty of the offence of terrorism by a court of competent jurisdiction. The National Assembly [nay the TPA] goofed by attempting to proclaim any person or group of persons “terrorist” or “terrorist group” by an ex-parte order without a proper criminal trial thereby sidestepping that time-hallowed process of determination of the guilt or innocence of a criminal suspect sanctioned by the Constitution itself. The TPA punched above its weight. No doubt, it is a constitutional taboo, if not a legislative apostasy, that its victims [such as the Shiites] ought to put squarely before the Court. This can only be so for even a state organ [such as the National Assembly] is without powers to bludgeon the fundamental rights of citizens, F.R.N. vs. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113 at 185. It is in the light of the foregoing that the proscription of the Shiited group as a terrorist organisation must be viewed and understood. Lastly, questions must be asked as to why a government that prides itself as Rule of Law-compliant obstinately refused to comply with the valid and subsisting Order of the Federal High Court directing the release of Elzazaky (the Shiites Leader) which by the way has been the major (if not the sole) plank of their relentless protests? Arguments have been advanced by the Authorities to the effect that the Federal Government has a pending appeal against the said judgement. That may appear to be seductive but it must be pointed out that in law merely filing an appeal against the judgment of a Court does not effectively act as a stay of execution of the said judgement. Instructively, the Nigerian Authorities have never argued that the Judgement of Justice Kolawole of the Federal High Court [no w of the Court of Appeal] has been stayed or that appeal against same has attained a favourable finality. To this extent therefore, the Nigerian State is abusing Section 287(3) of our Constitution which those piloting the affairs of our government took oath to defend and protect.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

Ok, Mr Lawyer, join them and protest on Monday if you will not be used for target practice by the newly recruited Mopol.

Nigeria, the place where protesters such as IPOB and Shiites are declared terrorists while killer herdsmen are given Ruga

Ok

The current leaders are on a mission of state capture not governance.

Half-baked lawyer.

Shiits in Nigeria is a Terrorist Organisation.

A sunni led terrorist govt declaring unarmed Shiites terrorist, while fulani terrorist militia roaming about slaughtering thousands of Nigerians in villages and remote communities across Nigeria are rewarded with Ruga and Radio stations.
Bloody useless govt.