If others have been released then why is he being kept there?

Some may laugh but we must all remember that what goes around comes around.

he is going to be released. but he hasnt been let out yet because he is less of a prioity. alams and asari affect the rpice of oil because of the agitation in the ND, so they get first dibs. then the massob fella. plus massob is seking to break nigeria up, while asari wants more oil money going to his region. the breakup of naija is more dangerous of the two, whether he carries a gun or not.

besides asari is all mouth and has never been dangerous

obong:


If others have been released then why is he being kept there?

Some may laugh but we must all remember that what goes around comes around.

he is going to be released. but he hasnt been let out yet because he is less of a prioity. alams and asari affect the rpice of oil because of the agitation in the ND, so they get first dibs. then the massob fella. plus massob is seking to break nigeria up, while asari wants more oil money going to his region. the breakup of naija is more dangerous of the two, whether he carries a gun or not.

besides asari is all mouth and has never been dangerous

Do you really believe that someone with a militia (real guns here) is less dangerous than the person without one?

Are we really being objective here or are we playing ethnic and tribal politics here?

Do you really believe that someone with a militia (real guns here) is less dangerous than the person without one?

Are we really being objective here or are we playing ethnic and tribal politics here?

yes, asari is less dangerous and more valuable. ultimately the seperatist movement will require guns, and we have history to tell us how that went. however, dokubo is a fool, not dangerous. explore him on a web a bit and see that is a noisemaker but lacks substance. i've also had the opprotunity to talk to people who grew u p with him and they say the same thing. he has been alway been known to make noise, but he's no big deal.

@obong

do not provoke me here with this your "less of a priority" talk.

The Federal Government of Nigeria has neither the will, the zeal or the facilities and resources to hold harmless Nigerians captive.

No human being is less of a priority and I hope in your heart you regret that statement.

However, I believe why Uwazurike has not been released is because of ongoing negotiations on how to further calm down nerves on this Biafra issue. It is more complex than Asari and the Niger-Delta militants who just want more money.

I just pray that he doesn't get tempted to drink tea.

Obong

For the records, Asari has said so many times that the Nigerian State is an Illegitimate entity.

@Mckren,

For the records, Asari has said so many times that the Nigerian State is an Illegitimate entity.

This is why I said all these people really need to be tried for treason. We are turning into more of a lawless nation with such flagrant violation of our constitutions and laws being allowed to go unpunished by interest groups.

TayoD Thank you, instead of us as a nation to come together and condemn this self actualization actions, we are here classifying it to sub region and classification. when will people start obeying the law?

@mamajama,

TayoD Thank you, instead of us as a nation to come together and condemn this self actualization actions, we are here classifying it to sub region and classification. when will people start obeying the law?

Isn't it pathetic that those who should be educated enough to condemn the flouting of our laws are here promoting the same. And the ignorant fool is audacious enough to say others are playing ethnic politics. So far, the only person advocating a line of action based on tribe and ethnicity is the same fool who double speaks all the time. Na wah o. What haven't I seen on nairaland!

TayoD:

@RichyBlack,
I am only responding to you becuase you made your point without any ethnic slurs and personal attacks. The ability to do this is geting rarer by the day on nairaland.

You get me absolutely wrong as I am not implying selective justice. My call would rather be that Dokubo, Fasheun and others should be re-arrested and tried for treason rather than have Nwazuruike released because the others were released. If Dokubo and co flouted the laws of the land, they should be punished as much as Nwazuruike is punished.

I seek no selective justice, but rather that the law should be applied to the letter. One issue I have asked with no one responding to is what is the position of the courts here? If these women are so convinced on the rightness of their positions, why don't they seek redress in court? We talk about democracy and yet we are not making use of the system as it should be used. Let them curse from here on end, they will only be hurting their own throats.

If we say Nwazuruike should be released becuase other criminals like Him were released, then we might as well say all the people in our prisons should be released becuase some were released. The "fairness" and "equity" you seek should not be limited to this case, abi?

@TayoD,

If that (in bold) is your position, then it's ok.

However, exploring that position (your position) reveals two consequential actions:
1. Opposition to Uwazuruike's release (on the grounds of respect for the rule of law)
2. Support for the re-arrest of Dokubo, Fasheun ,etc. (on the grounds of fairness and equity)

If you look through your previous posts, you'll agree with that you have not shown equitable preference among the two actions identified above. Rather, you have leaned more heavily on one (i.e., action 1) than the other (action 2).

My question: why the seeming preference for one of the two identified actions above in your previous posts?

@Richyblack,

My question: why the seeming preference for one of the two identified actions above in your previous posts?

I really don't have a preference, and my position is certainly never borne out of any ethnic inclination. However, the information I really don't have is what the court ruling is on each case. What has the courts decided? Or is it that they were never tried in the first case? If the guy is being held against a court injunction, then the FG is at fault and must be confronted (and that only through the court of law). If on the other hand, the court refused the guy bail undtil a ruling is made, then he must bear his own burden.

What the guy is after should not be taken with kids glove. Over a million people died when Ojukwu attempted the same thing years back. Why do we want to take such chances now?

In my opinion, the guy needs to work with other ethnic nationalities in naija to seek for a federating unit in a true sense of the word. That would be a wise way to go rather than go head on against the government. He and others on such a mission will surely fail!

@TayoD,
From my understanding, they (Uwazuruike, Dokubo, etc.) have indicated some interest in changing the status quo as regards Nigeria's present political structure. However, what makes Uwazuruike's case different is because it is reminiscent of the Biafran War, and hence the continued reference to it.

Depending on the definitions employed MASSOB, MEND, IYC, OPC, NDPVF, etc. are all separatist movements. Let's not pretend that separatist movements are rare. They exist in many democracies including the UK, Spain, India, etc. In dealing with separatists, there should be some level of fairness and equity. I know that separatist movements may have varying levels of threat to the national polity. For Uwazuruike's MASSOB, the aggravating issue is the potentially dangerous nostalgia that Biafra can bring up, however, that is clearly mitigated by the fact that his call has been consistently "peaceful", i.e., he has consistently refrained from the use of force, arms, etc. Dokubo's IYC and NDPVF do not have a clear link to Biafra (a possible mitigating issue), however, they have clearly advocated the use of force, arms and violence. Their actions have (directly or indirectly) resulted in the deaths of policemen, soldiers, civilians, kidnapping of children, huge economic losses, etc. To the extent that Obasanjo demolished a whole village, Odi (a dastardly act) to "manage" some of the problems attributable to groups like Dokubo's. So, if the government's threat assessment places Uwazuruike above Dokubo, then one has to wonder what kind of risk analysts our government employs.

The unfair treatment of Uwazuruike is what has led many Igbos (including those women) to believe that his treatment is different, not because he poses more threat to the polity, but because he is Igbo.

@Richy,

I find it difficult looking at issue from an ethnic standpoint. While I understand the perspectives you are arguing from, that argument cannot hold in a court of law.

Talking about the courts, here is a link to his case: http://www.independentngonline.com/?c=44&a=31697. It is interesting that the case is now at the Supreme Court and I wonder why the impatience now. His bail or otherwise will be decided on September 18. We should allow the courts to do their jobs and not try to make this an ethnic issue when it is predominantly a law enforcement issue.

Take note also that his bail, if merited would have been granted a while back if not that it was filed innapropriately. That is not the govt's fault, is it?

Where are the lawyers and lawyer-wannabes when you need them?

TayoD:

@Richy,

I find it difficult looking at issue from an ethnic standpoint. While I understand the perspectives you are arguing from, that argument cannot hold in a court of law.

Talking about the courts, here is a link to his case: http://www.independentngonline.com/?c=44&a=31697. It is interesting that the case is now at the Supreme Court and I wonder why the impatience now. His bail or otherwise will be decided on September 18. We should allow the courts to do their jobs and not try to make this an ethnic issue when it is predominantly a law enforcement issue.

Take note also that his bail, if merited would have been granted a while back if not that it was filed innapropriately. That is not the govt's fault, is it?

@TayoD,
I wasn't necessarily filing brief on behalf of Uwazuruike and company, however, your statement in bold is preposterous because you're not a judge in this case. Correction to statement: that argument may not hold in a court of law. All kinds of arguments are brought in a court of law and only the jury or judge(s) can decide what arguments hold or not. And even at that, such a determination is never made a priori but after all other arguments have been heard.

The other statement in blue is interesting. And therein lies the real problem - drawing the line between due process and ethnic bias. This problem is at the heart of race relations in today's America. I'm sure you have heard (and I want to wager that you have probably made statements like) "well, because he's black that's why that happened to him". Even in America, with a more matured judiciary, race sentiments still come up in high profile legal cases. Recall the Rodney King case that led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots. It was a legal case that many (even whites) interpreted as racially biased. Class (rich vs poor) can also introduce bias in legal cases. An example was the OJ Simpson case (a peculiar case because race and class did not have the usual correlation of White-Rich and Black-Poor).

My point is this: the fact that a case is being tried in court does not mean that it is devoid of biases (ethnic, racial, class, etc.), either from the prosecutor (recall Tom Sneddon who prosecuted Michael Jackson) or from the judge(s)/jury (recall Amadou Diallo's case in New York and the jury that unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo).

Nigeria is not that much different from many other countries still struggling with drawing a distinction between due process and ethnic bias. Two potential solutions to remedy this issue are: transparency and positive assertion. Transparency, in that the press (not necessarily cameras) be allowed in the court rooms so that Nigerians are able to follow the cases - this is standard practice in all true democracies. Positive assertion, in that the government spokesmen/spokeswomen should state clearly that the trials have no ethnic undertone and would be pursued without ethnic considerations.

do not provoke me here with this your "less of a priority" talk.

The Federal Government of Nigeria has neither the will, the zeal or the facilities and resources to hold harmless Nigerians captive.

No human being is less of a priority and I hope in your heart you regret that statement.

However, I believe why Uwazurike has not been released is because of ongoing negotiations on how to further calm down nerves on this Biafra issue. It is more complex than Asari and the Niger-Delta militants who just want more money.

I just pray that he doesn't get tempted to drink tea.

you sef don't provoke me by purposely misstating my position. I don't regret anything i've said. i am telling you that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT deems him less a priority because the niger delta issue more directly hits our pocket (and that of our powerful allies) hence the pressure to resolve that issue faster than the massob issue.

i can't say which is more complex, though i expect you to say the igbo's man mission is more complex. however, the ND issue is more CRITICAL, hence the high priority. europeans are being kidnapped and it is causing world prices to rise. it has also hampered nigeria;s ability to meet its goals of 4m barrels a day, thuse, rightly or wrongly, they have released alams and asari first.

I will rather tolerate an armed robber (at least I will keep my valuables out of sight) than condone a liar (because you never know when he will sell you and pocket the money).

TayoD, you know no shame. You take positions based on the direction of the wind.

One moment you support A, the next moment you say you are against A, that indeed your support is for B.

When you are neither hot nor cold do you know what you are?

No one is perfect, stop trying to be especially when your level of reasoning is rather too low.

Your lies are too numerous and it is unfortunate that people are not banned from using this forum based on lies.

@Richyblack,

I wasn't necessarily filing brief on behalf of Uwazuruike and company, however, your statement in bold is preposterous because you're not a judge in this case. Correction to statement: that argument may not hold in a court of law. All kinds of arguments are brought in a court of law and only the jury or judge(s) can decide what arguments hold or not. And even at that, such a determination is never made a priori but after all other arguments have been heard.

Correction accepted! I should have used "may" instead of "can't" However, I was refering specifically to the argument in court that Nwazuruike should be released because Gani Adams, Dokubo and co were released. True, precedence is important in a case, but the precedence is based on principle. On what principle will this one be argued?

The other statement in blue is interesting. And therein lies the real problem - drawing the line between due process and ethnic bias. This problem is at the heart of race relations in today's America. I'm sure you have heard (and I want to wager that you have probably made statements like) "well, because he's black that's why that happened to him". Even in America, with a more matured judiciary, race sentiments still come up in high profile legal cases. Recall the Rodney King case that led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots. It was a legal case that many (even whites) interpreted as racially biased. Class (rich vs poor) can also introduce bias in legal cases. An example was the OJ Simpson case (a peculiar case because race and class did not have the usual correlation of White-Rich and Black-Poor).

But that is exactly the thing I am talking about. Ethnicity, race or religion should never be a yardstick for judging a situation whether as the plaintiff or the defendant. Justice apparently wasn't brought to bear in the situations you mentioned becuase race and class was in the driving seat. This is why we shouldn't bring ethnicity into the case with nwazuruike and the other people mentioned. We should only be concerned about law and order, and of course justice!

My point is this: the fact that a case is being tried in court does not mean that it is devoid of biases (ethnic, racial, class, etc.), either from the prosecutor (recall Tom Sneddon who prosecuted Michael Jackson) or from the judge(s)/jury (recall Amadou Diallo's case in New York and the jury that unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo).

That may be true. But do you realise the accusations have been leveled against the FG when it should really be aimed at the courts? And if that is the case, are you expressing dissatisfaction with our judiciary? The FG has done its part by charging the man to court and as long as they are no violating a court order, they are in the right!

Nigeria is not that much different from many other countries still struggling with drawing a distinction between due process and ethnic bias. Two potential solutions to remedy this issue are: transparency and positive assertion. Transparency, in that the press (not necessarily cameras) be allowed in the court rooms so that Nigerians are able to follow the cases - this is standard practice in all true democracies. Positive assertion, in that the government spokesmen/spokeswomen should state clearly that the trials have no ethnic undertone and would be pursued without ethnic considerations.

The press is not always allowed in the court room. The decision to allow or restrict the press in the courts depend on the judge's discretion. Either advocates could also request that the press should be allow or restricted,with the final decision resting with the judge(s). Do you think those on the side of the defendent will accept as truth the fact that thier man is being tried without ethnic consideration even if the FG says so? I'm sure they won't. What I am concerned about is that if this man has indeed commited a treasonable felony, he should be tried and prosecuted to the full extent of the law! Same aplies to anyone, whether, yoruba, Igbo, Hausa or any of the minority ethnc nations.

Let us talk about what stands in court.

In Law court references are made to previous court verdicts in determining later court verdicts.

While it is so true that in a law court you can not make an argument that an accused and arrested Mr. A should not be prosecuted because another wanted Mr. B (for the same offence) is still at large, it is not true to suggest that in determining the verdicts of arrested Mr. A & B which commited the same offence reference should not be made to the previous in determining the later.

Asari and Uwazurike were arrested for treason, fair enough. Different courts declined granting Asari bail and as soon as South-South Governors led by Jonathan went into meeting with Yaradua, he was granted bail by a court lower than the previous ones that have declined his bail on the grounds of National Security. Yet people claim Asari was not granted political freedom but legal freedom.

If it were a case of Uwazurike being arrested and Asari is not, some of these arguments you guys are making will make sense. But a situation where Asari, Uwazurike, Adams, Fashehun were all in custody, they release 3 and the fourth which out of hindsight could be argued as being the least violent is still in Prison custody raises a lot of question.

Like Lai Mohamed rightly pointed out, Government should find similar excuse to release Uwazurike.

And for those giving examples of how Rusia will clamp down on whoever decides they don't want to be Nationals of a country.

If a people are agrieved and think they have no future in a certain country you have to give them a reason to stay economically, politically and otherwise through equity and fairness  not militarily or any kind of force as that is undemocratic and against the principles of justice.

Afterall Sebia and Montenegro recently voted to live together or part ways.

@Mckren,

Let us talk about what stands in court.

Ok. Though i am not a law expert but I can reason along.

In Law court references are made to previous court verdicts in determining later court verdicts.

That's what I mentioned earlier. It is called precedence.

While it is so true that in a law court you can not make an argument that an accused and arrested Mr. A should not be prosecuted because another wanted Mr. B (for the same offence) is still at large, it is not true to suggest that in determining the verdicts of arrested Mr. A & B which commited the same offence reference should not be made to the previous in determining the later.

Reference will be made in so much as both cases are similar. Besides, you have to show some basic principles that can be applied to both cases.

Asari and Uwazurike were arrested for treason, fair enough.

Thank God someone acknowledges this. I will probably put Gani Adams in the list too.

Different courts declined granting Asari bail and as soon as South-South Governors led by Jonathan went into meeting with Yaradua, he was granted bail by a court lower than the previous ones that have declined his bail on the grounds of National Security. Yet people claim Asari was not granted political freedom but legal freedom.

The issue here is that the courts granted him bail. I have no clue if the charges were dropped or if the FG chooses not to prosecute him further. This is why I was asking if anybody has details of the court proceedings.

If it were a case of Uwazurike being arrested and Asari is not, some of these arguments you guys are making will make sense. But a situation where Asari, Uwazurike, Adams, Fashehun were all in custody, they release 3 and the fourth which out of hindsight could be argued as being the least violent is still in Prison custody raises a lot of question.

While those might raise an eyebrow, why of all reasons do we choose to go the route of ethnic bias? Could it be that these other folks have agreed with the FG to stop such activities and the FG decide not to prosecute for the sake of reconciliation, and Nwazuruike is still trying to prove he is in the right? We need to exhaust all these possibilities before going in the direction of ethnic bias.

Like Lai Mohamed rightly pointed out, Government should find similar excuse to release Uwazurike.

Maybe, but under what conditions? Has Nwazuruike accepted the Fg's conditions like the others probably did?

@Mckren,

And for those giving examples of how Rusia will clamp down on whoever decides they don't want to be Nationals of a country.

They surely will.

If a people are agrieved and think they have no future in a certain country you have to give them a reason to stay economically, politically and otherwise through equity and fairness not militarily or any kind of force as that is undemocratic and against the principles of justice.

Afterall Sebia and Montenegro recently voted to live together or part ways.

That is true and is the reason why i said earlier that Nwazuruike should have been working with other ethnic nationals with similar goals to seek a legal way to reach their goal. I mentioned earlier that he should have been subtle enough to seek for true federalism. Believe me, he would have found companionship with other people in the west and south south if he had gone that route!

With the kind of statements am hearing from people like mamajama I am now very certain that Nigeria has no fucking future.   I guess I can now say Abiola deserved to die for putting his political ambitions before his own life and family.

@obong

You have to state clearly what you are saying. You just up and said he was "less of a priority" rather than clarify if that was what your personal assumption of what the government's position was.


Our powerful ally is the one sponsoring MEND in particular, so don't take things for their face value.

What do you mean by "the igbo man's mission"?


@topic

for those of us that do not understand much about law, please avoid engaging in indepth legal discussions so that we will not start comparing a case of murder in the family with a threat to National Security.

What do you mean by "the igbo man's mission"?

its a crude way of sayiing massob is igbo, mend is ijaw. though ethnicity doesnt define them, but rather their struggles do. also the ethnic definitions over simplify their groups, but we know mend is majority ijaw and massob is majority igbo.

i wouldnt be surprised if mend was sponsored by the west. they get high oil prices, which they draw out and refine for the most part and they keep nigeria in turmoil. at any rate, i expect the massob issue to be resolved after mend is fixed, though i think curses wont help the matter. a few well placed bombs would help. but i pray it doesnt happen. nigeria has enuf violence

Okay.

TayoD:

@Richyblack,
Correction accepted! I should have used "may" instead of "can't" However, I was refering specifically to the argument in court that Nwazuruike should be released because Gani Adams, Dokubo and co were released. True, precedence is important in a case, but the precedence is based on principle. On what principle will this one be argued?

On the principles of equity and fairness.

But that is exactly the thing I am talking about. Ethnicity, race or religion should never be a yardstick for judging a situation whether as the plaintiff or the defendant. Justice apparently wasn't brought to bear in the situations you mentioned becuase race and class was in the driving seat. This is why we shouldn't bring ethnicity into the case with nwazuruike and the other people mentioned. We should only be concerned about law and order, and of course justice!

True.

That may be true. But do you realise the accusations have been leveled against the FG when it should really be aimed at the courts? And if that is the case, are you expressing dissatisfaction with our judiciary? The FG has done its part by charging the man to court and as long as they are no violating a court order, they are in the right!

You raise an important issue - the source of bias. Typically, the judiciary is assumed to be unbiased. However, there are countless cases where such an assumption has been shown to be invalid. On this issue, I'm willing to make the assumption (though reluctantly) that the judiciary is unbiased. The bulk of the potential bias is more likely to come from the prosecution, i.e., the government. The selective aggression in pursuing the cases, the willingness to abide by the court decision, etc.

The press is not always allowed in the court room. The decision to allow or restrict the press in the courts depend on the judge's discretion. Either advocates could also request that the press should be allow or restricted,with the final decision resting with the judge(s). Do you think those on the side of the defendent will accept as truth the fact that their man is being tried without ethnic consideration even if the FG says so? I'm sure they won't. What I am concerned about is that if this man has indeed commited a treasonable felony, he should be tried and prosecuted to the full extent of the law! Same aplies to anyone, whether, yoruba, Igbo, Hausa or any of the minority ethnc nations.

The statement in bold is not true for any true democracy (no pun intended). A court proceeding is a public hearing and is deemed flawed if held in secret. Only in military courts (courts-martial) is the press likely to be restricted, and that's because the case may not considered to be of public benefit. In cases where, there is no press to cover the proceedings (low profile cases, cases in very remote places, etc.), the court transcripts (detailed sentence-by-sentence account of the trial) is made accessible to the public, sometimes through the press. Also, members of the public are sometimes invited to observe the court proceedings. All in all, the public has the right to know what transpires in a court of law, at least in a democracy.

TayoD:
The issue here is that the courts granted him bail. I have no clue if the charges were dropped or if the FG chooses not to prosecute him further. This is why I was asking if anybody has details of the court proceedings.

In Nigeria, with a relatively immature judiciary, the press is restricted from covering some cases (court transcripts are also inaccessible) and statements like the one in blue is common. If the principle of transparency was followed in this case, getting the court proceedings wouldn't have required the services of James Bond.

nobody nids 2 curse nigeria or nigerian leaders both d rulers n d ruled r wallowing in curse n absolute ignorance.disorder,chaos,filth,lwalessness,embezzlement with impunity,corruption,social,medical breakdown-wot more can u ask 4.all d curses dat nigerians n fetish people have been reigning on dem isnt it enough 4 dem 2 get obessed

[size=18pt]NIJA NO LIKE IGBO PEOPLE.

I WISH THE IGBO WILL LEARN[/size]