Cc: Seun, Lalasticlala, TonyBacanister

1. OPEN LETTER TO MR. ABUBAKAR MALAMI: OUR DEAR ATTORNEY-GENERAL, IMPUNITY IS INCREASINGLY DEFINING YOUR TENURE.

2. Dear Sir,
3. I bring you warmest greetings from the constituents and Apostles of Rule of Law and Constitutionalism in Nigeria.
4. Sir, there is no other time in our recent history when executive lawlessness, characterized by flagrant disobedience to sacred orders of court , has dominated the platform of public discuss and boggled the minds of Democrats more than the present time in which the government to which you act as its Chief Law Officer holds sway. This position will shortly be vindicated and fortified by statistical evidence which shall be marshaled out in the course of this letter.
5. The soul of this letter is donated by the large-scale impunity, confounding executive recklessness, flagrant abuse of power, inexplicable disobedience to sacred orders of our courts by persons and authorities currently exercising the plenitude and amplitude of powers of the Federal Government of Nigeria under the subsisting Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is supposedly binding on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is the unfortunate reality that this most sacred document [the Constitution], which ordinarily ought to be enjoying pervading bindingness on all government functionaries, is suffering untold humiliation and unprecedented desecration in the hands of different government agencies, authorities and functionaries of the government you are meant to advise that necessitated this urgent public letter to your person.

6. REASONS FOR THE LETTER:
7. My reasons for writing you are understandably manifold but for economy of space, I would scale it down to three. Like a Lady’s skirt, this urgent letter of grave concern promises to be short enough to be attractive but equally long enough to cover all the essential parts of the issues under scrutiny.
8. First and foremost, [by the infinite mercies and grace of God Almighty] I am a proud member of this most honourable profession on this planet earth, the legal profession, just as your good yourself. And it is hardly disputable that the future of democracy in every civilised society lies on the shoulders of lawyers.
9. Secondly, the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation is recognised as a great historic office that places its occupier in the rare position of the “Keeper of the King’s conscience”, the Chief Law Officer/Legal Adviser not only to the President of the Nation alone but equally the entire Federal Government with all the Ministries, Departments and Agencies thereunder. Added to these super responsibilities, by the ancient and ever-unbroken tradition of our profession, you are rightly acclaimed the “Leader of the Bar.”
10. The third crucial reason for this urgent letter is the lessons of precedents. The pre-eminent and incontestable position of the Attorney-General, under the common law, as the chief law officer of the State, either generally as a legal adviser or specially in all court proceedings to which the State is a party, has long been recognised by the courts[State v. Ilori (1983) 2 S.C. 155]. The enormous powers bestowed on you by our Constitution have been acknowledged as a great ministerial prerogative coupled with grave responsibilities. It follows therefore that however you decide to exercise these awesome powers donated to your office today will definitely form a precedent for the future. Whether your manner of discharging the duties of your office today might be adjudged a bad or good precedent belongs to posterity and should therefore be of great concern to you.

11. STATISTICS OF DISOBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDERS
12. Sir, not long after you were sworn in as the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Federal High Court of Nigeria [Abuja Division, presided over by the Honourable Justice A.F.A. Ademola], delivered a Ruling ordering the Department of State Security to release Mr. Nnamdi Kanu [the Leader of the separatist Indigenous People of Biafra] on bail [unconditionally] on the 17th December, 2015. That Court Order was disobeyed by the Department of State Security [otherwise known as the DSS] who by our Constitutional structuring are under the ultimate command of the President as per his pre-eminent position as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
13. Secondly, it is no longer news that the High Court of Federal Capital Territory [per, the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf] granted bail to the former national security adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). The same Court equally granted him bail [per, the Honourable Justice Afen] in another charge brought against him by the Federal Government. Sometime in January, 2017, the same F.C.T. High Court, presided over by the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf was moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji, SAN to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki. Again in April, 2017, the Federal High Court [sitting in Abuja, per the Honourable Justice Ahmed Mohammed] was similarly moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji [Dasuki’s Counsel] to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki by the said Court since 2015. On the 4th October, 2016, the Court of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, declared the arrest and detention of former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, as unlawful and arbitrary. The court also held that the further arrest of Mr. Dasuki by government on November 4, after he was granted bail by a court of law, amounts to a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. Up to the present moment, Mr. Dasuki still remains in the custody of the DSS. On the 16th May, 2017, the State Security Service [otherwise known as DSS] took their impunity and bewildering insolence for the Courts to a higher level when it refused to produce Mr. Dasuki for his trial before the FCT High Court. All that Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN [the Prosecution counsel] could tell Justice Baba Yusuf was that he was surprised that the former NSA was not within the court premises for the continuation of his trial but however could not go any further. Off course, this did not go down well with the Defence team led by Joseph Daudu, SAN who quickly informed the court that the Prosecutor’s response was unhelpful.

14. SHEIKH IBRAHIM EL-ZAKZAKY RELEASE ORDER:
15. On 13th December, 2015, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky was arrested by Nigerian State Actors and was kept in the custody of the DSS until the 2nd day of December, 2016 when the Federal High Court [Abuja Division, presided over by the Honourable Justice Gabriel Kolawole] ordered the Federal Government to provide an accommodation for El-Zakzaky, his wife and family members within Kaduna State or any part of the northern region. The court declared the continuous detention of El-Zakzaky since December 13, 2015 as unlawful and illegal since the issue of protective custody was unknown to law or the National Security Agencies Act establishing the DSS. The court further awarded the cost of 25 Million Naira as general damages to be paid to Ibrahim El-Zakzaky who must be released unconditionally to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) within 45 days. The Inspector-General of Police was equally ordered to convey El-Zakzaky and his wife to the accommodation provided by the government. The court also awarded 25m damages to Mrs Zakzaky, making a cumulative of 50 Million Naira as general damages. Since the 2nd day of December, 2016 up to the present moment, the DSS has not obeyed that Court Order. On the contrary, the DSS have continued to detain Ibrahim El-Zakzaky. The said order of the Court has equally not been stayed, vacated nor successfully challenged and upturned on appeal.

16. LAWYERS IN DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY PROTEST AGAINST IMPUNITY:
17. On the 31st October, 2016, a mammoth crowd of lawyers under the aegis of Lawyers in Defence of Democracy staged a protest that shook the heart of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. According to media sources, the Convener of the Group, Ikenga Ugochinyere, Esq., stated the purpose of protest thus;
a. “We Lawyers in Defence of Democracy and Citizens for Good Governance reject the call for the judges, whose homes were invaded by the DSS, to step aside as heeding the call will be a victory for tyranny and gradual return to Kokoma democracy. We dissociate ourselves from such call. That the DSS and other agencies release from detention all Nigerians who have been granted bail by the courts and who have fulfilled their bail conditions including compliance with all judgments and orders. Their continuous hold of such persons is an affront on the authority of the judiciary, dictatorial and a desecration of the fundamental democratic principle of separation of powers. The Executive cannot be prosecutor and judge at the same time... A country where a man can secure bail four times for the same charges and you still detain him is lawless. A country where a judge will grant bail on bailable offences and the person involved is then arrested on phantom corruption charges because he ruled against the whims and caprices of persons in government is a lawless country.”
18. It is noted in passing that the protesters among other key institutions, equally marched to your office on the day of the said protest. Also of interest is the fact that the Convener of the Group has been in detention ever since up to the present moment without a criminal charge formally filed against him before any Court of the land.

19. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHS IN:
20. On Thursday, the 26th day of January, 2017, the Federal House of Representatives, resolved to urge the Executive arm to direct security agencies to obey court orders, especially those relating to bail and production of accused persons in Court for trials; and mandate the Committee on Human Rights and Justice to investigate cases of detention of accused persons beyond the statutory period in contravention of subsisting Court Orders granting them bail, failure to release or produce accused persons in Court for trial and prevail on the offending agencies to ensure their releases and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action. Interestingly, on the same legislative day, the Federal House of Representatives considered and adopted a motion titled “Need to check persistent Fundamental Human Rights Breaches and Acts of Impunity by Security Agencies”. After a robust and wide-ranging debate on the Motion, the House noted that the Chapter Four of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, guarantee, among others, rights to peaceful assembly, personal liberty and freedom of movement but concerned about the rising cases of violation of those rights; also noted the air of impunity with which the personnel of the security agencies treat citizens and the worrisome tendencies to disobey court orders; concerned about the recent arrest and detention, on 22nd December, 2016, of some members of Civil Society Organisations, such as Lawyers in Defence of Democracy, National Youth Council of Nigeria and Citizens for Good Governance by the State Security Service for allegedly planning a peaceful protest and they have remained in detention for over 29 days since their arrests without being charged to Court or released. The House resolved, among others, to mandate the Committee on Human Rights, Police Affairs, National Security and Intelligence and Justice to investigate this incident and all other cases of unlawful arrests and detention of citizens and disobedience of Court Orders since June, 2015 and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action.

21. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA WEIGHS IN:
22. When he appeared before the Nigerian Senate for his confirmation, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, on the 1st of March, 2017 roundly condemned the rampant cases of disobedience to Court Orders. Fielding questions from the lawmakers, the CJN said the challenge of disobedience to court orders “is for the legislature and the executive to handle.” He said the judiciary would welcome that day that court judgments would be respected and carried out after exhaustion of the right of appeal. That will mean the independence of the judiciary, he added. If rulings are not respected, the judge continued, they would just be “mere piece of paper.” “Anyway, disobedience of court order is an act of impunity,” he said.

23. WARNINGS OF OUR COURTS:
24. The Nigerian Court of Appeal in the memorable case of Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 at 538 Paras.C- E, 564-565 Paras.B – G, has this to say on disobedience to sacred Orders of Court;
25. “An order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or highly placed in society. An act of disobedience towards an order of a court can render any further act by those who have acted disobediently to sanctions from other court because no court would want its orders flouted. This is what the rule of law is all about hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience of court orders…Obeying court orders is both legal and moral obligation but you find that court orders are toyed with both by lawyers and the litigating public. Indeed for the politicians, the rule of law is non-existing until it suits their purpose, and it is only then it is observed to the letter. Without a strict adherence to the rule of law, our nascent democracy and indeed our Constitution will only be worth the paper on which it is written. What makes a great country is adherence to the rule of law. Even in hell, there is order and discipline.”
26. Indeed, all the existing Supreme Court authorities lean heavily in support of the long-established postulation that disobedience of Court Order (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction. Condemning this cancerous vice, the Supreme Court, in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, had these unkind words for those who disobey Court orders (contemnors);
27. “I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society”
28. To cap it all, the Constitution by its Section 287 (3) lucidly provides in the very words which I would now most respectfully reproduce;
29. “The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively”

30. SUMMATION:
31. What patently emerges from the concatenation of the instances of executive impunity and lawlessness most dispassionately surveyed above comes to the ineluctable conclusion that the present Federal Government of Nigeria, which you are saddled with the onerous duty to offer sound legal advice, has most unfortunately fallen into the cesspit of tyranny, lawlessness and impunity. Most of its security agencies (especially) have pathetically constituted themselves into the sinkhole of constitutionalism, Rule of Law and sacred human rights of great Nigerian Citizens.

32. THE CASE AGAINST YOU:
33. Sir, the case against you in all these well-carefully itemised instances of disobedience to Court Orders and Human Rights abuses by different State Actors, is that there is no iota of evidence on record that you have lifted a finger to intervene by advising the concerned agencies to uphold the dignity of our Constitution which is the foundation of our society [especially for them to comply with these Court Orders]. No such recorded evidence exists anywhere and I challenge you to prove me wrong by producing one to Nigerians. What this comes to is that you are very comfortable to sit in your hallowed chambers and watch our Constitution thrown to the dogs and the dignity of our Courts basterdised. It equally means that you are very comfortable with the kind of decadent precedent that all these acts of outlawry and brigandage would [in their aggregate] foist on our future democracy. These summations are indeed unanswerable since finding otherwise would certainly amount to eyewash.

34. END:
35. Given the nature and gravity of the issues under consideration, it becomes imperative to call to mind the salient observations most ably offered by a former Chief Justice of Nigeria [Atanda Fatai-Williams. CJN] in State v. Ilori, where he rightly stated;
36. “For all these reasons, it cannot be too strongly stressed that this pre¬eminent position of the Attorney-General with respect to criminal pro-ceedings in our Constitution carries with it grave and onerous responsibi-lity which should not be discharged with levity. Because of this, it is of paramount importance that when an Attorney-General is being appoin¬ted, the appointor should, at all times, bear in mind the integrity, ability, experience, and maturity required of the person holding this high and important office. He should be a person who, in the discharge of his duties, will always "have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and to the need to prevent any abuse of legal process."
37. Sir, as the tenure of the government you presently serve gradually winds up its activities, you may find it expedient to cast aside the seductive veils of political considerations and sentiments and approach the content of this letter with the spirit of a patriot who should always stand ready to “defend his country against his government.” As for whatever backlash that might befall me for my courage to address you on these important issues of our realm, I take refuge in the protection of God Almighty who inspired the legendary Thomas Paine to declare that “if there must be trouble, let it be in my own day so that my child may have peace.” I find here a convenient place to stop.
38. Sir, do graciously accept the firm assurances of my highest regards.

39. Yours in preservation of democracy,

40. JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

Source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1447559601969092

1. OPEN LETTER TO MR. ABUBAKAR MALAMI: OUR DEAR ATTORNEY-GENERAL, IMPUNITY IS INCREASINGLY DEFINING YOUR TENURE.

2. Dear Sir,
3. I bring you warmest greetings from the constituents and Apostles of Rule of Law and Constitutionalism in Nigeria.
4. Sir, there is no other time in our recent history when executive lawlessness, characterized by flagrant disobedience to sacred orders of court , has dominated the platform of public discuss and boggled the minds of Democrats more than the present time in which the government to which you act as its Chief Law Officer holds sway. This position will shortly be vindicated and fortified by statistical evidence which shall be marshaled out in the course of this letter.
5. The soul of this letter is donated by the large-scale impunity, confounding executive recklessness, flagrant abuse of power, inexplicable disobedience to sacred orders of our courts by persons and authorities currently exercising the plenitude and amplitude of powers of the Federal Government of Nigeria under the subsisting Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is supposedly binding on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is the unfortunate reality that this most sacred document [the Constitution], which ordinarily ought to be enjoying pervading bindingness on all government functionaries, is suffering untold humiliation and unprecedented desecration in the hands of different government agencies, authorities and functionaries of the government you are meant to advise that necessitated this urgent public letter to your person.
6. REASONS FOR THE LETTER:
7. My reasons for writing you are understandably manifold but for economy of space, I would scale it down to three. Like a Lady’s skirt, this urgent letter of grave concern promises to be short enough to be attractive but equally long enough to cover all the essential parts of the issues under scrutiny.
8. First and foremost, [by the infinite mercies and grace of God Almighty] I am a proud member of this most honourable profession on this planet earth, the legal profession, just as your good yourself. And it is hardly disputable that the future of democracy in every civilised society lies on the shoulders of lawyers.
9. Secondly, the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation is recognised as a great historic office that places its occupier in the rare position of the “Keeper of the King’s conscience”, the Chief Law Officer/Legal Adviser not only to the President of the Nation alone but equally the entire Federal Government with all the Ministries, Departments and Agencies thereunder. Added to these super responsibilities, by the ancient and ever-unbroken tradition of our profession, you are rightly acclaimed the “Leader of the Bar.”
10. The third crucial reason for this urgent letter is the lessons of precedents. The pre-eminent and incontestable position of the Attorney-General, under the common law, as the chief law officer of the State, either generally as a legal adviser or specially in all court proceedings to which the State is a party, has long been recognised by the courts[State v. Ilori (1983) 2 S.C. 155]. The enormous powers bestowed on you by our Constitution have been acknowledged as a great ministerial prerogative coupled with grave responsibilities. It follows therefore that however you decide to exercise these awesome powers donated to your office today will definitely form a precedent for the future. Whether your manner of discharging the duties of your office today might be adjudged a bad or good precedent belongs to posterity and should therefore be of great concern to you.
11. STATISTICS OF DISOBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDERS
12. Sir, not long after you were sworn in as the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Federal High Court of Nigeria [Abuja Division, presided over by the Honourable Justice A.F.A. Ademola], delivered a Ruling ordering the Department of State Security to release Mr. Nnamdi Kanu [the Leader of the separatist Indigenous People of Biafra] on bail [unconditionally] on the 17th December, 2015. That Court Order was disobeyed by the Department of State Security [otherwise known as the DSS] who by our Constitutional structuring are under the ultimate command of the President as per his pre-eminent position as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
13. Secondly, it is no longer news that the High Court of Federal Capital Territory [per, the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf] granted bail to the former national security adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). The same Court equally granted him bail [per, the Honourable Justice Afen] in another charge brought against him by the Federal Government. Sometime in January, 2017, the same F.C.T. High Court, presided over by the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf was moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji, SAN to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki. Again in April, 2017, the Federal High Court [sitting in Abuja, per the Honourable Justice Ahmed Mohammed] was similarly moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji [Dasuki’s Counsel] to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki by the said Court since 2015. On the 4th October, 2016, the Court of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, declared the arrest and detention of former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, as unlawful and arbitrary. The court also held that the further arrest of Mr. Dasuki by government on November 4, after he was granted bail by a court of law, amounts to a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. Up to the present moment, Mr. Dasuki still remains in the custody of the DSS. On the 16th May, 2017, the State Security Service [otherwise known as DSS] took their impunity and bewildering insolence for the Courts to a higher level when it refused to produce Mr. Dasuki for his trial before the FCT High Court. All that Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN [the Prosecution counsel] could tell Justice Baba Yusuf was that he was surprised that the former NSA was not within the court premises for the continuation of his trial but however could not go any further. Off course, this did not go down well with the Defence team led by Joseph Daudu, SAN who quickly informed the court that the Prosecutor’s response was unhelpful.
14. SHEIKH IBRAHIM EL-ZAKZAKY RELEASE ORDER:
15. On 13th December, 2015, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky was arrested by Nigerian State Actors and was kept in the custody of the DSS until the 2nd day of December, 2016 when the Federal High Court [Abuja Division, presided over by the Honourable Justice Gabriel Kolawole] ordered the Federal Government to provide an accommodation for El-Zakzaky, his wife and family members within Kaduna State or any part of the northern region. The court declared the continuous detention of El-Zakzaky since December 13, 2015 as unlawful and illegal since the issue of protective custody was unknown to law or the National Security Agencies Act establishing the DSS. The court further awarded the cost of 25 Million Naira as general damages to be paid to Ibrahim El-Zakzaky who must be released unconditionally to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) within 45 days. The Inspector-General of Police was equally ordered to convey El-Zakzaky and his wife to the accommodation provided by the government. The court also awarded 25m damages to Mrs Zakzaky, making a cumulative of 50 Million Naira as general damages. Since the 2nd day of December, 2016 up to the present moment, the DSS has not obeyed that Court Order. On the contrary, the DSS have continued to detain Ibrahim El-Zakzaky. The said order of the Court has equally not been stayed, vacated nor successfully challenged and upturned on appeal.
16. LAWYERS IN DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY PROTEST AGAINST IMPUNITY:
17. On the 31st October, 2016, a mammoth crowd of lawyers under the aegis of Lawyers in Defence of Democracy staged a protest that shook the heart of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. According to media sources, the Convener of the Group, Ikenga Ugochinyere, Esq., stated the purpose of protest thus;
a. “We Lawyers in Defence of Democracy and Citizens for Good Governance reject the call for the judges, whose homes were invaded by the DSS, to step aside as heeding the call will be a victory for tyranny and gradual return to Kokoma democracy. We dissociate ourselves from such call. That the DSS and other agencies release from detention all Nigerians who have been granted bail by the courts and who have fulfilled their bail conditions including compliance with all judgments and orders. Their continuous hold of such persons is an affront on the authority of the judiciary, dictatorial and a desecration of the fundamental democratic principle of separation of powers. The Executive cannot be prosecutor and judge at the same time... A country where a man can secure bail four times for the same charges and you still detain him is lawless. A country where a judge will grant bail on bailable offences and the person involved is then arrested on phantom corruption charges because he ruled against the whims and caprices of persons in government is a lawless country.”
18. It is noted in passing that the protesters among other key institutions, equally marched to your office on the day of the said protest. Also of interest is the fact that the Convener of the Group has been in detention ever since up to the present moment without a criminal charge formally filed against him before any Court of the land.
19. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHS IN:
20. On Thursday, the 26th day of January, 2017, the Federal House of Representatives, resolved to urge the Executive arm to direct security agencies to obey court orders, especially those relating to bail and production of accused persons in Court for trials; and mandate the Committee on Human Rights and Justice to investigate cases of detention of accused persons beyond the statutory period in contravention of subsisting Court Orders granting them bail, failure to release or produce accused persons in Court for trial and prevail on the offending agencies to ensure their releases and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action. Interestingly, on the same legislative day, the Federal House of Representatives considered and adopted a motion titled “Need to check persistent Fundamental Human Rights Breaches and Acts of Impunity by Security Agencies”. After a robust and wide-ranging debate on the Motion, the House noted that the Chapter Four of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, guarantee, among others, rights to peaceful assembly, personal liberty and freedom of movement but concerned about the rising cases of violation of those rights; also noted the air of impunity with which the personnel of the security agencies treat citizens and the worrisome tendencies to disobey court orders; concerned about the recent arrest and detention, on 22nd December, 2016, of some members of Civil Society Organisations, such as Lawyers in Defence of Democracy, National Youth Council of Nigeria and Citizens for Good Governance by the State Security Service for allegedly planning a peaceful protest and they have remained in detention for over 29 days since their arrests without being charged to Court or released. The House resolved, among others, to mandate the Committee on Human Rights, Police Affairs, National Security and Intelligence and Justice to investigate this incident and all other cases of unlawful arrests and detention of citizens and disobedience of Court Orders since June, 2015 and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action.
21. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA WEIGHS IN:
22. When he appeared before the Nigerian Senate for his confirmation, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, on the 1st of March, 2017 roundly condemned the rampant cases of disobedience to Court Orders. Fielding questions from the lawmakers, the CJN said the challenge of disobedience to court orders “is for the legislature and the executive to handle.” He said the judiciary would welcome that day that court judgments would be respected and carried out after exhaustion of the right of appeal. That will mean the independence of the judiciary, he added. If rulings are not respected, the judge continued, they would just be “mere piece of paper.” “Anyway, disobedience of court order is an act of impunity,” he said.
23. WARNINGS OF OUR COURTS:
24. The Nigerian Court of Appeal in the memorable case of Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 at 538 Paras.C- E, 564-565 Paras.B – G, has this to say on disobedience to sacred Orders of Court;
25. “An order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or highly placed in society. An act of disobedience towards an order of a court can render any further act by those who have acted disobediently to sanctions from other court because no court would want its orders flouted. This is what the rule of law is all about hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience of court orders…Obeying court orders is both legal and moral obligation but you find that court orders are toyed with both by lawyers and the litigating public. Indeed for the politicians, the rule of law is non-existing until it suits their purpose, and it is only then it is observed to the letter. Without a strict adherence to the rule of law, our nascent democracy and indeed our Constitution will only be worth the paper on which it is written. What makes a great country is adherence to the rule of law. Even in hell, there is order and discipline.”
26. Indeed, all the existing Supreme Court authorities lean heavily in support of the long-established postulation that disobedience of Court Order (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction. Condemning this cancerous vice, the Supreme Court, in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, had these unkind words for those who disobey Court orders (contemnors);
27. “I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society”
28. To cap it all, the Constitution by its Section 287 (3) lucidly provides in the very words which I would now most respectfully reproduce;
29. “The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively”
30. SUMMATION:
31. What patently emerges from the concatenation of the instances of executive impunity and lawlessness most dispassionately surveyed above comes to the ineluctable conclusion that the present Federal Government of Nigeria, which you are saddled with the onerous duty to offer sound legal advice, has most unfortunately fallen into the cesspit of tyranny, lawlessness and impunity. Most of its security agencies (especially) have pathetically constituted themselves into the sinkhole of constitutionalism, Rule of Law and sacred human rights of great Nigerian Citizens.
32. THE CASE AGAINST YOU:
33. Sir, the case against you in all these well-carefully itemised instances of disobedience to Court Orders and Human Rights abuses by different State Actors, is that there is no iota of evidence on record that you have lifted a finger to intervene by advising the concerned agencies to uphold the dignity of our Constitution which is the foundation of our society [especially for them to comply with these Court Orders]. No such recorded evidence exists anywhere and I challenge you to prove me wrong by producing one to Nigerians. What this comes to is that you are very comfortable to sit in your hallowed chambers and watch our Constitution thrown to the dogs and the dignity of our Courts basterdised. It equally means that you are very comfortable with the kind of decadent precedent that all these acts of outlawry and brigandage would [in their aggregate] foist on our future democracy. These summations are indeed unanswerable since finding otherwise would certainly amount to eyewash.
34. END:
35. Given the nature and gravity of the issues under consideration, it becomes imperative to call to mind the salient observations most ably offered by a former Chief Justice of Nigeria [Atanda Fatai-Williams. CJN] in State v. Ilori, where he rightly stated;
36. “For all these reasons, it cannot be too strongly stressed that this pre¬eminent position of the Attorney-General with respect to criminal pro-ceedings in our Constitution carries with it grave and onerous responsibi-lity which should not be discharged with levity. Because of this, it is of paramount importance that when an Attorney-General is being appoin¬ted, the appointor should, at all times, bear in mind the integrity, ability, experience, and maturity required of the person holding this high and important office. He should be a person who, in the discharge of his duties, will always "have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and to the need to prevent any abuse of legal process."
37. Sir, as the tenure of the government you presently serve gradually winds up its activities, you may find it expedient to cast aside the seductive veils of political considerations and sentiments and approach the content of this letter with the spirit of a patriot who should always stand ready to “defend his country against his government.” As for whatever backlash that might befall me for my courage to address you on these important issues of our realm, I take refuge in the protection of God Almighty who inspired the legendary Thomas Paine to declare that “if there must be trouble, let it be in my own day so that my child may have peace.” I find here a convenient place to stop.
38. Sir, do graciously accept the firm assurances of my highest regards.

39. Yours in preservation of democracy,

40. JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

1. OPEN LETTER TO MR. ABUBAKAR MALAMI: OUR DEAR ATTORNEY-GENERAL, IMPUNITY IS INCREASINGLY DEFINING YOUR TENURE.

2. Dear Sir,
3. I bring you warmest greetings from the constituents and Apostles of Rule of Law and Constitutionalism in Nigeria.
4. Sir, there is no other time in our recent history when executive lawlessness, characterized by flagrant disobedience to sacred orders of court , has dominated the platform of public discuss and boggled the minds of Democrats more than the present time in which the government to which you act as its Chief Law Officer holds sway. This position will shortly be vindicated and fortified by statistical evidence which shall be marshaled out in the course of this letter.

5. The soul of this letter is donated by the large-scale impunity, confounding executive recklessness, flagrant abuse of power, inexplicable disobedience to sacred orders of our courts by persons and authorities currently exercising the plenitude and amplitude of powers of the Federal Government of Nigeria under the subsisting Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is supposedly binding on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is the unfortunate reality that this most sacred document [the Constitution], which ordinarily ought to be enjoying pervading bindingness on all government functionaries, is suffering untold humiliation and unprecedented desecration in the hands of different government agencies, authorities and functionaries of the government you are meant to advise that necessitated this urgent public letter to your person.

6. REASONS FOR THE LETTER:

7. My reasons for writing you are understandably manifold but for economy of space, I would scale it down to three. Like a Lady’s skirt, this urgent letter of grave concern promises to be short enough to be attractive but equally long enough to cover all the essential parts of the issues under scrutiny.
8. First and foremost, [by the infinite mercies and grace of God Almighty] I am a proud member of this most honourable profession on this planet earth, the legal profession, just as your good yourself. And it is hardly disputable that the future of democracy in every civilised society lies on the shoulders of lawyers.
9. Secondly, the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation is recognised as a great historic office that places its occupier in the rare position of the “Keeper of the King’s conscience”, the Chief Law Officer/Legal Adviser to not only to the President of the Nation alone but equally the entire Federal Government with all the Ministries, Departments and Agencies thereunder. Added to these super responsibilities, by the ancient and ever-unbroken tradition of our profession, you are rightly acclaimed the “Leader of the Bar.”
10. The third crucial reason for this urgent letter is the lessons of precedents. The pre-eminent and incontestable position of the Attorney-General, under the common law, as the chief law officer of the State, either generally as a legal adviser or specially in all court proceedings to which the State is a party, has long been recognised by the courts[State v. Ilori (1983) 2 S.C. 155]. The enormous powers bestowed on you by our Constitution have been acknowledged as a great ministerial prerogative coupled with grave responsibilities. It follows therefore that however you decide to exercise these awesome powers donated to your office today will definitely form a precedent for the future. Whether your manner of discharging the duties of your office today might be adjudged a bad or good precedent belongs to posterity and should therefore be of great concern to you.

11. STATISTICS OF DISOBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDERS
12. Sir, not long after you were sworn in as the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Federal High Court of Nigeria [Abuja Division, presided over the Honourable Justice A.F.A. Ademola], delivered a Ruling ordering the Department of State Security to release Mr. Nnamdi Kanu [the Leader of the separatist Indigenous People of Biafra] on bail [unconditionally] on the 17th December, 2015. That Court Order was disobeyed by the Department of State Security [otherwise known as the DSS] who by our Constitutional structuring are under the ultimate command of the President as per his pre-eminent position as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
13. Secondly, it is no longer news that the High Court of Federal Capital Territory [per, the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf] granted bail to the former national security adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). The same Court equally granted after him bail [per, the Honourable Justice Afen] in another charge brought against him by the Federal Government. Sometime in January, 2017, the same F.C.T. High Court, presided over by the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf was moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji, SAN to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki. Again in April, 2017, the Federal High Court [sitting in Abuja, per the Honourable Justice Ahmed Mohammed] was similarly moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji [Dasuki’s Counsel] to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki by the said Court since 2015. On the 4th October, 2016, the Court of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, declared the arrest and detention of former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, as unlawful and arbitrary. The court also held that the further arrest of Mr. Dasuki by government on November 4, after he was granted bail by a court of law, amounts to a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. Up to the present moment, Mr. Dasuki still remains in the custody of the DSS. On the 16th May, 2017, the State Security Service [otherwise known as DSS] took their impunity and bewildering insolence for the Courts to a higher level when it refused to produce Mr. Dasuki for his trial before the FCT High Court. All that Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN [the Prosecution counsel] could tell Justice Baba Yusuf was that he was surprised that the former NSA was not within the court premises for the continuation of his trial but however could not go any further. Off course, this did not go down well with the Defence team led by Joseph Daudu, SAN who quickly informed the court that the Prosecutor’s response was unhelpful.

14. SHEIKH IBRAHIM EL-ZAKZAKY RELEASE ORDER:
15. On 13th December, 2015, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky was arrested by Nigerian State Actors and was kept in the custody of the DSS until the 2nd day of December, 2016 when the Federal High Court [Abuja Division, presided over by the Honourable Justice Gabriel Kolawole] ordered the Federal Government to provide an accommodation for El-Zakzaky, his wife and family members within Kaduna State or any part of the northern region. The court declared the continuous detention of El-Zakzaky since December 13, 2015 as unlawful and illegal since the issue of protective custody was unknown to law or the National Security Agencies Act establishing the DSS. The court further awarded the cost of 25 Million Naira as general damages to be paid to Ibrahim El-Zakzaky who must be released unconditionally to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) within 45 days. The Inspector-General of Police was equally ordered to convey El-Zakzaky and his wife to the accommodation provided by the government. The court also awarded 25m damages to Mrs Zakzaky, making a cumulative of 50 Million Naira as general damages. Since the 2nd day of December, 2016 up to the present moment, the DSS has not obeyed that Court Order. On the contrary, the DSS have continued to detain Ibrahim El-Zakzaky. The said order of the Court has equally not been stayed, vacated nor successfully challenged and upturned on appeal.

16. LAWYERS IN DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY PROTEST AGAINST IMPUNITY:
17. On the 31st October, 2016, a mammoth crowd of lawyers under the aegis of Lawyers in Defence of Democracy staged a protest that shook the heart of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. According media sources, the Convener of the Group, Ikenga Ugochinyere, Esq., stated the purpose of protest thus;
a. “We Lawyers in Defence of Democracy and Citizens for Good Governance reject the call for the judges, whose homes were invaded by the DSS, to step aside as heeding the call will be a victory for tyranny and gradual return to Kokoma democracy. We dissociate ourselves from such call. That the DSS and other agencies release from detention all Nigerians who have been granted bail by the courts and who have fulfilled their bail conditions including compliance with all judgments and orders. Their continuous hold of such persons is an affront on the authority of the judiciary, dictatorial and a desecration of the fundamental democratic principle of separation of powers. The Executive cannot be prosecutor and judge at the same time... A country where a man can secure bail four times for the same charges and you still detain him is lawless. A country where a judge will grant bail on bailable offences and the person involved is then arrested on phantom corruption charges because he ruled against the whims and caprices of persons in government is a lawless country.”
18. It is noted in passing that the protesters among other key institutions, equally marched to your office on the day of the said protest. Also of interest is the fact that the Convener of the Group has been in the detention ever since up to the present moment without a criminal charge formally filed against him before any Court of the land.

19. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHS IN:
20. On Thursday, the 26th day of January, 2017, the Federal House of Representatives, resolved to urge the Executive arm to direct security agencies to obey court orders, especially those relating to bail and production of accused persons in Court for trials; and mandate the Committee on Human Rights and Justice to investigate cases of detention of accused persons beyond the statutory period in contravention of subsisting Court Orders granting them bail, failure to release or produce accused persons in Court for trial and prevail on the offending agencies to ensure their releases and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action. Interestingly, on the same legislative day, the Federal House of Representatives considered and adopted a motion titled “Need to check persistent Fundamental Human Rights Breached and Acts of Impunity by Security Agencies”. After a robust and wide-ranging debate on the Motion, the House noted that the Chapter Four of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, guarantee, among others, rights to peaceful assembly, personal liberty and freedom of movement but concerned about the rising cases of violation of those rights; also noted the air of impunity with which the personnel of the security agencies treat citizens and the worrisome tendencies to disobey court orders; concerned about the recent arrest and detention, on 22nd December, 2016, of some members of Civil Society Organisations, such as Lawyers in Defence of Democracy, National Youth Council of Nigeria and Citizens for Good Governance by the State Security Service for allegedly planning a peaceful protest and they have remained in detention for over 29 days since their arrests without being charged to Court or released. The House resolved, among others, to mandate the Committee on Human Rights, Police Affairs, National Security and Intelligence and Justice to investigate this incident and all other cases of unlawful arrests and detention of citizens and disobedience of Court Orders since June, 2015 and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action.

21. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA WEIGHS IN:
22. When he appeared before the Nigerian Senate for his confirmation, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, on the 1st of March, 2017 roundly condemned the rampant cases of disobedience to Court Orders. Fielding questions from the lawmakers, the CJN said the challenge of disobedience to court orders “is for the legislature and the executive to handle.” He said the judiciary would welcome that day that court judgments would be respected and carried out after exhaustion of the right of appeal. That will mean the independence of the judiciary, he added. If rulings are not respected, the judge continued, they would just be “mere piece of paper.” “Anyway, disobedience of court order is an act of impunity,” he said.

23. WARNINGS OF OUR COURTS:
24. The Nigerian Court of Appeal in the memorable case of Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 at 538 Paras.C- E, 564-565 Paras.B – G, has this to say on disobedience to sacred Orders of Court;
25. “An order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or highly placed in society. An act of disobedience towards an order of a court can render any further act by those who have acted disobediently to sanctions from other court because no court would want its orders flouted. This is what the rule of law is all about hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience of court orders…Obeying court orders is both legal and moral obligation but you find that court orders are toyed with both by lawyers and the litigating public. Indeed for the politicians, the rule of law is non-existing until it suits their purpose, and it is only then it is observed to the letter. Without a strict adherence to the rule of law, our nascent democracy and indeed our Constitution will only be worth the paper on which it is written. What makes a great country is adherence to the rule of law. Even in hell, there is order and discipline.”
26. Indeed, all the existing Supreme Court authorities lean heavily in support of the long-established postulation that disobedience of Court Order (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction. Condemning this cancerous vice, the Supreme Court, in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, had these unkind words for those who disobey Court orders (contemnors);
27. “I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society”
28. To cap it all, the Constitution by its Section lucidly provides in the very words which I would now most respectfully reproduce;
29. “The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively”

30. SUMMATION:
31. What patently emerges from the concatenation of the instances of executive impunity and lawlessness most dispassionately surveyed above comes to the ineluctable conclusion that the present Federal Government of Nigeria, which you are saddled with the onerous duty to offer sound legal advice, has most unfortunately fallen into the cesspit of tyranny, lawlessness and impunity. Most of its security agencies (especially) have pathetically constituted themselves into the sinkhole of constitutionalism, Rule of Law and sacred human rights of great Nigerian Citizens.
32. THE CASE AGAINST YOU:
33. Sir, the case against you in all these well-carefully itemised instances of disobedience to Court Orders and Human Rights abuses by different State Actors, is that there is no evidence iota of on record that you have lifted a finger to intervene by advising the concerned agencies to uphold the dignity of our Constitution which the foundation of our society. No such recorded evidence exists anywhere and I challenge you to prove me wrong by producing one. What this comes to is that you are very comfortable that sit in your hallowed chambers and watch our Constitution thrown to the dogs and the dignity of our Courts basterdised. It equally means that you are very comfortable with the kind of decadent precedent that all these acts of outlawry and brigandage would [in their aggregate] foist on our future democracy. These summations are indeed unanswerable since finding otherwise would certainly amount to eyewash.
34. END:
35. Given the nature and gravity of the issues under consideration, it becomes imperative to call to mind the salient observations most ably offered by a former Chief Justice of Nigeria [Atanda Fatai-Williams. CJN] in State v. Ilori, where he rightly stated;
36. “For all these reasons, it cannot be too strongly stressed that this pre¬eminent position of the Attorney-General with respect to criminal pro-ceedings in our Constitution carries with it grave and onerous responsibi-lity which should not be discharged with levity. Because of this, it is of paramount importance that when an Attorney-General is being appoin¬ted, the appointor should, at all times, bear in mind the integrity, ability, experience, and maturity required of the person holding this high and important office. He should be a person who, in the discharge of his duties, will always "have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and to the need to prevent any abuse of legal process."
37. Sir, as the tenure of the government you presently serve gradually winds up its activities, you may find it expedient to cast aside the seductive veils of political considerations and sentiments and approach the content of this letter with the spirit of a patriot who should always stand ready to “defend his country against his government.” As for whatever backlash that might befall me for my courage to address you on this important issues of our realm, I take refuge in the protection of God Almighty who inspired the legendary Thomas Paine to declare that “if there must be trouble, let it be in my own day so that child may have peace.”. I find here a convenient place to stop.
38. Sir, do graciously accept the firm assurances of my highest regards.

39. Yours in preservation of democracy,

40. JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

Quite SAD.... Medical negligence with grave legal repercussions if logically pursued.

As an attorney, I hereby put my legal services at the disposal of the bereaved family for FREE.

If they are interested,

they should reach out through this dedicated email address for prompt legal attention: truedemocracyfornigeria@gmail.com

May the Good Lord grant the bereaved family the fortitude to bear this irreversible loss.

And to the dead, may Our Blessed Lord gracious grant her departed soul a kind admittance into His Kingdom and rest her soul.

See what Barrister Ezeugwu Okike Wrote on Nnamdi Kanu, whom he describes as a "Scounrdel".


A TALE OF TWO CASES
( Between Madiba and Kanu)
.
It has been my unflinching opinion that Nnamdi Kanu's job was paradoxically being done by the federal government. The FG, albeit unwittingly, galvanized and supported the separatist movement more than the separatists themselves.
.
This began when Kanu willingly delivered himself for arrest. It got intense as his detention prolonged. He became the symbol of a repressed movement for freedom and self-determination. It got more intense when he was first granted bail . The FG unwisely demurred, electing not to respect the order of a competent court. Kanu was rearrested and unfairly exposed to a second jeopardy. Buhari himself went on air and derided his bail as preposterous. That was an egregious and nettling display of impunity that angered many.
.
To add fuel to the fire, those who staged a peaceful protest to demand that the court order be obeyed were answered with live bullets and others imprisoned en masse.
.
Those unwise strides by the FG did more for the movement than a thousand boycotts and marches and strikes. They automatically forged the image a freedom warrior combating gigantic forces of oppression and needing the empathy of the humane and civilized world. The intimidating crowed of men and women and children that were out to register their solidarity with his course passed a strong message across. It became plain that something formidable was in the offing.
.
Again his detention made it possible for another dangerous rat to escape. The FG betrayed its phobia for the young man. His followers came to the bolstering knowledge that his impact was being enormously dreaded. They came to see him as the man who has what it demands to untie the Gordian knot and split the red sea asunder.
.
Igbo intellectuals and leaders of thought had watched the drama with sleepy aloofness. Many did not wish to take a leap into the swing of a movement they still regarded suspiciously. But watching their own being unlawfully goaled by an iron tyrant, a sentiment resembling patriotism was bestirred. The time for consuming the tranquilizing drug of non committal passed.
.
People of substance and influence began to visit him in prison Charles Soludo crowned him a prisoner of conscience . Others saluted his courage and openly decried the lawless leaning of the FG. Our political leaders were the next to follow cue. South Eastern governors held a closet talk with Buhari on his account. The opposition party cashed in on his illegal detention to profitably rouse the rabble. Those produced a groundswell of discontent and constructive restiveness . This climaxed a fever pitch as Kanu awaited trial in detention. The FG continued to cut its nose to spite its face -- to separate a country it had vowed loudly to keep together.
.
But Kanu is not a convinced man. He is not a fit horse in this vigorous race for freedom. This explains why he accepted and even fulfilled some of the conditions that collectively amounted to a total abdication of the struggle. He accepted not to be seen in a gathering of more than ten. He consented not to hold rallies and gave up his passports. He acquiesced to these crippling conditions and abandoned his comrades to waste away in jail. That was unmanly and dishonourable; a deathstroke on a movement that luxuriately flourished in his absence.
.
Kanu is not sick. He may have suffered from a psychological condition called homesickness but physiologically speaking he wasn't unwell. I don't know if you watched a video made as he walked out of prison. He had visible vim and vigor. He was strutting with the agility of a sprinter. Illness was a technical lie invented by his lawyers to ground his liberty. We are talking about Kanu who at the height of the homesickness that plagued his days in Kuji prison offered to apologize to Buhari, telling those who bothered to listen that he only spoke with his cheek in his tongue.
.
Compare this to what Nelson Mandela did in 1985 after having spent 22years in prison. Madiba and other black nationalists were offered freedom by Pieter W. Botha on the conditions that they renounce violence as a means of fighting apartheid and agree to obey the country's internal laws. Great Madiba was shrewd enough to reject the Greek gift knowing that his continuous detention rapidly destroyed apartheid while his release upon compromising conditions would be a deathstroke. He went on to spend another 5 years in terrible servitude. Was Madiba healthy throughout the 27 years he spent in prison? No, he was intermittently attacked by bouts of illnesses.
.
Now a sick Kanu is visiting and consulting with politicians! The same lukewarm and traitorous politicians of the Zoo Republic? The same politicians on whom the blackest adjectives were plentifully poured? Remember that he is yet to visit the families of the innocents who died agitating for his release. This is heartless and insensitive and betraying.
.
This is a juxtaposition of two cases. In Madiba's case I saw a firm and unwavering agitator willing to yield up his life. In Kanu's case I see a scammer with filled pockets gleefully leaving all perils and drooling only at the benefits.

https://web.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=613749325490716&id=100005669615824

Please,

Any member of the family of the dead person or relatives or any person who can volunteer any useful information regarding this unfortunate

incident should quickly and kindly reach out to me us: truedemocracyfornigeria@gmail.com for immediate FREE legal redress so as to seek justice


for the dead and adequate compensation of the bereaved.

And may the soul of the departed find eternal solace and rest in the bosom of our Heavenly Father, Amen.

Please,

Any member of the family of the dead person or relatives or any person who can useful information regarding this unfortunate incident should

quickly and kindly reach out to me us: truedemocracyfornigeria@gmail.com for immediate FREE legal redress so as to seek justice for the dead

and adequate compensation of the bereaved.

Cc: Lalasticlala, Seun, Tonybacanister

RETHINKING THE INDIVISIBILITY OF THE NIGERIAN UNION: A CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY

EXORDIUM:
We find it a good starting point to point out that this constitutional reflection owes its provenance to the interview granted by no less a person than the British High Commissioner to Nigeria, His Excellency, Mr. Paul Arkwright in Kogi State of Nigeria where he was said to have delivered a public lecture on the topic: Brexit: Lessons, Challenges and Opportunities for Nigeria at the Federal University, Lokoja, on Thursday, 6th April, 2017. Asked about the position of Britain on the groups pushing for independence from Nigeria, the envoy said the UK remained firm in its support for one Nigeria. Of a truth, more than any other time in our recent history as a nation, the call for the balkanization of the Nigerian State, championed by different secessionist groups [notably the Indigenous People of Biafra, henceforth referred to as IPOB in this article], has become deafening. While this article is not concerned with the question whether or not the cries of the agitators are meritorious, it seeks on the contrary, to determine whether such secessionist agitations have a place or could possibly find expressions within the orbit of Nigerian extant laws especially in view of the Constitutional provision that affirms the indissolubility of the Nigerian Federation. Put more correctly, the principal focus of this piece is to determine whether, under existing Nigerian laws, the entreaties of IPOB secessionists [for the dissolution of the Nigerian Nation] is ever grantable.

RELEVANT CLARIFICATION:
Before moving any further, I hasten to note that I do not sincerely belief that I need to break away from the Nigerian nation for my fortunes to look brighter. In other words, I hold the considered view that dividing Nigeria into different countries is not any guarantee that our problems facing us individually and collectively as a people will vanish. It is rather my take that it is my right to remain in this Nigerian contraption and fulfill my dreams, enjoy all the benefits and privileges attaching to any citizen of this great country without my ethnicity and or religious leaning standing in my way as an impediment. Indeed that is the quiddity of section 42 of the Nigerian Constitution which lucidly affirms that;

“1. A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person:-
a. be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or
b. be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.
2. No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.”

THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF NIGERIA:
The preamble to the Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [referred to as the constitution henceforth in this piece] magisterially proclaims as follows;
“We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Having firmly and solemnly resolved, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God,…”

The above provision reminds this writer of one short episode that took place in one of his Criminal Law classes as a 3rd year Law student at the Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. In his usual interactive manner of lecturing, the Late Professor G.O.S. Amadi [May his soul rest in peace] asked his students this question: “Who can tell me the first lie in the Nigerian Constitution”. This writer quickly volunteered an answer which was approved as very correct by the Late Professor. My answer was: “We the people”. No doubt, by this provision, there is a consensus among numerous stakeholders in the Nigerian Project that the Amended 1999 Constitution most shamefully lied about itself.
No doubt, that much-criticised phrase aims at underscoring the sovereignty of the Nigerian Nation. Concededly, there is no argument that sovereignty is a foundational topic in the field of International law. However, as rigid and important as this concept is, it still admits of some recognised exceptions. It is therefore not immutable and cannot as a result be construed in absolute terms. In other words, sovereignty of states under international law is not cast in iron. The statement this writer is struggling to make is to the effect that in the exercise of the sovereign powers bestowed on it, the Nigerian State or indeed any other country can limit its own sovereignty or surrender a part of same. The truth as it stands today is that the Nigerian nation has, out of her own volition, whittled down and surrendered part of her sovereignty which enables any part or section thereof to secede when they so decide. Let me explain.

I choose to start with the position in England as recorded in their legal history. In the case of Blackburn vs. Attorney-General, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [1971] EWCA Civ J0510-2, [1971] 1 WLR 1037 where Mr. Blackburn was concerned about the application of Her Majesty's Government to join the Common Market and to sign the Treaty of Rome. He brought two actions against the Attorney-General, in which he sought declarations to the effect that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, Her Majesty's Government will surrender in part the sovereignty of The Crown in Parliament and will surrender it forever. He stridently canvassed the view that in so doing the Government will be acting in breach of the law. Mr. Blackburn pointed out that many regulations made by the European Economic Community will become automatically binding on the people of Great Britain: and that all the Courts of Great Britain, including the House of Lords, will have to follow the decisions of the European Court in certain defined respects, such as the construction of the Treaty. Mr. Blackburn referred the English Court of Appeal to a decision by the Court of Common Market Costa v. E. N. E. L. ( 1964 Common Market Law Reports, 425) in February, 1964, in which the European Court in its judgment said that:
".….the member states, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves".
In coming to their decision, the majority of the Court of Appeal, England (Lord Denning dissenting) reasoned and held that the power to enter into Treaties was itself a power of the Crown acting on advice from ministers. It was not open to challenge that power in the courts.

THE POSITION WITH THE NIGERIA STATE
We now turn to the Nigerian judicial authorities. There is no doubt that the Nigerian Head of State (President) has the powers to enter into treaties with foreign nations (both bilateral and multilateral) which binds the whole Nigerian nation. Section 12 of the Amended 1999 Constitution has laid down the procedure for the domestication of such treaties as a condition precedent to their activation as a law in Nigeria. There is no question regarding the bindingness of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (providing among others for the right to self-determination) on the Nigerian nation. Equally true is the fact that not only that Nigeria is a signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Nigerian Parliament has entrenched the said Charter as part of the corpus juris of the country by way of domestication in compliance with the dictates of section 12 of the Constitution earlier referred to. Be it noted that Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right most lucidly proclaims in clear language that:

“All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.”

As earlier stated, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right became part of Nigerian laws by virtue of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act), Cap 10, Laws of the Federation (LFN), 1990. The status of this very important legislation fell for interpretation before the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of Abacha vs. Fawehinmi (2001) 51 WRN 29; (2000) 6 NWLR 228, (2002) 3 LRC 296, (2001) 1 CHR 95. In answering that crucial question, Ogundare, J.S.C. (of blessed memory) delivering the lead judgment of the full panel of the Nigerian Supreme Court had this to say:

“Where, however, the treaty is enacted into law by the National Assembly, as was the case with the African Charter which is incorporated into our municipal (i.e. domestic) law by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 (hereinafter is referred to simply as Cap. 10), it becomes binding and our Courts must give effect to it like all other laws falling within the Judicial power of the Courts. By Cap. 10 the African Charter is now part of the laws of Nigeria and like all other laws the Courts must uphold it. The Charter gives to citizens of member states of the Organisation of African Unity rights and obligations, which rights and obligations are to be enforced by our Courts, if they must have any meaning… No doubt Cap. 10 is a statue with international flavour. Being so, therefore, I would think that if there is a conflict between it and another statue, its provisions will prevail over those of that other statue for the reason that it is presumed that the legislature does not intend to breach an international obligation. To this extent I agree with their Lordships of the Court below that the Charter possesses "a greater vigour and strength" than any other domestic statue.”

It is important to point out that the provision of Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution declaring null and void any treaty entered into between Nigeria and any other country/countries will acquire the force of law in Nigeria until domesticated holds no water in international law, nay before International Courts/Tribunals. What this simply means is that the Nigerian Nation cannot, under any conceivable circumstance, resile from its obligation under any international treaty by setting up its domestic law as a defence. In other words, Nigeria cannot point at its own domestic laws as constituting a limitation to the fulfillment of its obligation under any international treaty. Put more correctly, domestic laws cannot be allowed to constitute a drag on the operation of foreign laws under which a state party has undertaken to fulfill international obligations. Indeed, this is the heart and soul of Article 7 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties under International law. The argument put up by the Government of Nigeria to the effect that Bakassi Peninsula could not be yielded up to Cameroun on the principal ground that section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution would need to be complied with so as to effectively delete Bakassi as a Local Government by way of Constitutional amendment was roundly rejected by the International Court of Justice. The foregoing propositions of international law are founded on the jurisprudential beacon yielded by the decision of the International Court of Justice in the decided case of Cameroon v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports, 2002, pp. 303, 346.) Today, Bakassi Peninsula, formerly of Cross-River State of Nigeria, is no more a Nigerian territory even without any constitutional amendment prescribed by Section 12 of the 1999 Amended Nigerian Constitution. The Nigerian Supreme Court [somewhat unfortunately] has now accepted this position as a correct representation of the law binding on the Nigerian nation.
A practical demonstration of this acceptance is made manifest in the case of Attorney-General of Cross-Rivers State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation and Anor (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947) pg 71 where the effect of the ICJ judgment on the erstwhile littoral State of Cross-Rivers state was captured thus;
“The effect of the judgment of the International Court of Justice dated 10/10/2002 on the land and maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun is that it has wiped off what use to be the estuarine sector of Cross River State as a result of which the State is hemmed in by the new international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun. That being the case, there seems to be any estuarine boundary between Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State with the result that Cross River no longer has a seaward boundary.”
In fact in a later 2012 case of Attorney-General of Cross-Rivers State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation and Anor, the Supreme Court (SC.250/2009), speaking through Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., was more punchy when it eloquently declared with a tone of finality that;

“This Court has no jurisdiction to decide ownership of oil wells located on oil rich Bakasi Peninsula for the simple reason that Bakasi Peninsula is foreign territory. It is Cameroun land. Supreme Court jurisdiction is restricted to Nigeria land.”

SUMMATION:
The jurisprudential floodlight proffered by the litany of authorities so far surveyed leaves us with the ineluctable view that even though the Nigerian state is sovereign over all its affairs, its [Nigerian] accession to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right by its [Nigerian] domestication of the said Charter has effectively watered down the indivisible and indissoluble portion of our Constitution. In view of the foregoing, I see no harm [for the sake of keeping to its international obligation] if the Nigerian State decides to do the needful which is to conduct a referendum with a view to ascertaining whether the relentless agitations of the secessionists has the genuine backing of the people the agitators claim to represent or whether they [the agitators] are mere rabble-rousers. If the referendum is conducted and the majority votes clearly swing in favour of dissolution of the Nigerian Union, then let it be so for our laws provide for it. On the contrary, if the majority pendulum swings in favour of the continuity of the Nigerian Union, then the mouths of the agitators will have been effectively sealed up forever. This is the way to go. That is pure democracy which has as one of its core ingredients the accommodation of dissenting voices and plurality of reasoning.
If however the Nigerian nation does not subscribe to these democratic prescriptions, then the remaining opening left for it is to explore that option offered by the Nigerian Supreme Court in Fawehinmi’s case (supra). That option is for the National Assembly to repeal the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights thereby ending the obligation owed the international community regarding the enforcement of the rights enshrined therein. This too is not without its own precarious consequences for the Nigerian nation both within and outside of its borders. If I were in a position to elect for her, I would choose the first which is to conduct the referendum when and if the agitators properly call for it as laid down by the laws and not in the manner they are going about it presently that constantly sets them on a collision course with the Security Agents of the Nigerian State resulting in many avoidable deaths most times. It would surprise the proponents of “One Nigeria” to discover that most citizens from the Biafrian Region would lend their unflinching support for one Nigeria contrary to the media hype of disintegration as propelled by the agitators. Most elites, wealthy businessmen, intellectuals and opinion-moulders from that region would definitely not toe the path of secession. The reasons are too plain to the eyes. Their stakes [business, political and otherwise] mean more to them than having an independent state. They are not [and will never be] willing to sacrifice the former on the altar of the later. At most, what they [the leading lights from Brifian region] want is a proper restructuring of the Nigerian Nation in a way that will make the non-discrimination provisions of Section 42 of our Constitution a reality for the people of the region. This will reflect in the quality of infrastructure, equal opportunity for federal jobs, political appointments and equal representation at the National Assembly by bringing all the geo-political zones to equal states. This is not too much for the Nigerian Leadership to consider and grant. After all, our founding fathers and the framers of our constitution desired that all Nigerians be treated equally. That is the only justification for the Federal Character principle sanctioned by the Constitution. That too is the only justification for the continuous existence of the Federal Character Commission. This way, the frequent agitations across the land would be laid to rest. Peace and tranquility [not of the grave yard] would return without which our growth would continue to be inhibited. I find here a convenient place to stop.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI is a Criminal Defence Attorney and Human Rights Activist based in Abuja, Nigeria. He could be reached through: joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com

NNAMDI KANU: THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO FAIR HEARING AS OF RIGHT

We start by recalling the long settled cardinal principle of law to the effect that it is the duty of a court, whether of first instance or appellate to consider all the issues that have been joined by parties and raised before it for determination. If the court failed to do so, without a valid reason, then it has certainly failed in its duty, for in our judicial system, it is a fundamental principle of administration of justice that every court has a duty to hear, determine and resolve such questions, so held the Nigerian Supreme Court in Irolo v. Uka (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.786) 195 at 250.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
That the Worldwide Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Maazi Nnamdi Kanu (alongside three other Defendants), is standing criminal trial before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja is no longer news. Indeed if an example is sought for a criminal trial in this 21st century that has the potency of re-defining the fortune of a nation and re-drawing its geographical boundary, KANU’S trial will surely rank first ahead of others globally. What is rather news is the unsettling manner in which the presiding judge, Justice Nyako, has been handling this extremely sensitive matter given the defining impact the outcome of the entire exercise would have on the overall Nigerian system. Without any scintilla of equivocation, it must be stressed straight away that Justice Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, has not given the Defendants before her their just entitlements to the extent that the Constitutional safeguard most eloquently enshrined for the benefit of an accused person under our criminal justice regime is concerned.
The view expressed above is not at large neither is it in the realms of conjecture or speculation. Without any further delay, we proceed with aplomb to condensate to particulars by tying our assertion to specifics. One glaring example will be sufficient to buttress our stand.

JUSTICE NYAKO’S REFUSAL TO HEAR A MOTION BEFORE THE COURT
On the 6th day of April, 2017 when the matter came up last before the Court, the 1st and 3rd Defendants informed the Court of their interlocutory applications already filed by their respective counsel and pending before the Court. For instance, the 3rd Defendant, through his Counsel prayed the Court for some reliefs aimed at having his different properties seized from him by the SSS returned. For the records, it is important to emphasize that none of the items which the Applicants prayed for their return is exhibited before the court in the proof of charge to be relied on at trial. In fact in the proof of charge accompanying the charge, there is an affidavit by the prosecutor affirming that investigation has been concluded in respect of the charge before the Court.
The Learned defence Counsel [3rd Defendant’s Counsel] informed the Court of the pending motions. The Judge first expressed her indisposition to hear such a motion as it was a mere ‘distraction’ to the proceedings. Following subtle persuasions of the defence team, the Judge queried the reasons why the items were needed by the applicants. In a rather bizarre twist of event, the Judge erratically ‘ordered’ the prosecutor to return the “wedding ring and medical eyeglasses” to the 3rd Defendant. The purported “order”, with the greatest respect, is bizarre and erratic for two clear reasons. First, the reliefs for the return of wedding ring and eyeglasses were never prayed for by the 3rd Defendant. The Court thereby granted reliefs not prayed for by a party before it. Another bizarre and confounding aspect of the purported “order” is that it was by a mere “word of mouth “against being in writing as prescribed by the Nigerian Constitution. In the end, all the entreaties on the Judge to hear and dispose of the motions on their merits as required by extant laws fell on deaf ears. With unusual intimidation and browbeating, the Court of Justice Nyako harassed the Defence team out of the seat of justice and cowed them into silence. Aggrieved by the blatant and unjustified refusal of the Court to allow his counsel move their applications, the 3rd Applicant motioned to his counsel as to why the court would shut him out. The Judge reacted to the 3rd Defendant’s action with a stern warning to him that he would be barred from appearing for his trial until the entire proceedings comes to an end if he ever talked again. This way, by such an unwarranted exhibition of naked judicial power, the counsel and their clients were put in fear of the court. It is indeed of greater curiosity to note (going by the Court’s records) that the Prosecutor (the Federal Government of Nigeria) did not put up any challenge to the prayers tabled before the Court by the Applicants. Any sincere person who was present and witnessed the proceedings of 6th April, 2017, would readily confirm this factual account. With the above factual background in view, we shall now turn to the meat of the matter.

WHAT THEN DOES THE LAW PROVIDE?
The Court of Appeal, speaking through our Father in the law, Late Justice Tobi, thought us that;
“A court of law or a tribunal has a legal duty to hear any court process, including a motion before it. The process may be downright stupid, unmeritorious or even an abuse of court process. The court must hear the party or parties and rule one way or the other. Judge, whether of a court of law or tribunal, has no jurisdiction to come to a conclusion by resorting to his wisdom outside established due process that a motion cannot be heard because it has no merit. That does not lie in the mouth of a Judge in our adversary system of adjudication.”
See Eriobunah v. Obiorah (1999) 8 NWLR (pt. 616) C.A. 622 at 642.
Confirming this position, the same Court, in the case of Asamu vs. Lawanson had this to say;
“The position of the law on pending processes before the court as explained by the Supreme Court is sufficient to resolve the issue. In Akpan vs. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR part 1223 p.421 the Supreme Court stated thus: "The position of the law is that where there are pending processes before a court, such as motions or other applications, such issues have to be dispensed with before a final decision is taken on the main action or appeal." It is therefore wrong for the trial judge not to have taken the appellants' pending motion on notice before his Ruling which was final in nature. Having said so, I must add that an application may not be heard not because a court deliberately refuses to hear it but as a result of oversight. It is therefore the duty of counsel to draw the attention of the court to any pending application before a final decision. It is when such attention has been drawn and the court refuses to consider the application that the action of the court can be justly deprecated. As pointed out in Akpan vs. Bob (supra) it would be wrong of a court whose attention has been drawn to a pending process to proceed when such process has not been pronounced upon”
True indeed, the Nigeria Supreme Court in the case of Akpan vs. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR part 1223 p.421 affirmed this position with a tone of finality thus;
“The trite position of the law is that where there are pending processes before a court, such as motions or other applications, such issues have to be dispensed with before a final decision is taken on the main action or appeal.”
In a related case of Eke vs. Ogbonda, Justice Mahmud of the Supreme Court taught us that;
“The trite position of the law is that where there are pending processes before a court, such as motions or other applications, such issues have to be dispensed with before a final decision is taken on the main action or appeal.”
What is more, the corollary of the foregoing irresistibly points to the long established principle of law that it is the abiding duty of every court in Nigeria to hear all/any motion properly filed before it and deliver its ruling on the motion one way or the other."

WAS JUSTICE NYAKO RIGHT IN GRANTING RELIEFS NOT ASKED FOR?
In the Supreme Court case of Wing Commander Shekete vs. Nigerian Air Force (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798)129. 2, (2002) 12 S.C (Pt.II) 52, the ever-indomitable Niki Tobi (now of blessed memory)handed down this noteworthy warning to all Nigerian Courts in the very language which we would now most respectfully reproduce for the benefit of Justice Nyako and we implore her to hear this;
“It is elementary law that a court of law cannot grant a party relief not sought. A court of law cannot grant an applicant prayer not sought. A court of law can only grant a relief or prayer sought. The moment a court of law grants a relief or prayer not sought by the party, it expands the boundaries of the litigation and unnecessarily instigates more litigation to the detriment of the parties and for no reason at all. The litigation is for the parties and not the court. There¬fore the court has no jurisdiction to extend or expand the boundaries of the litigation beyond what the parties have indicated to it. In other words, the court has no jurisdiction to set up a different or new case for the parties.”
In Aqua vs. Archibong & 3 Ors (2012) LPELR-9293 (CA), the court re-affirmed this perduring principle. According to Justice Lawal Garba,
“The law is common knowledge now that a court of law not being a charitable institution but one of facts and the law, does not grant to a party what he himself did not claim or seek, in a case.”
Delivery the leading judgment for the Court of Appeal in the case of Olawoye vs. Bello (2015) LPELR-24475 (CA), Justice Ndukwe-Anyanwu, observed thus;
“I must however emphasise that trial courts must restrict itself to the evidence before it and not to grant reliefs which were neither pleaded or evidence led to sustain it. The courts have held in a plethora of cases, that the court is not a Santa Claus. Courts of law are not created as charitable institutions engratia….In the same vein, the court which is not a "Father Christmas" or a social welfare institution should not grant to a party an order, or relief or declaration in excess of or outside what he claimed or sought for". The rational of the rule, which forbids such gratuitous award by the court contrary to the rule of practice and pleadings, is to avoid surprises during proceedings and to ensure fair hearing to the parties without showing favour to one or the other. The rule against unsolicited or gratuitous awards by court is of general application to all cases as it affects or robs the court of jurisdiction to make such awards”
Indeed, the case laws on this point are legion and we can go on and on to cite them in their hundreds but for economy of space. It is therefore an unsettling puzzle for one to fathom or reconcile how and why Justice Nyako arrived at her decision to grant reliefs not sought by the Applicant despite the avalanche of authorities (at her disposal) disapproving of such condemnable practice. It is this kind of practice that makes an Hausa man to exclaim ‘haaba’ in shocking disbelief.
Elsewhere in this piece, we noted that the Federal Government of Nigeria (the Complainant) did not file any counter-affidavit in opposition to the application of the Applicants as contained on the face of their motion paper. This, in law, has a profound implication both on the application itself, the Court and the respondent to the application. What then are these weighty implications, one may then ask?
In Dalhatu vs. Attorney-General of Katsina State (2007) LPELR – 8460 (CA), the answer is provided thus;
“It is trite law that unchallenged facts in an affidavit or counter affidavit are deemed admitted and should be believed and relied on by the Court”
In case of The Honda Place Ltd. vs. Globe Motors Ltd. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 273, the Supreme Court, per Edozie J.S.C. espoused this age-long legal proposition thus;
“The position of the law is that when in a situation in which facts are provable by affidavit, one of the parties deposes to certain facts, his adversary has a duty to swear to an affidavit to the contrary, if he disputes the facts. Where such a party fails to swear to an affidavit to controvert such facts, they may be regarded as duly established…Since the respondent did not file a counter-affidavit to controvert the appellants averment referred to above, that averment was deemed admitted and it was a material fact before the trial court upon which to reach a decision on the issue.”
In his contributory judgment, Katsina-Alu, J.S.C. intoned as follows:
“The Law is that where the facts in an affidavit remain unchallenged and uncontroverted, the court is bound to accept those facts as established as those facts were deemed to have been admitted.” See Nwabuoku v. Ottih (1961) 2 SCNLR 233”
In Registered Trustees of Eket Commercial Motorcycle Association vs. Eket Local Government Council & Ors (2013) LPELR-21998(CA), the position was succinctly captured thus;
“I observe that there was no counter affidavit to challenge the averments that there was an emergency meeting of the trustees of the association on the 15th of March, 2010 at which the resolution to discontinue the action was reached. The absence of a challenge to the fact means in law that it is deemed to be correct and established.”
From whichever angle we or one may choose to look at the whole situation, there will be no escaping the conclusion that justice Nyako, contrary to all known judicial norm and binding authorities, decided to go out of her way to aid the case of the Federal Government of Nigeria (the Respondent ) even when the Government did not deem it fit to join issues with the Applicants signaling its intention to admit all the averments in the Applicants’ affidavit thereby leaving the Learned trial Judge with the only duty of affirming the establishment of the already admitted facts entitling the Applicants to the Court’s judgment.

INTIMIDATION OF DEFENCE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANTS
Elsewhere in this piece, we noted with grave concern the unwarranted exhibition of sheer naked judicial powers by Justice Nyako who indulges in the vice of intimidating both the defence lawyers and the defendants with the ease and frequency with which the Englishman sips his coffee on his breakfast table. Has she got the powers to do that? Now, let us go to the authorities.
In F.R.N. v. Akabueze [2010] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) S.C. 525 at page 540, Justice Fabiyi of the Supreme Court sternly warned that “it is not part of the duty of a Judge to operate in terrorem”
In Okoduwa v. The State [1988] 1 N.S.C.C. vol. 19, the Supreme Court strongly emphasized that in our adversary system of administration of justice the freedom of counsel to put across his client’s case without fear or favour, is a most important ingredient.

SUMMATION
What is more, it is now left for fair-minded members of the society to raise the relevant posers on what could have actuated the strange trend of proceedings being adopted by Justice Nyako against Pro-Biafrian members standing trials before her Court especially when such mode of trial runs parallel to established judicial authorities thereby challenging her fidelity to the Constitution to which she owes unqualified allegiance and which she is under obligation to defend and promote especially in the light of her judicial oath to administer justice to all manner of people who come before her without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Without doubt, it is patently wrong, both in law and conscience, for a Judge to pick and choose which motion to hear or worse still to dismiss such motion without hearing the Applicants on the merit or otherwise of such application. Equally wrong is the intimidation and harassment of lawyers and the defendants to cow them into silence and undermine the freedom of counsel to put across his client’s case without fear or favour, which the Supreme Court acknowledges as a most important ingredient of free and fair trial.
In signing off this piece, it is of great importance to place on record the fact that the application before the court merely seeks to enforce the Constitutional right to own properties guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution under sections 43 & 44.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) evinces the same intent. For instance, Section 153 (3) & (4) of the ACJA under which the application was brought amply provide as follows;
153(3) Where a defendant is charged to court with an offence or no appeal or further proceedings is pending in relation to an item recovered during a search, the police shall:
A. Restore to the person who appears to be entitled to them, and;
B. Where he is the Defendant, caused to be restored him or his legal practitioner or to such other person as the Defendant may direct.
153(4) The police or any other agency carrying out the search is authorized or required by law to dispose of the items seized in accordance with the provisions of section 153 of this Act, the police or the agency shall release the proceeds of the disposal of the seized items to the person entitled to it.
In the circumstances amplified above, it is only fitting for us to recall this powerful and illuminating pronouncement of Lord Atkin in the celebrated English case of Liversidge vs. Anderson [1942] A.C. 206. listen to this;
“I view with apprehension the attitude of judges who on a mere question of construction when face to face with claims involving the liberty of the subject show themselves more executive minded than the executive…. In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law. In this case I have listened to arguments which might have been addressed acceptably to the Court of King’s Bench in the time of Charles I.”
I think I can stop here.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI is a Criminal Defence Attorney and Human Rights Activist based in Abuja, Nigeria and could be reached on:

joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com

Please,

Anyone who has a clue as to where this happened should kindly furnish me with the house address of the big man who engaged the Nigerian

Police to engage in this man's inhumanity to man. The contact of the poor victim himself would prove most useful.

As an attorney committed to the defence of Human Rights, I wish to assist the poor victim to enforce his right FREE OF CHARGE.

Persons with any useful information regarding this condemnable incident should make haste to reach me through this e-mail address:

truedemocracyfornigeria@gmail.com . The big man who engaged these officers together with the officers themselves must indeed pay a very

high price for their most confounding impunity.

Together, we shall confront and end impunity and cruelty regardless of how highly placed the perpetrators might be.

Cc: Lalasticlala, Tonybacanister, Seun



THE TRIAL OF COLONEL NICHOLAS ASHINZE AND THE EVILS OF MEDIA TRIAL BY THE EFCC


BACKGROUND FACTS:
What inspired this write up is a news report titled: “Court stops EFCC case over falsehood, media trial” which this writer read on the website of Vanguard Newspaper of March 21, 2017 posted at hour of 03:06pm. For ease of reference, the link is hereby posted. [http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/03/court-stops-efcc-case-falsehood-media-trial/].

For their bearing on this reflection we are about to undertake, I would endeavor to reproduce those portions of the report that would lend this piece to easy comprehension and no more. The report goes as follows:

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) suffered a major setback in the trial of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze and three others in an alleged N3billion unlawful transfer as the Federal High Court in Abuja suspended the case over an alleged falsehood and media trial engaged by the anti-graft agency against the military officer. Ashinze was Military Assistant to former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). Counsel to Ashinze, Mr. Ernest Nwoye, had at the resumed trial protested the press statement issued by EFCC in which the defendant was reported to have been indicted by the court for diverting and misappropriating a whopping sum of N36billion. Apart from the alleged N36bn said to have been diverted and misappropriated, the EFCC statement also referred to serving Colonel Ashinze as a retired officer. The counsel who drew the attention of Justice Gabriel Kolawole to the offending EFCC press statement, tendered the statement and the newspaper publications at the court to establish bias and misrepresentation of the court proceeding of March 7, 2017 by the anti-graft agency. Nwoye told the Judge that Colonel Ashinze was never charged by EFCC for any offence on N36billion diversion and misappropriation and wondered where EFCC Media team, that was not present in the court, got its proceeding that the defendant had been indicted for the amount. The counsel urged the Court to frown at Media Trial the defendant is being subjected to as such action if not checked, will lead to misrepresentation of facts by the general public. Nwoye also tendered newspaper publications that emanated from the EFCC press statement issued by one Mr. Wilson Uwujare who claimed to be the Head of Media and Publicity in the EFCC. Nwoye said that both the complainant and the defendant are bound by court records of proceeding and any attempt by one of the parties to concoct lies to prejudice the order is against the rule of law and natural justice. Justice Kolawle who was taken aback by the EFCC’s press statement asked the EFCC counsel, Mr Ofem Uket if he was aware of the press statement and if he ever issued any. The EFCC counsel denied ever granting press interview in respect of the trial but admitted receiving letter of complaint from Nwoye and that he consulted with EFCC and discovered that the Press Statement was actually released to the media. Uket, in his defence said that contrary to the charge of N3billion alleged transfer, evidence from witnesses have shown that about N5billion was involved.
…“In order to prevent media and court trial at the same time with one misrepresenting the order, I have stopped this trial pending the time the EFCC retracts the offending press statement. The trial of the defendant has nothing to do with N36billion diversion and misappropriation. “The retraction has to be done between now and April 13, 2017. And this EFCC witness is hereby ordered to step down from the witness box and come back on April 13, 2017 “The court proper proceeding cannot materialise where records and facts of the case are being distorted by EFCC that is even the complainant in the matter.”

EXORDIUM:
There is no doubting the ubiquitous positive influence of the media on the evolution of democracy. Indeed, remove media coverage from the criminal trials going on in our courts almost on daily basis and the transparency of trial ordained in our Constitution as a formidable safeguard of an accused person would go to the dogs. As an indispensable ingredient in the cooking pot of democracy, the 1999 Amended Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [simply called the Constitution henceforth in this discuss], reserves an envious position for press fondly called the fourth estate of the realm. For purposes of completeness and flow of logic, it is pertinent to reproduce the constitutional provision dealing with press freedom. It is section 22 and it reads thus;

The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.
It is equally of great importance to highlight the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Being one of the beacons that will mark the contours of this discuss, it is most sufficient to set out the said constitutional provision.
39. (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions:

The title of this piece calls attention to some key words the concept of which we need to appreciate. Those key words are ‘media trial’ and ‘fair trial’. We shall now turn to define the key terms that are inextricably intertwined and central to the appreciation of this piece.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:
According to the Wikipedia, Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.
It is pertinent to observe that the concept of ‘fair trial’ owes its provenance to the Constitution as being one of the safeguards consecrated for the benefit of an accused person. That imperishable constitutional right to “fair trial” is irrefragably grafted on the supreme law of the land with a view to ensuring that no man is sent to the gallows by perfunctory judicial process or an outcome dictated largely by public opinions built on sentiment as against the strength and weaknesses of the agglomeration of facts and evidence before the court. Section 36 of the Constitution represents the total package of the fair trial principle. Elsewhere, it has been noted that Fairness of a trial is fundamental to the administration of justice, it does not only give integrity to the legal system but it also ensures the confidence of the society in the justice system. The concept of fair hearing is at the foundation of the legal system; two major principles of fair hearing are "Audi Alteram Partem" meaning "hear the other party" and "Nemo Judex In Causa Sua" meaning "no one should be a judge in his own case.”.

While acknowledging the glaring fact that the social media may greatly impact judicial proceedings in many positive ways, however, there have been growing concerns about the negative impacts it bears on the courtroom proceedings. These concerns are indeed legitimate. They can no longer be ignored. The stakeholders are now all at one that the negative impact of social media on the trial of accused persons is one of the identified contemporary challenges besetting our criminal justice administration system. Finding immediate and lasting solutions to this emerging disturbing trend is one that can no longer suffer delay. The danger of such delay is now looking us all in our faces. In all of this, what suffers most is the right of an accused person to a fair trial.

It is pertinent to observe that this disturbing trend is not a challenge peculiar to Nigeria as a country only. Its reach is wide-spread. As a renowned scholar at Murdoch University, Ms Krawitz, aptly noted, “It is crucial that Australian courts actively address these issues because of the importance of what is at stake: an accused's right to a fair trial.” [http://www.nd.edu.au/news/media-releases/2013/165]. The story is the same in India. This concern impelled the Indian Supreme Court to hand down the warning that “a trial by media amounts to travesty of justice if it causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial” [refer to Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010(2) ACR1645 (SC), AIR2010SC2352].

It must be stressed that fair hearing is one of the chief cornerstones of our criminal justice system. It is therefore not a privilege but an immutable right inuring eternally to the benefit of an accused person and to equally safeguard the integrity of the judicial process. The tons of academic materials and barrels of judicial ink which have engendered unending academic enterprise in expounding this fundamental right to fair trial speaks to the ubiquitous status of this right. It cannot [as it ought not to] be whittled down or overthrown by the side winds of media trial. The Nigerian Courts have remained consistent in upholding this right. Indeed, extensive research has shown that the weight of all binding judicial authorities in this country speak with the same accord in jealously guarding this right considered to be inviolate. In the case of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors vs. Alhaji Lukman Ademola Oyebanji (2012) LPELR-19696(CA), the irrepressible judicial activist, the ever indomitable C.C. Nweze, J.C.A. (as he then was, now J.S.C.), announced magisterially;

The provision of section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, relating to fair hearing, is truly far-reaching. The requirements of fair hearing are ubiquitous.
The basic criteria and attributes of fair hearing have been outlined in Case Law. The rationale of all such binding authorities on the matter is that fair hearing imposes an ambidextrous standard of justice in which the court must be fair to both sides of the conflict, Ndu v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (pt.164) 550, 578, adopted by Onu JSC in Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (2001) 33 WRN 1, 13-14. It, therefore, does not anticipate a standard of justice, which is biased in favour of one party, but prejudices the other. Above all, it is not a technical doctrine, but one of substance, Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (supra) at pp. 14 - 15, Onu JSC, approvingly adopting the posture which Nnaemeka Agu JSC took in Kotoye v C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 98) 418, 448. The touchstone is determining the observance of fair hearing in trials is not the question whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party due to want of hearing. It is rather the question whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to parties entitled to be heard, J. C. C. Inter Ltd. v N.G.I. Ltd. (2002) 4 WRN 91, 104.

END:
In ending this short reflection, we recall the meaning ascribed to media trial by the Indian Supreme Court as: “The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.”

No doubt, in tying up the loose ends of this piece, it is important to take the liberty which the platform of this rare academic altitude has offered to eloquently condemn the media trial to which Colonel Nicholas Ashinze has been subjected in his ongoing trial before the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole. It is an unwholesome arsenal in the armoury of the EFCC being deployed with confounding recklessness to entice the gullible and twist the minds of the undiscerning. The satanic media trial of citizens [like Colonel Nicholas Ashinze in the instance] who may have come under suspicion by the EFCC is solely aimed at provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny. [In the language of the Indian Supreme Court.]. It cannot be otherwise for it totally defies reason and queries the motive for deliberately misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court by using the media to rub the head of Colonel Ashinze in the mud and thereby making it well-nigh impossible to live the rest of his life without intense public scrutiny and worse still making his fair trail nearly impossible. This is indeed the aspect of the media coverage of judicial proceedings that has become of grave concern to stakeholders in our criminal justice system world over. It is this negative impact of the media on the fair trial of accused persons that Ms Krawitz deems it crucial that Australian courts actively address…because of the importance of what is at stake: an accused's right to a fair trial.
It is the turn of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze today, and nobody knows whose turn it would be tomorrow. Our history and experiences have shown that it is not also impossible that those who are nurturing and fertilizing the festering evil system of media trial today at the EFCC might become its victims tomorrow.
In signing off this piece, we must now praise the Honourable Justice Gabriel Kolawole. By his Ruling, he has stood up to be counted especially at a time when the judiciary is practically under siege laid by a most intolerant and hostile regime. His courageous stand in stepping in to stop the EFCC on their evil track could not have been better captured than he did it in his short Ruling for which he deserves the commendations of all stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice and preservation of democracy in Nigeria. Hear him;
“It is unfair for EFCC as a complainant in this trial to resort to self-help by engaging the defendant in the media trial at the same time in the court trial. “If you want to try the defendant in the media, you have to limit yourself to the media. You have to stop misleading the public in the fact of this trial. Let me say it for the sake of emphasis that EFCC must stop the use of journalists to distort proceedings in my court. You cannot be engaging in two trials: one in the court and one in the media at the same time. If you are not satisfied with my decision to stop this trial pending the time the EFCC retract this offending press statement of my court proceeding, then you can take your case to another court “This press statement by one Wilson Uwujare who claimed to be from EFCC is scandalous and prejudice to fair trial of the defendant in this matter.”
We find here a convenient place to stop.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI is a Criminal Defence Attorney and Human Rights Activist based in Abuja, Nigeria. He could be reached on: joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com

Cc: Lalasticlala, Tonybacanister, Seun



THE TRIAL OF COLONEL NICHOLAS ASHINZE AND THE EVILS OF MEDIA TRIAL BY THE EFCC


BACKGROUND FACTS:
What inspired this write up is a news report titled: “Court stops EFCC case over falsehood, media trial” which this writer read on the website of Vanguard Newspaper of March 21, 2017 posted at hour of 03:06pm. For ease of reference, the link is hereby posted. [http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/03/court-stops-efcc-case-falsehood-media-trial/].

For their bearing on this reflection we are about to undertake, I would endeavor to reproduce those portions of the report that would lend this piece to easy comprehension and no more. The report goes as follows:

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) suffered a major setback in the trial of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze and three others in an alleged N3billion unlawful transfer as the Federal High Court in Abuja suspended the case over an alleged falsehood and media trial engaged by the anti-graft agency against the military officer. Ashinze was Military Assistant to former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). Counsel to Ashinze, Mr. Ernest Nwoye, had at the resumed trial protested the press statement issued by EFCC in which the defendant was reported to have been indicted by the court for diverting and misappropriating a whopping sum of N36billion. Apart from the alleged N36bn said to have been diverted and misappropriated, the EFCC statement also referred to serving Colonel Ashinze as a retired officer. The counsel who drew the attention of Justice Gabriel Kolawole to the offending EFCC press statement, tendered the statement and the newspaper publications at the court to establish bias and misrepresentation of the court proceeding of March 7, 2017 by the anti-graft agency. Nwoye told the Judge that Colonel Ashinze was never charged by EFCC for any offence on N36billion diversion and misappropriation and wondered where EFCC Media team, that was not present in the court, got its proceeding that the defendant had been indicted for the amount. The counsel urged the Court to frown at Media Trial the defendant is being subjected to as such action if not checked, will lead to misrepresentation of facts by the general public. Nwoye also tendered newspaper publications that emanated from the EFCC press statement issued by one Mr. Wilson Uwujare who claimed to be the Head of Media and Publicity in the EFCC. Nwoye said that both the complainant and the defendant are bound by court records of proceeding and any attempt by one of the parties to concoct lies to prejudice the order is against the rule of law and natural justice. Justice Kolawle who was taken aback by the EFCC’s press statement asked the EFCC counsel, Mr Ofem Uket if he was aware of the press statement and if he ever issued any. The EFCC counsel denied ever granting press interview in respect of the trial but admitted receiving letter of complaint from Nwoye and that he consulted with EFCC and discovered that the Press Statement was actually released to the media. Uket, in his defence said that contrary to the charge of N3billion alleged transfer, evidence from witnesses have shown that about N5billion was involved.
…“In order to prevent media and court trial at the same time with one misrepresenting the order, I have stopped this trial pending the time the EFCC retracts the offending press statement. The trial of the defendant has nothing to do with N36billion diversion and misappropriation. “The retraction has to be done between now and April 13, 2017. And this EFCC witness is hereby ordered to step down from the witness box and come back on April 13, 2017 “The court proper proceeding cannot materialise where records and facts of the case are being distorted by EFCC that is even the complainant in the matter.”

EXORDIUM:
There is no doubting the ubiquitous positive influence of the media on the evolution of democracy. Indeed, remove media coverage from the criminal trials going on in our courts almost on daily basis and the transparency of trial ordained in our Constitution as a formidable safeguard of an accused person would go to the dogs. As an indispensable ingredient in the cooking pot of democracy, the 1999 Amended Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [simply called the Constitution henceforth in this discuss], reserves an envious position for press fondly called the fourth estate of the realm. For purposes of completeness and flow of logic, it is pertinent to reproduce the constitutional provision dealing with press freedom. It is section 22 and it reads thus;

The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.
It is equally of great importance to highlight the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Being one of the beacons that will mark the contours of this discuss, it is most sufficient to set out the said constitutional provision.
39. (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions:

The title of this piece calls attention to some key words the concept of which we need to appreciate. Those key words are ‘media trial’ and ‘fair trial’. We shall now turn to define the key terms that are inextricably intertwined and central to the appreciation of this piece.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:
According to the Wikipedia, Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.
It is pertinent to observe that the concept of ‘fair trial’ owes its provenance to the Constitution as being one of the safeguards consecrated for the benefit of an accused person. That imperishable constitutional right to “fair trial” is irrefragably grafted on the supreme law of the land with a view to ensuring that no man is sent to the gallows by perfunctory judicial process or an outcome dictated largely by public opinions built on sentiment as against the strength and weaknesses of the agglomeration of facts and evidence before the court. Section 36 of the Constitution represents the total package of the fair trial principle. Elsewhere, it has been noted that Fairness of a trial is fundamental to the administration of justice, it does not only give integrity to the legal system but it also ensures the confidence of the society in the justice system. The concept of fair hearing is at the foundation of the legal system; two major principles of fair hearing are "Audi Alteram Partem" meaning "hear the other party" and "Nemo Judex In Causa Sua" meaning "no one should be a judge in his own case.”.

While acknowledging the glaring fact that the social media may greatly impact judicial proceedings in many positive ways, however, there have been growing concerns about the negative impacts it bears on the courtroom proceedings. These concerns are indeed legitimate. They can no longer be ignored. The stakeholders are now all at one that the negative impact of social media on the trial of accused persons is one of the identified contemporary challenges besetting our criminal justice administration system. Finding immediate and lasting solutions to this emerging disturbing trend is one that can no longer suffer delay. The danger of such delay is now looking us all in our faces. In all of this, what suffers most is the right of an accused person to a fair trial.

It is pertinent to observe that this disturbing trend is not a challenge peculiar to Nigeria as a country only. Its reach is wide-spread. As a renowned scholar at Murdoch University, Ms Krawitz, aptly noted, “It is crucial that Australian courts actively address these issues because of the importance of what is at stake: an accused's right to a fair trial.” [http://www.nd.edu.au/news/media-releases/2013/165]. The story is the same in India. This concern impelled the Indian Supreme Court to hand down the warning that “a trial by media amounts to travesty of justice if it causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial” [refer to Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010(2) ACR1645 (SC), AIR2010SC2352].

It must be stressed that fair hearing is one of the chief cornerstones of our criminal justice system. It is therefore not a privilege but an immutable right inuring eternally to the benefit of an accused person and to equally safeguard the integrity of the judicial process. The tons of academic materials and barrels of judicial ink which have engendered unending academic enterprise in expounding this fundamental right to fair trial speaks to the ubiquitous status of this right. It cannot [as it ought not to] be whittled down or overthrown by the side winds of media trial. The Nigerian Courts have remained consistent in upholding this right. Indeed, extensive research has shown that the weight of all binding judicial authorities in this country speak with the same accord in jealously guarding this right considered to be inviolate. In the case of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors vs. Alhaji Lukman Ademola Oyebanji (2012) LPELR-19696(CA), the irrepressible judicial activist, the ever indomitable C.C. Nweze, J.C.A. (as he then was, now J.S.C.), announced magisterially;

The provision of section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, relating to fair hearing, is truly far-reaching. The requirements of fair hearing are ubiquitous.
The basic criteria and attributes of fair hearing have been outlined in Case Law. The rationale of all such binding authorities on the matter is that fair hearing imposes an ambidextrous standard of justice in which the court must be fair to both sides of the conflict, Ndu v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (pt.164) 550, 578, adopted by Onu JSC in Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (2001) 33 WRN 1, 13-14. It, therefore, does not anticipate a standard of justice, which is biased in favour of one party, but prejudices the other. Above all, it is not a technical doctrine, but one of substance, Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (supra) at pp. 14 - 15, Onu JSC, approvingly adopting the posture which Nnaemeka Agu JSC took in Kotoye v C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 98) 418, 448. The touchstone is determining the observance of fair hearing in trials is not the question whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party due to want of hearing. It is rather the question whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to parties entitled to be heard, J. C. C. Inter Ltd. v N.G.I. Ltd. (2002) 4 WRN 91, 104.

END:
In ending this short reflection, we recall the meaning ascribed to media trial by the Indian Supreme Court as: “The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.”

No doubt, in tying up the loose ends of this piece, it is important to take the liberty which the platform of this rare academic altitude has offered to eloquently condemn the media trial to which Colonel Nicholas Ashinze has been subjected in his ongoing trial before the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole. It is an unwholesome arsenal in the armoury of the EFCC being deployed with confounding recklessness to entice the gullible and twist the minds of the undiscerning. The satanic media trial of citizens [like Colonel Nicholas Ashinze in the instance] who may have come under suspicion by the EFCC is solely aimed at provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny. [In the language of the Indian Supreme Court.]. It cannot be otherwise for it totally defies reason and queries the motive for deliberately misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court by using the media to rub the head of Colonel Ashinze in the mud and thereby making it well-nigh impossible to live the rest of his life without intense public scrutiny and worse still making his fair trail nearly impossible. This is indeed the aspect of the media coverage of judicial proceedings that has become of grave concern to stakeholders in our criminal justice system world over. It is this negative impact of the media on the fair trial of accused persons that Ms Krawitz deems it crucial that Australian courts actively address…because of the importance of what is at stake: an accused's right to a fair trial.
It is the turn of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze today, and nobody knows whose turn it would be tomorrow. Our history and experiences have shown that it is not also impossible that those who are nurturing and fertilizing the festering evil system of media trial today at the EFCC might become its victims tomorrow.
In signing off this piece, we must now praise the Honourable Justice Gabriel Kolawole. By his Ruling, he has stood up to be counted especially at a time when the judiciary is practically under siege laid by a most intolerant and hostile regime. His courageous stand in stepping in to stop the EFCC on their evil track could not have been better captured than he did it in his short Ruling for which he deserves the commendations of all stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice and preservation of democracy in Nigeria. Hear him;
“It is unfair for EFCC as a complainant in this trial to resort to self-help by engaging the defendant in the media trial at the same time in the court trial. “If you want to try the defendant in the media, you have to limit yourself to the media. You have to stop misleading the public in the fact of this trial. Let me say it for the sake of emphasis that EFCC must stop the use of journalists to distort proceedings in my court. You cannot be engaging in two trials: one in the court and one in the media at the same time. If you are not satisfied with my decision to stop this trial pending the time the EFCC retract this offending press statement of my court proceeding, then you can take your case to another court “This press statement by one Wilson Uwujare who claimed to be from EFCC is scandalous and prejudice to fair trial of the defendant in this matter.”
We find here a convenient place to stop.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI is a Criminal Defence Attorney and Human Rights Activist based in Abuja, Nigeria. He could be reached on: joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com

THE TRIAL OF COLONEL NICHOLAS ASHINZE AND THE EVILS OF MEDIA TRIALS BY THE EFCC.

BACKGROUND FACTS:
What inspired this write up is a news report titled: “Court stops EFCC case over falsehood, media trial” which this writer read on the website of Vanguard Newspaper of March 21, 2017 posted at hour of 03:06pm. For ease of reference, the link is hereby posted. [http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/03/court-stops-efcc-case-falsehood-media-trial/].

For their bearing on this reflection we are about to undertake, I would endeavor to reproduce those portions of the report that would lend this piece to easy comprehension and no more. The report goes as follows:

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) suffered a major setback in the trial of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze and three others in an alleged N3billion unlawful transfer as the Federal High Court in Abuja suspended the case over an alleged falsehood and media trial engaged by the anti-graft agency against the military officer. Ashinze was Military Assistant to former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). Counsel to Ashinze, Mr. Ernest Nwoye, had at the resumed trial protested the press statement issued by EFCC in which the defendant was reported to have been indicted by the court for diverting and misappropriating a whopping sum of N36billion. Apart from the alleged N36bn said to have been diverted and misappropriated, the EFCC statement also referred to serving Colonel Ashinze as a retired officer. The counsel who drew the attention of Justice Gabriel Kolawole to the offending EFCC press statement, tendered the statement and the newspaper publications at the court to establish bias and misrepresentation of the court proceeding of March 7, 2017 by the anti-graft agency. Nwoye told the Judge that Colonel Ashinze was never charged by EFCC for any offence on N36billion diversion and misappropriation and wondered where EFCC Media team, that was not present in the court, got its proceeding that the defendant had been indicted for the amount. The counsel urged the Court to frown at Media Trial the defendant is being subjected to as such action if not checked, will lead to misrepresentation of facts by the general public. Nwoye also tendered newspaper publications that emanated from the EFCC press statement issued by one Mr. Wilson Uwujare who claimed to be the Head of Media and Publicity in the EFCC. Nwoye said that both the complainant and the defendant are bound by court records of proceeding and any attempt by one of the parties to concoct lies to prejudice the order is against the rule of law and natural justice. Justice Kolawle who was taken aback by the EFCC’s press statement asked the EFCC counsel, Mr Ofem Uket if he was aware of the press statement and if he ever issued any. The EFCC counsel denied ever granting press interview in respect of the trial but admitted receiving letter of complaint from Nwoye and that he consulted with EFCC and discovered that the Press Statement was actually released to the media. Uket, in his defence said that contrary to the charge of N3billion alleged transfer, evidence from witnesses have shown that about N5billion was involved.
…“In order to prevent media and court trial at the same time with one misrepresenting the order, I have stopped this trial pending the time the EFCC retracts the offending press statement. The trial of the defendant has nothing to do with N36billion diversion and misappropriation. “The retraction has to be done between now and April 13, 2017. And this EFCC witness is hereby ordered to step down from the witness box and come back on April 13, 2017 “The court proper proceeding cannot materialise where records and facts of the case are being distorted by EFCC that is even the complainant in the matter.”

EXORDIUM:
There is no doubting the ubiquitous positive influence of the media on the evolution of democracy. Indeed, remove media coverage from the criminal trials going on in our courts almost on daily basis and the transparency of trial ordained in our Constitution as a formidable safeguard of an accused person would go to the dogs. As an indispensable ingredient in the cooking pot of democracy, the 1999 Amended Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [simply called the Constitution henceforth in this discuss], reserves an envious position for press fondly called the fourth estate of the realm. For purposes of completeness and flow of logic, it is pertinent to reproduce the constitutional provision dealing with press freedom. It is section 22 and it reads thus;

The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.
It is equally of great importance to highlight the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Being one of the beacons that will mark the contours of this discuss, it is most sufficient to set out the said constitutional provision.
39. (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions:

The title of this piece calls attention to some key words the concept of which we need to appreciate. Those key words are ‘media trial’ and ‘fair trial’. We shall now turn to define the key terms that are inextricably intertwined and central to the appreciation of this piece.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:
According to the Wikipedia, Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.
It is pertinent to observe that the concept of ‘fair trial’ owes its provenance to the Constitution as being one of the safeguards consecrated for the benefit of an accused person. That imperishable constitutional right to “fair trial” is irrefragably grafted on the supreme law of the land with a view to ensuring that no man is sent to the gallows by perfunctory judicial process or an outcome dictated largely by public opinions built on sentiment as against the strength and weaknesses of the agglomeration of facts and evidence before the court. Section 36 of the Constitution represents the total package of the fair trial principle. Elsewhere, it has been noted that Fairness of a trial is fundamental to the administration of justice, it does not only give integrity to the legal system but it also ensures the confidence of the society in the justice system. The concept of fair hearing is at the foundation of the legal system; two major principles of fair hearing are "Audi Alteram Partem" meaning "hear the other party" and "Nemo Judex In Causa Sua" meaning "no one should be a judge in his own case.”.

While acknowledging the glaring fact that the social media may greatly impact judicial proceedings in many positive ways, however, there have been growing concerns about the negative impacts it bears on the courtroom proceedings. These concerns are indeed legitimate. They can no longer be ignored. The stakeholders are now all at one that the negative impact of social media on the trial of accused persons is one of the identified contemporary challenges besetting our criminal justice administration system. Finding immediate and lasting solutions to this emerging disturbing trend is one that can no longer suffer delay. The danger of such delay is now looking us all in our faces. In all of this, what suffers most is the right of an accused person to a fair trial.

It is pertinent to observe that this disturbing trend is not a challenge peculiar to Nigeria as a country only. Its reach is wide-spread. As a renowned scholar at Murdoch University, Ms Krawitz, aptly noted, “It is crucial that Australian courts actively address these issues because of the importance of what is at stake: an accused's right to a fair trial.” [http://www.nd.edu.au/news/media-releases/2013/165]. The story is the same in India. This concern impelled the Indian Supreme Court to hand down the warning that “a trial by media amounts to travesty of justice if it causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial” [refer to Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010(2) ACR1645 (SC), AIR2010SC2352].

It must be stressed that fair hearing is one of the chief cornerstones of our criminal justice system. It is therefore not a privilege but an immutable right inuring eternally to the benefit of an accused person and to equally safeguard the integrity of the judicial process. The tons of academic materials and barrels of judicial ink which have engendered unending academic enterprise in expounding this fundamental right to fair trial speaks to the ubiquitous status of this right. It cannot [as it ought not to] be whittled down or overthrown by the side winds of media trial. The Nigerian Courts have remained consistent in upholding this right. Indeed, extensive research has shown that the weight of all binding judicial authorities in this country speak with the same accord in jealously guarding this right considered to be inviolate. In the case of Federal Polytechnic, Ede & Ors vs. Alhaji Lukman Ademola Oyebanji (2012) LPELR-19696(CA), the irrepressible judicial activist, the ever indomitable C.C. Nweze, J.C.A. (as he then was, now J.S.C.), announced magisterially;

The provision of section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, relating to fair hearing, is truly far-reaching. The requirements of fair hearing are ubiquitous.
The basic criteria and attributes of fair hearing have been outlined in Case Law. The rationale of all such binding authorities on the matter is that fair hearing imposes an ambidextrous standard of justice in which the court must be fair to both sides of the conflict, Ndu v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (pt.164) 550, 578, adopted by Onu JSC in Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (2001) 33 WRN 1, 13-14. It, therefore, does not anticipate a standard of justice, which is biased in favour of one party, but prejudices the other. Above all, it is not a technical doctrine, but one of substance, Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (supra) at pp. 14 - 15, Onu JSC, approvingly adopting the posture which Nnaemeka Agu JSC took in Kotoye v C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 98) 418, 448. The touchstone is determining the observance of fair hearing in trials is not the question whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party due to want of hearing. It is rather the question whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to parties entitled to be heard, J. C. C. Inter Ltd. v N.G.I. Ltd. (2002) 4 WRN 91, 104.

END:
In ending this short reflection, we recall the meaning ascribed to media trial by the Indian Supreme Court as: “The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.”

No doubt, in tying up the loose ends of this piece, it is important to take the liberty which the platform of this rare academic altitude has offered to eloquently condemn the media trial to which Colonel Nicholas Ashinze has been subjected in his ongoing trial before the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole. It is an unwholesome arsenal in the armoury of the EFCC being deployed with confounding recklessness to entice the gullible and twist the minds of the undiscerning. The satanic media trial of citizens [like Colonel Nicholas Ashinze in the instance] who may have come under suspicion by the EFCC is solely aimed at provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny. [In the language of the Indian Supreme Court.]. It cannot be otherwise for it totally defies reason and queries the motive for deliberately misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court by using the media to rub the head of Colonel Ashinze in the mud and thereby making it well-nigh impossible to live the rest of his life without intense public scrutiny and worse still making his fair trail nearly impossible. This is indeed the aspect of the media coverage of judicial proceedings that has become of grave concern to stakeholders in our criminal justice system world over. It is this negative impact of the media on the fair trial of accused persons that Ms Krawitz deems it crucial that Australian courts actively address…because of the importance of what is at stake: an accused's right to a fair trial.
It is the turn of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze today, and nobody knows whose turn it would be tomorrow. Our history and experiences have shown that it is not also impossible that those who are nurturing and fertilizing the festering evil system of media trial today at the EFCC might become its victims tomorrow.
In signing off this piece, we must now praise the Honourable Justice Gabriel Kolawole. By his Ruling, he has stood up to be counted especially at a time when the judiciary is practically under siege laid by a most intolerant and hostile regime. His courageous stand in stepping in to stop the EFCC on their evil track could not have been better captured than he did it in his short Ruling for which he deserves the commendations of all stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice and preservation of democracy in Nigeria. Hear him;
“It is unfair for EFCC as a complainant in this trial to resort to self-help by engaging the defendant in the media trial at the same time in the court trial. “If you want to try the defendant in the media, you have to limit yourself to the media. You have to stop misleading the public in the fact of this trial. Let me say it for the sake of emphasis that EFCC must stop the use of journalists to distort proceedings in my court. You cannot be engaging in two trials: one in the court and one in the media at the same time. If you are not satisfied with my decision to stop this trial pending the time the EFCC retract this offending press statement of my court proceeding, then you can take your case to another court “This press statement by one Wilson Uwujare who claimed to be from EFCC is scandalous and prejudice to fair trial of the defendant in this matter.”
We find here a convenient place to stop.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI is a Criminal Defence Attorney and Human Rights Activist based in Abuja, Nigeria. He could be reached on: joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com

Cc; Lalasticlala, Seun

For his unrepentant defiance of the order of the Federal High Court for the UNCONDITIONAL release of the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), an Abuja-based Constitutional Lawyer and Human Rights Advocate, Barrister Johnmary C. Jideobi, has some unkind words for President Muhammadu Buhari. In an open letter to the President, the Lawyer accused Mr. President of being in contempt of court, warning that "disobedience of Court Orders (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination and corruption of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction." The full Letter made available to odogwublog is found below.


THE PRESIDENT,
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA,
PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI, GCFR,
ASO ROCK VILLA,
ABUJA.
DEAR SIR,

DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA MADE ON THE 17th DECEMBER, 2015 BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ADEMOLA AND THE COMPELLING NEED TO HALT THE ACCELERATED SLIDE INTO ANARCHY

The above subject matter refers;

1. I bring you warmest greetings in the name of all lovers of democracy who sincerely believe in the peaceful and orderly continuous existence of our great Republic, which by the infinite mercies of God and grace of the ballot box you are privileged to be leading at the present time.


2. By Constitutional structuring and operation of our laws, the Department of State Security (DSS) and indeed all other military and para-military agencies are under your ultimate control and command as per your pre-eminent position as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This being the position, it becomes pertinent to refresh your memory of the now notorious fact that on the 17th December, 2015, the Federal High Court of Nigeria delivered a Ruling in the application brought by Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). In the said Court Ruling, a sacred Order was solemnly pronounced against the DSS to the effect that Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should be released UNCONDITIONALLY having been admitted to bail. To confirm that you are aware of the subsistence of that solemn Order and that same has not been complied with, on the 30th December, 2015, you declared on the national television, that Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not deserve the bail granted him by the Court, hence his continuous detention at your pleasure on the ground that he would jump bail since he has committed (not alleged to have committed) a serious offence. With this position you have taken, the gist of this letter to you has now crystallized.


3. Not only because of the fact that I am one of the Lawyers who appeared for Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on the said 17th December, 2015 but also (if not more importantly) as a Nigerian trained Lawyer, my knowledge of our laws was rudely shaken by the strange position you chose to adopt on this matter which is not only diametrically-opposed to established democratic norms but also kilometers and kilometers away from our laws and practice especially on which institution of the State has the competence to either grant or refuse bail or to pronounce the guilt or innocence of an alleged offence, no matter how seemingly heinous. I will now proceed hereunder, in the most diligent manner possible, to dispassionately demonstrate to you how your position represents an unfortunate departure from all democratic ideals, invitation to anarchy and disorder, resurrection of tyranny, and more seriously, contempt of the Court and the very Constitution on which the Temple of justice stands.


4. In carrying out this assignment, Sir, I shall be drawing inspirations from our Supreme Court cases where similar issues have been discussed and settled, more so when our Supreme Court enjoins the finality of determinations as ordained by Section 235 of our amended Constitution. I consider it a good starting point to reiterate the supremacy of our Constitution over everybody as its Section 1 (1) very eloquently proclaims that; “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” Amplifying this provision, the Nigerian Supreme Court, speaking through Tobi, J.S.C., in the case of Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation, had this to say;
“The Constitution of a nation, is the fons et origo, not only of the jurisprudence but also of the legal system. In Greek language, it is the alpha and the omega. It is the barometer with which all statutes are measured. In line with this kingly position of the Constitution, all the three arms of Government are slaves of the Constitution, not in the sense of undergoing servitude or bondage, but in the sense of total obeisance and loyalty to it. This is in recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution over and above every statute… All the three arms of Government must dance to the music and chorus that the Constitution beats and sings, whether the melody sound good or bad.”

5. Having established that all arms of Government must dance to the music and chorus that the Constitution beats, Your Excellency, I shall now quickly move to show you what our Constitution says about the duty on all authorities of the State with respect to Court orders such as the one made by My Lord Justice Ademola on the 17th December, 2015.

6. For the avoidance of any scintilla of doubt, Section 287(3) of our Constitution provides lucidly, in the very words which I would now most respectfully reproduce;
“The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively” (italics supplied by me for emphasis)

7. Your Excellency, it bears no repetition that the discernible Constitutional duty that has crystallized on your shoulders as eventuating from the above provision is to ENFORCE the decisions of the Federal High Court such as the one made by My Lord Justice Ademola J. on the 17th December, 2015, your personal opinion and reservations notwithstanding. Your Excellency, it is when you have failed in this Constitutional duty of ENFORCING the decisions of our Courts, as you have openly failed in this instance, that one is said to have committed the ‘contempt of Court’ which is a grave offence that is not taken lightly in every serious democracy as it has the dangerous potency of derailing the democracy of the entire Republic.


8. Sir, all the existing Supreme Court authorities and our penal books lean heavily in support of the long-established postulation that disobedience of Court Orders (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction. Condemning this cancerous vice, our own Supreme Court, in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, had these unkind words for those who disobey Court orders (contemnors);
“I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society.”

9. Additionally, just to demonstrate the emphasis which our jurisprudence places on obedience of Court Orders, the Supreme Court in Odu v. Jolaoso (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt.950), while dealing with the same issue, declared with a tone of finality that;
“It is a plain and ungratified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. This is so even in cases where the person affected by the Order believes it to be irregular or even void. So long as it exists, it must be obeyed to the letter.”

10. Sir, our Supreme Court has said it all and I could not have done better. I cannot possibly add or improve on the proposition of law so ably and comprehensively stated in most beautiful a language. The corollary of the foregoing irresistibly crystallizes to the fact that your continuous detention of Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, despite a subsisting Order of Court order to the contrary, has satisfied all the ingredients of the definition ascribed to a contemnor who our Supreme Court adjudges to be an anarchist, terminator of democracy and enemy of order, peace and stability of Nigeria. Indeed, this is a shameful toga that is most unworthy of any occupant of the number one office in our Republic as ordained by our Constitution.


11. In conclusion, Sir, for whatever the consequences might be, my resignation and abiding duty to higher causes of human rights advocacy, Rule of Law and defence of our democracy, all borne out of good conscience, has prevailed on me to speak out against this primitive rape of our democracy and unrestrained slide into tyranny and impunity, which all along we thought had been buried seven months ago. By so doing, I am discharging the duty I owe to my conscience which is speaking out against the evil of my day thereby securing the vindication of posterity when the sad records of impunity in the Nigeria of our time might fall for review. Mr. President, in my village where I come from, we have a saying that no matter how intimidated and scared a people might be, it will necessarily get to a point where they will be compelled to protest to their dreaded king even if it means covering their faces with baskets in so doing.

12. In signing off, Sir, may I extol your determination to decisively stamp out this excruciating scourge of corruption which has left our economy in tatters and has almost hobbled our collective dreams as a nation. Section 15 (5) of our Constitution mandates you to so do and additionally, our Supreme Court has equally strengthened your resolve by its testimonial decision in the case of Attorney-General of Ondo v. Attorney-General of the Federation. On this score, Sir, I am standing on the same pedestal with you and swim in the same water. However, what I am not at peace with is your unconstitutional method since we cannot (and it is even illegal to) fight impunity with impunity. At all times, our Constitution must remain inviolable since no amount of ‘good intention’ can furnish a justification for its abuse. Secondly, Sir, you may need to keep in view the seasoned advice of a Learned Hand which is that “If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.” May the almighty Nigerian Constitution never suffer worship on the altar of Tyranny any more.


13. As you graciously find time to reflect on all this delicate issues, I most earnestly pray our God Almighty to generously sprinkle you with rains of wisdom so as to objectively appreciate the issues at stake, the courage to retrace your discomforting unconstitutional steps, the discerning spirit to identify and hold unto only those policies that will ennoble your Presidency so that ultimately, our future democracy will be protected, the Republic will be preserved and your tenure records a resounding success.

Please, Sir, do kindly accept the assurances of my highest esteem,

Yours in Defence of Democracy,

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/01/kanu-finally-lawyer-blasts-buhari-in.html

Cc; Lalasticlala, Seun

For his unrepentant defiance of the order of the Federal High Court for the UNCONDITIONAL release of the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), an Abuja-based Constitutional Lawyer and Human Rights Advocate, Barrister Johnmary C. Jideobi, has some unkind words for President Muhammadu Buhari. In an open letter to the President, the Lawyer accused Mr. President of being in contempt of court, warning that "disobedience of Court Orders (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination and corruption of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction." The full Letter made available to odogwublog is found below.


THE PRESIDENT,
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA,
PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI, GCFR,
ASO ROCK VILLA,
ABUJA.
DEAR SIR,

DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA MADE ON THE 17th DECEMBER, 2015 BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ADEMOLA AND THE COMPELLING NEED TO HALT THE ACCELERATED SLIDE INTO ANARCHY

The above subject matter refers;

1. I bring you warmest greetings in the name of all lovers of democracy who sincerely believe in the peaceful and orderly continuous existence of our great Republic, which by the infinite mercies of God and grace of the ballot box you are privileged to be leading at the present time.


2. By Constitutional structuring and operation of our laws, the Department of State Security (DSS) and indeed all other military and para-military agencies are under your ultimate control and command as per your pre-eminent position as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This being the position, it becomes pertinent to refresh your memory of the now notorious fact that on the 17th December, 2015, the Federal High Court of Nigeria delivered a Ruling in the application brought by Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). In the said Court Ruling, a sacred Order was solemnly pronounced against the DSS to the effect that Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should be released UNCONDITIONALLY having been admitted to bail. To confirm that you are aware of the subsistence of that solemn Order and that same has not been complied with, on the 30th December, 2015, you declared on the national television, that Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not deserve the bail granted him by the Court, hence his continuous detention at your pleasure on the ground that he would jump bail since he has committed (not alleged to have committed) a serious offence. With this position you have taken, the gist of this letter to you has now crystallized.


3. Not only because of the fact that I am one of the Lawyers who appeared for Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on the said 17th December, 2015 but also (if not more importantly) as a Nigerian trained Lawyer, my knowledge of our laws was rudely shaken by the strange position you chose to adopt on this matter which is not only diametrically-opposed to established democratic norms but also kilometers and kilometers away from our laws and practice especially on which institution of the State has the competence to either grant or refuse bail or to pronounce the guilt or innocence of an alleged offence, no matter how seemingly heinous. I will now proceed hereunder, in the most diligent manner possible, to dispassionately demonstrate to you how your position represents an unfortunate departure from all democratic ideals, invitation to anarchy and disorder, resurrection of tyranny, and more seriously, contempt of the Court and the very Constitution on which the Temple of justice stands.


4. In carrying out this assignment, Sir, I shall be drawing inspirations from our Supreme Court cases where similar issues have been discussed and settled, more so when our Supreme Court enjoins the finality of determinations as ordained by Section 235 of our amended Constitution. I consider it a good starting point to reiterate the supremacy of our Constitution over everybody as its Section 1 (1) very eloquently proclaims that; “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” Amplifying this provision, the Nigerian Supreme Court, speaking through Tobi, J.S.C., in the case of Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation, had this to say;
“The Constitution of a nation, is the fons et origo, not only of the jurisprudence but also of the legal system. In Greek language, it is the alpha and the omega. It is the barometer with which all statutes are measured. In line with this kingly position of the Constitution, all the three arms of Government are slaves of the Constitution, not in the sense of undergoing servitude or bondage, but in the sense of total obeisance and loyalty to it. This is in recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution over and above every statute… All the three arms of Government must dance to the music and chorus that the Constitution beats and sings, whether the melody sound good or bad.”

5. Having established that all arms of Government must dance to the music and chorus that the Constitution beats, Your Excellency, I shall now quickly move to show you what our Constitution says about the duty on all authorities of the State with respect to Court orders such as the one made by My Lord Justice Ademola on the 17th December, 2015.

6. For the avoidance of any scintilla of doubt, Section 287(3) of our Constitution provides lucidly, in the very words which I would now most respectfully reproduce;
“The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively” (italics supplied by me for emphasis)

7. Your Excellency, it bears no repetition that the discernible Constitutional duty that has crystallized on your shoulders as eventuating from the above provision is to ENFORCE the decisions of the Federal High Court such as the one made by My Lord Justice Ademola J. on the 17th December, 2015, your personal opinion and reservations notwithstanding. Your Excellency, it is when you have failed in this Constitutional duty of ENFORCING the decisions of our Courts, as you have openly failed in this instance, that one is said to have committed the ‘contempt of Court’ which is a grave offence that is not taken lightly in every serious democracy as it has the dangerous potency of derailing the democracy of the entire Republic.


8. Sir, all the existing Supreme Court authorities and our penal books lean heavily in support of the long-established postulation that disobedience of Court Orders (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction. Condemning this cancerous vice, our own Supreme Court, in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, had these unkind words for those who disobey Court orders (contemnors);
“I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society.”

9. Additionally, just to demonstrate the emphasis which our jurisprudence places on obedience of Court Orders, the Supreme Court in Odu v. Jolaoso (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt.950), while dealing with the same issue, declared with a tone of finality that;
“It is a plain and ungratified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. This is so even in cases where the person affected by the Order believes it to be irregular or even void. So long as it exists, it must be obeyed to the letter.”

10. Sir, our Supreme Court has said it all and I could not have done better. I cannot possibly add or improve on the proposition of law so ably and comprehensively stated in most beautiful a language. The corollary of the foregoing irresistibly crystallizes to the fact that your continuous detention of Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, despite a subsisting Order of Court order to the contrary, has satisfied all the ingredients of the definition ascribed to a contemnor who our Supreme Court adjudges to be an anarchist, terminator of democracy and enemy of order, peace and stability of Nigeria. Indeed, this is a shameful toga that is most unworthy of any occupant of the number one office in our Republic as ordained by our Constitution.


11. In conclusion, Sir, for whatever the consequences might be, my resignation and abiding duty to higher causes of human rights advocacy, Rule of Law and defence of our democracy, all borne out of good conscience, has prevailed on me to speak out against this primitive rape of our democracy and unrestrained slide into tyranny and impunity, which all along we thought had been buried seven months ago. By so doing, I am discharging the duty I owe to my conscience which is speaking out against the evil of my day thereby securing the vindication of posterity when the sad records of impunity in the Nigeria of our time might fall for review. Mr. President, in my village where I come from, we have a saying that no matter how intimidated and scared a people might be, it will necessarily get to a point where they will be compelled to protest to their dreaded king even if it means covering their faces with baskets in so doing.



12. In signing off, Sir, may I extol your determination to decisively stamp out this excruciating scourge of corruption which has left our economy in tatters and has almost hobbled our collective dreams as a nation. Section 15 (5) of our Constitution mandates you to so do and additionally, our Supreme Court has equally strengthened your resolve by its testimonial decision in the case of Attorney-General of Ondo v. Attorney-General of the Federation. On this score, Sir, I am standing on the same pedestal with you and swim in the same water. However, what I am not at peace with is your unconstitutional method since we cannot (and it is even illegal to) fight impunity with impunity. At all times, our Constitution must remain inviolable since no amount of ‘good intention’ can furnish a justification for its abuse. Secondly, Sir, you may need to keep in view the seasoned advice of a Learned Hand which is that “If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.” May the almighty Nigerian Constitution never suffer worship on the altar of Tyranny any more.


13. As you graciously find time to reflect on all this delicate issues, I most earnestly pray our God Almighty to generously sprinkle you with rains of wisdom so as to objectively appreciate the issues at stake, the courage to retrace your discomforting unconstitutional steps, the discerning spirit to identify and hold unto only those policies that will ennoble your Presidency so that ultimately, our future democracy will be protected, the Republic will be preserved and your tenure records a resounding success.

Please, Sir, do kindly accept the assurances of my highest esteem,

Yours in Defence of Democracy,

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

Source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/01/kanu-finally-lawyer-blasts-buhari-in.html

Cc: Lalasticlala, Seun

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate on Tuesday, 15th March, 2017, Mr. Magu Ibrahim Mustapha was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by an Abuja Lawyer. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17, the Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, is seeking to oust Magu Ibrahim Mustapha, as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

In the concluding part of his written address, the Plaintiff descended heavily on Magu in these telling words:

"We further submit that the refusal of the 4th Defendant to accept, as unquestionably binding, the decision of the 1st Defendant rejecting his nomination is a grave and violent confrontation to the well-established Constitutional authority of the highest law-making body in Nigeria. The Constitution which established the Senate and empowers it to screen and approve or disapprove the nominations of Mr. President equally by its Section 1 (1) establishes its pre-eminence and pervading bindingness on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria."

"By continuing to remain and act as the Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant despite his resounding rejection by the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is rumpling the Nigerian Constitution. Has he got the powers to do that? The answer is a loud NO. Persons who are desirous of presiding over the agencies of government established by law cannot afford to be spiteful of the law and where they are found to be riding roughshod on the Rule of Law, a civilized society ought not to entrust them with a position of responsibility otherwise by their impunity and abuse of democratic ethos, an organized society may come to a sad end. The 4th Defendant should be told so in the clearest of language."

In the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff raised one question of law for the determination of the Court to wit:
"Whether having regard to the provision of section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the rejection by the 1st Defendant herein of the appointment of the 4th Defendant herein as the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant has not ended the roles of the 4th Defendant within the 3rd Defendant herein?"

Among the reliefs the Plaintiff is seeking from the Court are;
"A SOLEMN DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, that under and by virtue of section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act 2004, the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, cannot continue to function in office as Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, after the decision of the 1st Defendant, The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which rejected the nomination of the 4th Defendant as Chairman of the 3rd Defendant."

"A SOLEMN DECLARATION HONOURABLE COURT that all actions taken by the 3rd Defendant, especially charges and information filed in various courts, during the period when the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, acted in excess of his legal term as Acting Chairman thereof, are illegal, null, void and invalid."

"AN ORDER, forthwith directing the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, to vacate, relinquish and surrender his office as Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission."

The matter has been fixed for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court 10, Abuja.

Cc: Lalasticlala, Seun

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate on Tuesday, 15th March, 2017, Mr. Magu Ibrahim Mustapha was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by an Abuja Lawyer. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17, the Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, is seeking to oust Magu Ibrahim Mustapha, as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

In the concluding part of his written address, the Plaintiff descended heavily on Magu in these telling words:

"We further submit that the refusal of the 4th Defendant to accept, as unquestionably binding, the decision of the 1st Defendant rejecting his nomination is a grave and violent confrontation to the well-established Constitutional authority of the highest law-making body in Nigeria. The Constitution which established the Senate and empowers it to screen and approve or disapprove the nominations of Mr. President equally by its Section 1 (1) establishes its pre-eminence and pervading bindingness on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria."

"By continuing to remain and act as the Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant despite his resounding rejection by the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is rumpling the Nigerian Constitution. Has he got the powers to do that? The answer is a loud NO. Persons who are desirous of presiding over the agencies of government established by law cannot afford to be spiteful of the law and where they are found to be riding roughshod on the Rule of Law, a civilized society ought not to entrust them with a position of responsibility otherwise by their impunity and abuse of democratic ethos, an organized society may come to a sad end. The 4th Defendant should be told so in the clearest of language."

In the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff raised one question of law for the determination of the Court to wit:
"Whether having regard to the provision of section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the rejection by the 1st Defendant herein of the appointment of the 4th Defendant herein as the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant has not ended the roles of the 4th Defendant within the 3rd Defendant herein?"

Among the reliefs the Plaintiff is seeking from the Court are;
"A SOLEMN DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, that under and by virtue of section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act 2004, the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, cannot continue to function in office as Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, after the decision of the 1st Defendant, The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which rejected the nomination of the 4th Defendant as Chairman of the 3rd Defendant."

"A SOLEMN DECLARATION HONOURABLE COURT that all actions taken by the 3rd Defendant, especially charges and information filed in various courts, during the period when the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, acted in excess of his legal term as Acting Chairman thereof, are illegal, null, void and invalid."

"AN ORDER, forthwith directing the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, to vacate, relinquish and surrender his office as Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission."

The matter has been fixed for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court 10, Abuja.

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate on Tuesday, 15th March, 2017, Mr. Magu Ibrahim Mustapha was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by an Abuja Lawyer. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17, the Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, is seeking to oust Magu Ibrahim Mustapha, as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

In the concluding part of his written address, the Plaintiff descended heavily on Magu in these telling words:

"We further submit that the refusal of the 4th Defendant to accept, as unquestionably binding, the decision of the 1st Defendant rejecting his nomination is a grave and violent confrontation to the well-established Constitutional authority of the highest law-making body in Nigeria. The Constitution which established the Senate and empowers it to screen and approve or disapprove the nominations of Mr. President equally by its Section 1 (1) establishes its pre-eminence and pervading bindingness on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria."

"By continuing to remain and act as the Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant despite his resounding rejection by the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is rumpling the Nigerian Constitution. Has he got the powers to do that? The answer is a loud NO. Persons who are desirous of presiding over the agencies of government established by law cannot afford to be spiteful of the law and where they are found to be riding roughshod on the Rule of Law, a civilized society ought not to entrust them with a position of responsibility otherwise by their impunity and abuse of democratic ethos, an organized society may come to a sad end. The 4th Defendant should be told so in the clearest of language."

The matter has been fixed for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court 10, Abuja.

www.odogwublog.com reports that with the endorsement of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Zonal Youth Leader , South-East, Sir Chukwuma Paul Chukwuka from Umueri Anambra East local government area of Anambra North by traders in Anambra state under the auspices of Anambra state Amalgamated Traders Association stakeholders and Elders, it appears Governor Willie Obiano has lost the re-election campaign.
www.odogwublog.com reports that Paul is actually ready to take over the mantle of leadership from the incumbent Governor Willie Obiano and he did not mince words in saying so.

The traders at fact finding visit to the Sir Chukwuma Paul Chukwuka , a Member Board of Trustees (BOT) ANPP defunct and currently a member of the National Executive Committee member, NEC APC assured him that all the traders in Anambra state would campaign for him since they have seen an alternative to Obaino.
Sir Paul is the Group Managing Director/ CEO, ValuePlus Group Abuja, Nigeria even as he consults and represents several companies outside Nigeria here including Sekure ID Miramar Florida, USA , HID GLOBAL, (MAKERS OF AMERICAN GREEN CARDS) Minneapolis, USA, and IDS-NEXT Bangalore, India, among others.
The traders who were leaders and former leaders of various markets and product lines in Anambra state vowed to stop at nothing but ensure Sir Paul emerges as next Governor to complete the 8 years of Anambra North which Obiano has failed their expectation.
They were led by 10 prominent market leaders including Chief Stephen Offor and Sir E.N Okafor among others and each spoke at the event eulogizing the qualities of Sir Paul.
Accepting their endorsement as a candidate for the APC governorship election in November 18th 2017 election, Sir Paul challenged them to avoid lip service and eye service filled with praises without action. He challenged them to ensure they work for his progress to first emerge as the flag bearer of the party then join forces with him to canvass support for the APC during the election.
He appealed to them to ensure voters stop selling their voters cards and as well spread the gospel according to APC inside the markets since greater population of the state citizenry who are eligible voters are inside the markets.
He pointed out that although he is a knight of the Roman Catholic church, he would be governor for all devoid of religious colouration and urged them to support his ambition sincerely to emerge Governor and develop the state.
Furthermore, www.odogwublog.com reports that Sir Chukwuma Paul Chukwuka assured he is capable and better qualified than all the other candidates who are his friends also aiming to be the candidate of the party as he has remained a loyal party man as a founding member of APC after they collapsed ANPP to form APC wondering why those who change party like wrapper should be better candidates than himself.
He said although Obiano is his friend and brother , he has failed the expectation of the state as he has failed on the focus of governance and leadership, which he has come to restore and govern the state well, even as he asked God not to allow him win if he is going to disappoint. He decried a situation a leader should be lying for his people.

A first class graduate of Philosophy from UNN and PhD student as well as Law student insisted that he is a credible candidate and have all that it takes to campaign to be governor of Anambra state appealed to the people to see his ability and capacity to govern , lead and give governance rather than on the ongoing propaganda governance obtainable in Anambra now even as he said security has elapsed since at 10 pm , everywhere becomes deserted.
He encouraged Ndigbo to invest at home as 70 percent of property in Abuja belonged to Ndigbo while 65 percent in Lagos belonged to Ndigbo , same across the federation.

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate today, Mr. Magu Ibrahim Mustapha was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by an Abuja Lawyer. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17, the Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, is seeking to oust Magu Ibrahim Mustapha, as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The matter has been fixed for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court 10, Abuja.

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate today, Mr. Magu Ibrahim Mustapha was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by an Abuja Lawyer. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17, the Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, is seeking to oust Magu as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The matter is coming up for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court 10, Abuja.

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate today, Mr. Magu Ibrahim was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by a Lawyer seeking to oust him as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The matter is coming up for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of Court 10.

Below are the pictures of the Endorsement of the Originating Summons.

News Telegraph


UPDATE:
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and presided over by the Honourbale Justice Quadri, will on 5th April, 2017 hear the suit filed by an Abuja Human Rights Lawyer seeking to have Magu sacked as the Acting Chairman of the EFCC and to retrain the Senate from ratifying hi RE-nomination by the President as the ubstantive Chairman of the foremost anti-graft agency.

The Senate has been dragged before the Federal High Court, Abuja over its presumed bid to reconsider the nomination of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) after the parliament had earlier rejected same nomination based on a security report. Also joined in the suit are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the EFCC as well as Magu.

A constitutional lawyer, Chukwukasi Jideobi, who filed the suit, is asking the court to determine whether having regard to the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, the rejection of Magu’s nomination by the Senate on December 15, 2016 has not ended his tenure as the Acting Chairman of the anti-graft agency.

In the originating summons exclusively obtained by New Telegraph, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that by virtue of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act, Ibrahim Magu cannot continue to function in office as Acting Chairman of the Commission after the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria rejected his nomination.

Jideobi argued that the failure of Magu to vacate his office as Acting Chairman of the EFCC after the rejection of his nomination by the Senate has disqualified him from further consideration for confirmation as the substantive chairman of the commission by the parliament.

In the summons, Jideobi also argued that the Attorney General of the Federation and, by extension, the Federal Government of Nigeria, are bound by the decision of the Senate rejecting Magu as Chairman of EFCC and cannot continue to treat, recognise, deal with him as acting chairman of the commission.

He further urged the court to declare that Magu “is not a fit and proper person” to lead the EFCC as its chairman either in its acting or substantive capacity.

The plaintiff is also seeking a declaration of the court that the EFCC, its servants and officers are bound by the decision of the Senate, rejecting Magu and cannot continue to treat, recognise or deal with him as the Acting Chairman of the commission.

It said that by virtue of Magu’s rejection by the Senate on December 15, 2016, all actions taken by him, especially charges and information filed in various courts since then should be declared illegal, null, void and invalid because he acted in excess of his legal term as Acting Chairman of the Commission.

In clear terms, the suit seeks an injunction restraining Magu, whether by himself, his servants, agents or privies, or in any manner whatsoever from functioning in office as performing or continuing to perform the duties of it, holding himself out or parading himself as Acting Chairman of the EFCC. Jideobi also sought an injunction restraining the Senate from receiving, entertaining, considering or deliberating upon any request, letter, application or demand for approval, confirmation or endorsement of Magu as Chairman of the EFCC.

In a letter dated March 2, 2017 and addressed to the Clerk of the Senate, the plaintiff recalled that that President Muhammadu Buhari had, on January 17, 2017, sent a letter to the Senate re-nominating Magu as Executive Chairman of the EFCC, but faulted the move, given the grave security reasons that informed Magu’s earlier rejection by the Senate.

The plaintiff urged the Senate to stay action on the said letter re-nominating Magu and requesting for his confirmation pending the determination of the suit already filed against him.


Source: http://newtelegraphonline.com/news/lawyer-drags-senate-court-seeks-magus-disqualification/

source: SR

http://www.sambisareports.com/2017/03/compellability-of-sambo-dasuki-under.html



Compellability of Sambo Dasuki under the Nigerian law of evidence: where the Hon. Justice Abang erred.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

PREFATORY REMARKS:
The application of the law of evidence is at the very heart of all judicial proceedings, whether civil or criminal. There has never been any argument about this by all stakeholders in every justice administration system, at least in commonwealth jurisdictions. The law of evidence is a vast area of law and occupies a prominent position in all judicial proceedings. The reason is not far-fetched. Our law courts arrive at their judgments based, only, on the facts and the body of hardcore evidence assembled before it. Evidence has been aptly described as any specie of proof, or probative matter legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties, and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects etc, for the purpose of inducing belief in the mind of the court or jury as to their contentions. See Onya vs. Ogbuji (2011) All FWL (Pt. 556) 493 at 517 per Salauwa, J.C.A.). It is also important to remember that evidence whether oral or documentary consists of facts, and facts are the fountainhead of the law. See Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co Limited vs. A.C.B. Limited (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 198) 1175 at 1199. Of greater emphasis is that parties and the court, as already observed, are bound by the evidence placed before the court. The reason is obvious. It ensures that the Judge must decide a case before him on the evidence adduced and it is not allowed to rely on other extraneous matters. See Nwobodo vs. Nwobodo (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 370) 203 @ 214.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
On the 24th of February, 2017, it was reported that the Federal High Court of Nigeria (Court 10) sitting in the Abuja Judicial Division and presided over by the Hon. Justice Abang, delivered a ruling in the interlocutory application brought by the former National Spokesman of the People Democratic Party (PDP for short in this article), Chief Olisa Metu.

Chief Olisa Metu (a Lawyer), is currently standing criminal trial for allegedly diverting the hefty sum of N400, 000, 000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira Only) purportedly from the Office of the National Security Adviser which sum the prosecutor is alleging was part of the fund earlier earmarked for the purchase of military hardware for combating terrorism in the North-Eastern part of the country. In the said application earlier referred to, Chief Metu sought to subpoena the former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (Rtd.) to testify on his behalf and in his defence. It is to be noted that currently, the former National Security Adviser (NSA for short), is still in the detention facility of the State Security Service (SSS in short otherwise called DSS) despite numerous Orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction admitting him to bail and ordering his release pending trial. In refusing/dismissing Chief Metu’s application, just was quoted as stating the following:

“It is not the duty of the court to compel anyone to come and give evidence in court when that person is not a compellable witness.

The name of Dasuki was not included in the list of witnesses filed by the de­fendants. The question is, at what stage did the defendant make up his mind to include Dasuki’s name in its lists of witnesses?
The application is made in bad faith and with the in­tention to delay the trial. The defendants have exhausted all the adjournments it is entitled to as stipulated in Section 394 of the Admin­istration of Criminal Jus­tice Act. The 1st defendant is no longer entitled to any adjournment in this matter having granted 8 adjournments since the commence­ment of the trial.”

It is worthy of note that the Hon. Justice Abang delivered two (2) rulings on the said day. The other ruling was on the application of Chief Metu for the court to order the temporal release of his traveling documents to enable him to proceed to the United Kingdom, based on the referral of the Doctors treating him in Nigeria, for further medical treatment.

These facts shortly above stated could be read from different websites of some of our national dailies.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS CONTRIBUTION:
The humble attempt of this write-up is to vindicate the age long position of the law relating to competence and compellability of witnesses in Nigeria which is that, with the exception of already identifiable and identified class of persons, all persons are compellable witnesses in proof of any fact in issue in all judicial proceedings in Nigeria. While affirming the settled proposition that “all compellable witnesses are competent but not all competent witnesses are compellable”, this article will proceed to demonstrate, in all diligent manner possible, that the former NSA, Sambo Dasuki, is a compellable witness, in the entire circumstances necessitating the application of Chief Metu, contrary to the pillar of reasoning upon which the Federal High Court rested its decision to dismiss the application seeking to compel Sambo Dasuki to testify on behalf and in defence of Chief Olisa Metu. The article will further establish, resting on age-long superior judicial authorities, that in turning down the crucial request of Chief Metu to have Sambo Dasuki subpoenaed to testify in his defence, the Court may have eroded completely, unwittingly though, the inviolable fair-hearing right of the Defendant amply consecrated in section 36 (1) & (6) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, rendering the entire proceedings a nullity thereby.

THE GRAVAMEN:
The law of evidence in Nigeria is principally governed by the Evidence Act, 2011. It is to this Act that we shall now turn with a view to discovering the provisions governing compellability of witnesses under our jurisprudence. Section 175 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act is very relevant here and we take the liberty of this discussion to reproduce it word for word, only for purposes of clarity and completeness.

175. (1) All persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.

(2) A person of unsound mind is not incompetent to testify unless he is prevented by his mental infirmity from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.

Acknowledging that the law relating to compellability of witnesses is indeed a vast forest, our efforts will be carefully circumscribed and cautiously limited to only those aspects of the law that would aid our quick and efficient attainment of the goal which this article has set for itself. Since the thrust of our concern is about the class of persons exempted from being compelled to appear before the court and give testimony for the defendant/accused person, we shall now narrow down our analysis to those sections of the Act that deals with non-compellable witnesses.

Going by virtue of section 308 of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and his Vice, All State Governors and their Deputies are conferred with immunity from both criminal and civil prosecution in their personal capacity. Specifically, no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of person to which the section applies shall be applied for or issued. Following section 1 (1) & (2) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, diplomats and members of their families, their official and domestic staff and members of the families of their official staff enjoy immunity not only against being sued but also against being compelled to testify. We must make haste to state that even though the aforementioned exempted category of persons are not compellable witnesses, nevertheless, they are competent to testify and are at liberty to stand as witnesses in the witness box if they so desire. These postulations of the law are well settled in a long line of judicial authorities including but not limited to: Rotimi vs. MacGregor (1974) 11 SC 123; Tinubu vs. I.M.B. Securities Plc (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) 192; Media Tech. (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. Adesina (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 908) 461; Aku vs. Plateau Publishing Corporation Ltd (1985) 6 NCLR 338; Onabanjo vs. Concord Press of Nigeria Ltd. (1981) 2 NCLR 298; Duke vs. Global Excellence Comm. Ltd. (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 81 @ 106; Zabusky vs. Israeli Aircraft Industries (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 352) 1759 @ 1794.

WHERE JUSTICE ABANG ERRED:
The right of an accused person/defendant, in a criminal trial, to defend himself and establish his defence through the mouth of his chosen witness (es) is imperishably embedded in the Constitution. For purposes of thoroughness (even at the risk of prolixity), we shall take a shot at the very section 36 of the Constitution providing for this inexterminable right.

36(1). In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.

36(6) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to-
(a) ……….not relevant
(b) Be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
(c) ……….not relevant
(d) Examine, in person or by his legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution; and
(e) …………… not relevant.
(italics and underlining supplied by us for emphasis)
The aggregate of the foregoing provisions represents the summary of the irrefragable right to fair hearing which rests on the twin pillars of natural justice to wit; audi alterem patem and nemo judex in causa sua (translated to mean: hear the both parties and no one should be a judge in his own case). While it is true that all the parties are enjoined to frontload the list of their witnesses in criminal trial, it is not a rule cast in iron. This writer has participated in many criminal trials where at different stages of the proceedings, the prosecutor makes an application to the court seeking leave to call additional witnesses who originally were not listed in the list of witnesses filed alongside the criminal charge before the court. In fact, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA for short) itself, which was relied on by the Learned trial Judge, generously provides in these lucid terms:

241(1) “The Court may, on the application of the prosecution or defence, issue a summon or writ of subpoena on a witness requiring him to attend court to give evidence in respect of the case, and to bring with him any specified documents or things and any other document or thing relating to them which may be in his possession or power or under his control.”
256 The Court may, at any stage of a trial, inquiry or other proceedings under this Act, either of its own motion or on application of either party to the proceeding, call a person as a witness or recall and re-examine a person already examined where his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case.

The corollary of a community reading of the foregoing sections points to the effect that the ACJA itself aims at strengthening the constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing rather than abridging it. Whereas the ACJA provisions relating to the powers of the court to call a witness, or issue a subpoena on such a witness either on its motion or on the application of either the prosecutor or the defence, seem to donate discretion to the court by the use of the phrase “the court may”, we hold the considered view that such discretion will not be available to the Court where the Constitution itself has conferred the right on a defendant to secure the attendance of any person as a witness for his defence with the phrase “shall be entitled”. This can only be so because the Constitution is superior to the ACJA which derives its validity and strength from the Constitution. Validating this position, the Supreme Court observed in the case of A.-G., Abia State v. A.-G., Fed(2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265 @ 381, paras C-E as follows:

“The Constitution of a nation is the fons et origo, not only of the jurisprudence but also of the legal system of the nation. It is the beginning and the end of the legal system. In Greek language, it is the alpha and the omega. It is the barometer with which all statutes are measured. In line with this kingly position of the Constitution, all the three arms of Government are slaves of the Constitution, not in the sense of undergoing servitude or bondage, but in the sense of total obeisance and loyalty to it. This is in recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution over and above every statute, be it an Act of the National Assembly or a law of the House of Assembly of a State.”

THE BREACH OF FAIR HEARING AND CONSEQUENCES:
It has been stated from time immemorial that courts are bound to give all the parties before them the ample opportunity of hearing before coming to a decision. See Otapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587. Fair hearing includes hearing all the evidence the parties intend to place before the court (especially through their witnesses) with a view to establishing their case. See Aladetoyinbo v. Adewumi (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 154) 98. The audi alterem partem principle as guaranteed under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) remains a binding and indispensable requirement of justice applicable to and enforceable by all courts of law. See Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124 @ 197. Any decision reached in violation of the principle of fair hearing must go down under the sledge-hammer of the appellate court. See Mohammed vs. Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 458.

After reproducing section 36 of the constitution and in showing the fatal implication of the violation or curtailment of this sacred right of a defendant bestowed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, in the case of Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124 has this to say;
“This is a constitutional provision which must not be toyed with. It is well settled that the right to fair hearing entrenched in section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (supra) entails not only hearing a party on any issue which could be resolved to his prejudice but also ensuring that the hearing is fair and in accordance with the twin pillars of justice, namely, audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. Thu, where a party is not heard at all in a matter which affects his right or the trial is adjudged unfair, any judgment generated therefrom, becomes a nullity and of no legal consequence. It is bound to be set aside.”

Going further at pages 197 to 198, the Supreme Court, per Muhammad, J.S.C. stated with a tone of finality thus:

“One outrightly agrees with learned appellant’s counsel that it is trite that where a person’s legal rights or obligations are challenged he must be given full opportunity of being heard before any adverse decision is taken against him with regard to such rights or obligations. This “audi alterem partem” principle as guaranteed under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended remains a binding and indispensable requirement of justice applicable to and enforceable by all court of law. The principle affords both sides to a dispute, ample opportunity of presenting their case to enable the enthronement of justice and fairness. In the application of the principle, a hearing is said to be fair and in compliance with the dictates of the Constitution when, inter alia, all the parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of a hearing. If one of the parties is refused or denied a hearing or the opportunity of being heard, the court’s proceedings being perverse will be set aside on appeal.”

SUMMARY:
When the gamut of principles of law reviewed above are applied to the facts and circumstances forming the basis of this discussion, it would be clearly seen that it is a gross violation of Chief Metu’s constitutional right to fair hearing for the trial Court to refuse him the opportunity of calling a Defendant of his choice. If the charge against Chief Metu hinges mainly on the alleged diversion of a humongous sum of N400, 000, 000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira Only), purportedly emanating from the Office of the National Security Adviser and the said former NSA is sought to be subpoenaed to testify, I doubt if a reasonable man would consider the ruling dismissing such application as just. It is now seen that Sambo Dasuki is indeed a competent and compellable witness for Chief Olisa Metu contrary to the decision of the Hon. Justice Abang. For the avoidance of doubt, a trial High Court is without powers to determine for the defendant/accused person which witness to call in his defence. The duty of the trial Court rather is to enforce that unassailable right of the defendant to obtain the attendance of any witness for his defence. See Olumesan v. Ogundepo (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 433) 626. The ruling (under scrutiny herein) delivered by the Hon. Justice Abang on the 24th February, 2017 is one lacking in constitutional foundation. See Adigun v. A-G of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678. It is irredeemably flawed in law being one without the approval of superior authorities. See Obodo v. Olomu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.59) 111. Such decisions arrived at in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused/defendant is a journey in futility. It carries dead wounds on its face. The reason is that the weight of all existing authorities on the point is against Justice Abang’s reasoning. See Okafor v. A-G Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659. Since Justice Abang’s Ruling has parted ways with the current of Nigeria’s law of evidence, it is only liable to reversal on appeal, sharing the same fate with a blind man who carries a driving license.

Let me stop here.

I can be reached on: joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com

OF APOSTLE SULEMAN,MISS OTOBO AND CASINO GAMBLERS

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

It is rather gut-wrenching and mind-boggling to discover how low some people could descend for the devil in other to enlarge their bank account balance. Speaking for myself, allegations of breach of promise of marriage are issues for the civil courts to resolve. I am not aware that this lady, Miss Otobo, has approached any court to claim damages for the breach of the Apostle's promise to marry her. There is no other answer to the reason why she has not deemed it fit to toe that path marked by our laws.

It is because no evidence exists towards fortification or let alone establishment of such bogus claims. Being drained of the requisite oxygen to enjoy favourable admittance into the Temple of Justice, some persons, who unfortunately ought to know better than her, have disingenuously led her up the garden path. Indeed, initiating the relevant civil suit will take this matter away from the slippery realms of rumours, innuendos and finger-pointing to the solid pedestal of full-blown trial in an open court. Therein, all the parties will put their claims and counter-claims before the court. They will have the unbridled opportunity to go further and establish the veracity of their individual claims through the testimony of their witness who would be subjected to the merciless scrutiny and crucibles of cross-examination. Thereafter, the Court would have to review the evidence received, belief or disbelief different witnesses, weigh the evidence of contending parties on the imaginary scale, ascribe probative value to the evidence so received, make the necessary inferences and apply the laws to the case before it.

Having abandoned the acceptable mode of vindicating her rights in a civilized clime, in preference to unorthodox game of rough and tumble, the law of unintended consequences is now making an example of her. How it will all end remains to be seen. By the time this mis-adventurous dust settles, one of the hard lessons to be drawn inevitably by Miss Otobo and her confederates will include that there is certainly more to claiming 500 million Naira from Apostle Suleman than blowing up of sentiments and churning out uncoordinated razzmatazz.

It is only fools that "experience" teach as their best teacher. The wise ones are taught by "history" which is a compassionate teacher. Knowing fully well that our law courts are not casinos, those leading Miss Otobo have chosen different media platforms (where nowadays faceless charlatans hold sway) to play casino on the intelligence of undiscerning members of the public.

UNTIL THEN: HERE IS MY STATEMENT ON THIS MATTER

"I know that all we see today flying over and around the revered Apostle Suleman is a scene culled from a larger plot to discredit him by those who are yet to stomach the Apostle's uncommon courage. The dark forces behind the scene we are now witnessing, in their unholy bid to undo the Apostle, could go all out to enlist the services of even the devil himself with a view to permanently gagging the Apostle so that impunity in the land would continue to flourish unchallenged. There is no doubt that these dangerous forces of darkness, in high places, are acting with dark conscience, their intention being far from noble."

"My message for them is simple. Their plots are well-known but will be resisted by men of good will, including my humble self, who have whole heartedly put our legal services at the disposal of the Man of God at no cost to him. Evil must be opposed at all times. As no one man has the monopoly of legal arsenal to run riot in the system, we are hundred per cent standing firm behind the Man of God and very willing to match iron for iron in any kind of legal gymnastics. Those baying for this game of rough and tumble should be willing to carry to a logical end what they have started."
"We very much acknowledge the legitimate right of every citizen to seek legal remedy when and wherever there is a proven breach of his/her right(s). However, resorting to contumelious blackmail and mud-slinging against the revered Man of God without any justifiable legal reason to so do is way too far off tangent. That is a gamble being carried to a dangerous extreme.Our legal system is not a casino. Those fanning the embers of this ruinous charade should get ready to harvest their whirlwind in due course."

Source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1374119532646433

COMPELLABILITY OF SAMBO DASUKI UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW OF EVIDENCE: WHERE THE HON. JUSTICE ABANG ERRED.

By: JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

PREFATORY REMARKS:
The application of the law of evidence is at the very heart of all judicial proceedings, whether civil or criminal. There has never been any argument about this by all stakeholders in every justice administration system, at least in commonwealth jurisdictions. The law of evidence is a vast area of law and occupies a prominent position in all judicial proceedings. The reason is not far-fetched. Our law courts arrive at their judgments based, only, on the facts and the body of hardcore evidence assembled before it. Evidence has been aptly described as any specie of proof, or probative matter legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties, and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects etc, for the purpose of inducing belief in the mind of the court or jury as to their contentions. See Onya vs. Ogbuji (2011) All FWL (Pt. 556) 493 at 517 per Salauwa, J.C.A.). It is also important to remember that evidence whether oral or documentary consists of facts, and facts are the fountainhead of the law. See Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co Limited vs. A.C.B. Limited (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 198) 1175 at 1199. Of greater emphasis is that parties and the court, as already observed, are bound by the evidence placed before the court. The reason is obvious. It ensures that the Judge must decide a case before him on the evidence adduced and it is not allowed to rely on other extraneous matters. See Nwobodo vs. Nwobodo (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 370) 203 @ 214.
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
On the 24th of February, 2017, it was reported that the Federal High Court of Nigeria (Court 10) sitting in the Abuja Judicial Division and presided over by the Hon. Justice Abang, delivered a ruling in the interlocutory application brought by the former National Spokesman of the People Democratic Party (PDP for short in this article), Chief Olisa Metu.
Chief Olisa Metu (a Lawyer), is currently standing criminal trial for allegedly diverting the hefty sum of N400, 000, 000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira Only) purportedly from the Office of the National Security Adviser which sum the prosecutor is alleging was part of the fund earlier earmarked for the purchase of military hardware for combating terrorism in the North-Eastern part of the country. In the said application earlier referred to, Chief Metu sought to subpoena the former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (Rtd.) to testify on his behalf and in his defence. It is to be noted that currently, the former National Security Adviser (NSA for short), is still in the detention facility of the State Security Service (SSS in short otherwise called DSS) despite numerous Orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction admitting him to bail and ordering his release pending trial. In refusing/dismissing Chief Metu’s application, the Hon. Justice Abang was quoted as stating the following;
“It is not the duty of the court to compel anyone to come and give evidence in court when that person is not a compellable witness.
The name of Dasuki was not included in the list of witnesses filed by the de-fendants. The question is, at what stage did the defendant make up his mind to include Dasuki’s name in its lists of witnesses?
The application is made in bad faith and with the in¬tention to delay the trial. The defendants have exhausted all the adjournments it is entitled to as stipulated in Section 394 of the Admin¬istration of Criminal Jus¬tice Act. The 1st defendant is no longer entitled to any adjournment in this matter having granted 8 adjournments since the commencement of the trial.”
It is worthy of note that the Hon. Justice Abang delivered two (2) rulings on the said day. The other ruling was on the application of Chief Metu for the court to order the temporal release of his traveling documents to enable him to proceed to the United Kingdom, based on the referral of the Doctors treating him in Nigeria, for further medical treatment.
These facts shortly above stated could be read from different websites of some of our national dailies.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS CONTRIBUTION:
The humble attempt of this write-up is to vindicate the age long position of the law relating to competence and compellability of witnesses in Nigeria which is that, with the exception of already identifiable and identified class of persons, all persons are compellable witnesses in proof of any fact in issue in all judicial proceedings in Nigeria. While affirming the settled proposition that “all compellable witnesses are competent but not all competent witnesses are compellable”, this article will proceed to demonstrate, in all diligent manner possible, that the former NSA, Sambo Dasuki, is a compellable witness, in the entire circumstances necessitating the application of Chief Metu, contrary to the pillar of reasoning upon which the Federal High Court rested its decision to dismiss the application seeking to compel Sambo Dasuki to testify on behalf and in defence of Chief Olisa Metu. The article will further establish, resting on age-long superior judicial authorities, that in turning down the crucial request of Chief Metu to have Sambo Dasuki subpoenaed to testify in his defence, the Court may have eroded completely, unwittingly though, the inviolable fair-hearing right of the Defendant amply consecrated in section 36 (1) & (6) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, rendering the entire proceedings a nullity thereby.
THE GRAVAMEN:
The law of evidence in Nigeria is principally governed by the Evidence Act, 2011. It is to this Act that we shall now turn with a view to discovering the provisions governing compellability of witnesses under our jurisprudence. Section 175 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act is very relevant here and we take the liberty of this discussion to reproduce it word for word, only for purposes of clarity and completeness.
175. (1) All persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
(2) A person of unsound mind is not incompetent to testify unless he is prevented by his mental infirmity from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.
Acknowledging that the law relating to compellability of witnesses is indeed a vast forest, our efforts will be carefully circumscribed and cautiously limited to only those aspects of the law that would aid our quick and efficient attainment of the goal which this article has set for itself. Since the thrust of our concern is about the class of persons exempted from being compelled to appear before the court and give testimony for the defendant/accused person, we shall now narrow down our analysis to those sections of the Act that deals with non-compellable witnesses.
Going by virtue of section 308 of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and his Vice, All State Governors and their Deputies are conferred with immunity from both criminal and civil prosecution in their personal capacity. Specifically, no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of person to which the section applies shall be applied for or issued.
Following section 1 (1) & (2) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, diplomats and members of their families, their official and domestic staff and members of the families of their official staff enjoy immunity not only against being sued but also against being compelled to testify. We must make haste to state that even though the aforementioned exempted category of persons are not compellable witnesses, nevertheless, they are competent to testify and are at liberty to stand as witnesses in the witness box if they so desire.
These postulations of the law are well settled in a long line of judicial authorities including but not limited to: Rotimi vs. MacGregor (1974) 11 SC 123; Tinubu vs. I.M.B. Securities Plc (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) 192; Media Tech. (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. Adesina (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 908) 461; Aku vs. Plateau Publishing Corporation Ltd (1985) 6 NCLR 338; Onabanjo vs. Concord Press of Nigeria Ltd. (1981) 2 NCLR 298; Duke vs. Global Excellence Comm. Ltd. (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 81 @ 106; Zabusky vs. Israeli Aircraft Industries (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 352) 1759 @ 1794.
WHERE JUSTICE ABANG ERRED:
The right of an accused person/defendant, in a criminal trial, to defend himself and establish his defence through the mouth of his chosen witness (es) is imperishably embedded in the Constitution. For purposes of thoroughness (even if at the risk of prolixity), we shall take a shot at the very section 36 of the Constitution providing for this inexterminable right.
36(1). In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.
36(6) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to-
(a) ……….not relevant
(b) Be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
(c) ……….not relevant
(d) Examine, in person or by his legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution; and
(e) …………… not relevant.
(italics and underlining supplied by us for emphasis)
The aggregate of the foregoing provisions represents the summary of the irrefragable right to fair hearing which rests on the twin pillars of natural justice to wit; audi alterem partem and nemo judex in causa sua (translated to mean: hear the both parties and no one should be a judge in his own case). While it is true that all the parties are enjoined to frontload the list of their witnesses in criminal trial, it is not a rule cast in iron. This writer has participated in many criminal trials where at different stages of the proceedings, the prosecutor makes an application to the court seeking leave to call additional witnesses who originally were not listed in the list of witnesses filed alongside the criminal charge before the court. In fact, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA for short) itself, which was relied on by the Learned trial Judge, generously provides in these lucid terms;
241(1) “The Court may, on the application of the prosecution or defence, issue a summon or writ of subpoena on a witness requiring him to attend court to give evidence in respect of the case, and to bring with him any specified documents or things and any other document or thing relating to them which may be in his possession or power or under his control.”
256 The Court may, at any stage of a trial, inquiry or other proceedings under this Act, either of its own motion or on application of either party to the proceeding, call a person as a witness or recall and re-examine a person already examined where his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case.
The corollary of a community reading of the foregoing sections points to the effect that the ACJA itself aims at strengthening the constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing rather than abridging it. Whereas the ACJA provisions relating to the powers of the court to call a witness, or issue a subpoena on such a witness either on its motion or on the application of either the prosecutor or the defence, seem to donate discretion to the court by the use of the phrase “the court may”, we hold the considered view that such discretion will not be available to the Court where the Constitution itself has conferred the right on a defendant to secure the attendance of any person as a witness for his defence with the phrase “shall be entitled”. This can only be so because the Constitution is superior to the ACJA which derives its validity and strength from the Constitution. Validating this position, the Supreme Court observed in the case of A.-G., Abia State v. A.-G., Fed(2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265 @ 381, paras C-E as follows;
“The Constitution of a nation is the fons et origo, not only of the jurisprudence but also of the legal system of the nation. It is the beginning and the end of the legal system. In Greek language, it is the alpha and the omega. It is the barometer with which all statutes are measured. In line with this kingly position of the Constitution, all the three arms of Government are slaves of the Constitution, not in the sense of undergoing servitude or bondage, but in the sense of total obeisance and loyalty to it. This is in recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution over and above every statute, be it an Act of the National Assembly or a law of the House of Assembly of a State.”
THE BREACH OF FAIR HEARING AND CONSEQUENCES:
It has been stated from time immemorial that courts are bound to give all the parties before them the ample opportunity of hearing before coming to a decision. See Otapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587. Fair hearing includes hearing all the evidence the parties intend to place before the court (especially through their witnesses) with a view to establishing their case. See Aladetoyinbo v. Adewumi (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 154) 98. The audi alterem partem principle as guaranteed under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) remains a binding and indispensable requirement of justice applicable to and enforceable by all courts of law. See Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124 @ 197. Any decision reached in violation of the principle of fair hearing must go down under the sledge-hammer of the appellate court. See Mohammed vs. Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 458.
After reproducing section 36 of the constitution and in showing the fatal implication of the violation or curtailment of this sacred right of a defendant bestowed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, in the case of Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124 has this to say;
“This is a constitutional provision which must not be toyed with. It is well settled that the right to fair hearing entrenched in section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (supra) entails not only hearing a party on any issue which could be resolved to his prejudice but also ensuring that the hearing is fair and in accordance with the twin pillars of justice, namely, audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. Thu, where a party is not heard at all in a matter which affects his right or the trial is adjudged unfair, any judgment generated therefrom, becomes a nullity and of no legal consequence. It is bound to be set aside.”
Going further at pages 197 to 198, the Supreme Court, per Muhammad, J.S.C. stated with a tone of finality thus;
“One outrightly agrees with learned appellant’s counsel that it is trite that where a person’s legal rights or obligations are challenged he must be given full opportunity of being heard before any adverse decision is taken against him with regard to such rights or obligations. This “audi alterem partem” principle as guaranteed under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended remains a binding and indispensable requirement of justice applicable to and enforceable by all court of law. The principle affords both sides to a dispute, ample opportunity of presenting their case to enable the enthronement of justice and fairness. In the application of the principle, a hearing is said to be fair and in compliance with the dictates of the Constitution when, inter alia, all the parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of a hearing. If one of the parties is refused or denied a hearing or the opportunity of being heard, the court’s proceedings being perverse will be set aside on appeal.”
SUMMARY:
When the gamut of principles of law reviewed above are applied to the facts and circumstances forming the basis of this discussion, it would be clearly seen that it is a gross violation of Chief Metu’s constitutional right to fair hearing for the trial Court to refuse him the opportunity of calling a Defendant of his choice. If the charge against Chief Metu hinges mainly on the alleged diversion of a humongous sum of N400, 000, 000.00 (Four Hundred Million Naira Only), purportedly emanating from the Office of the National Security Adviser and the said former NSA is sought to be subpoenaed to testify, I doubt if a reasonable man would consider the ruling dismissing such application as just. It is now seen that Sambo Dasuki is indeed a competent and compellable witness for Chief Olisa Metu contrary to the decision of the Hon. Justice Abang. For the avoidance of doubt, a trial High Court is without powers to determine for the defendant/accused person which witness to call in his defence. The duty of the trial Court rather is to enforce that unassailable right of the defendant to obtain the attendance of any witness for his defence. See Olumesan v. Ogundepo (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 433) 626. The ruling (under scrutiny herein) delivered by the Hon. Justice Abang on the 24th February, 2017 is one lacking in constitutional foundation. See Adigun v. A-G of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678. It is irredeemably flawed in law being one without the approval of superior authorities. See Obodo v. Olomu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.59) 111. Such decisions arrived at in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused/defendant is a journey in futility. It carries dead wounds on its face. See Okafor v. A-G Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659. Since Justice Abang’s Ruling has parted ways with the current of Nigeria’s law of evidence, it is only liable to reversal on appeal, sharing the same fate with a blind man who carries a driving license.
Let me stop here.

More troubles have come the way of the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu Mustapha as an Abuja based Constitutional Lawyer has filed fresh Originating Summons on Thursday 2nd March seeking to restrain the Senate from confirming his appointment as the substantive Chairman. The plot against Magu’s confirmation thickens day by day and there are indications that in no time, he will lose the long-drawn battle he is waging against many powerful forces bent on ending his career at the foremost anti-graft agency.

In his letter to the Senate dated the 2nd of March, 2017, the Lawyer, Barrister JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, explained the rational for his legal action thus;
“Given the grave security reasons (which has neither been tested in any court nor vacated) on which the Distinguished Senate rested its decision to reject Mr. Ibrahim magu’s nomination, I have approached the Federal High Court (Abuja Division) in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17 to challenge the powers of the Distinguished Senate to reconsider Mr. Ibrahim Magu. I am equally asking the Court to order him to give up the seat of the Acting Chairman of the EFCC which I strongly believe he is occupying illegally at the moment. Attached herewith and marked as “Annexure IMM1” is a copy of the said suit. The Distinguished Senate is the 1st Defendant in the said suit.”

The Lawyer therefore urged the Senate to stay further action on the letter transmitted to it by the President on the 17th of January, 2017 re-nominating Magu to be confirmed by the Senate as the substantive Chairman of the EFCC. His words;

“It is my humble belief that now that a Court of competent jurisdiction is siesed of this sensitive matter, the Distinguish Senate would allow itself to be persuaded by the ancient doctrines of lis pendis/ sub-judice and accordingly stay action on the said letter requesting for the re-nomination of Mr. Ibrahim Mustapha Magu pending the determination of the Originating Summons already filed against him.”
The Defendants to the suit filed yesterday are: the Senate, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Economic and Financial Commission and Mr. Ibrahim Magu. The Plaintiff is praying the Court, among others, for the following reliefs;

AN INJUNCTION restraining the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, whether by himself, his servants, agents or privies, or in any manner whatsoever from functioning in office as or from performing or continuing to perform the duties of or from holding himself out or parading himself as the Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

AN INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant, whether by itself, its respective members, its servants, agents, officers or privies from receiving, entertaining, countenancing, considering, deliberating upon or in any other manner acting upon any request, letter, application or demand for the approval, confirmation or endorsement of the 4th Defendant, Ibrahmi Magu, as Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The Originating Summons is supported by a 23 paragraph affidavit.
In part of written address, the lawyer came down heavily on Magu in this telling words;

"By continuing to remain and act as the Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant despite his resounding rejection by the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is rumpling the Nigerian Constitution. Has he got the powers to do that? The answer is a loud NO. Persons who are desirous of presiding over the agencies of government established by law cannot afford to be spiteful of the law and where they are found to be riding roughshod on the Rule of Law, a civilized society ought not to entrust them with a position of responsibility otherwise by their impunity and abuse of democratic ethos, an organized society may come to a sad end. The 4th Defendant should be told so in the clearest of language."

Some paragraphs of his 23 paragraph affidavit read as follows;
5. I know as a fact that ever since the 4th Defendant was rejected by the 1st Defendant as the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant on the 15th December, 2016, the 4th Defendant has not vacated his position in the office of the 3rd Defendant despite the bindingness of the 1st Defendant’s decision on him. The persistent refusal of the 4th Defendant to bow to the constitutional authority of the Nigerian Senate is scandalously spiteful and scornful of the Nigerian Constitution and capable of weakening the potency of the laws of the land in a manner that will precipitate anarchy and crash our democratic system.
16. I know as a fact that despite the rejection by the 1st Defendant of the nomination of the 4th Defendant as the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, the 4th Defendant has continued to exercise the powers and functions of an Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant in defiance of the decision of the Nigerian Senate rejecting him which constitutes a grave affront to the Constitutional authority of the Nigerian Senate and gravely threatens the established Constitutional Order of Nigeria.

20. I know as a fact that in considering the nomination of the 4th Defendant and rejecting him on the 15th December, 2016, the 1st Defendant has found the 4th Defendant wanting and grossly unfit to be appointed to the Office of the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant.

21. I know as a fact that despite the grave allegations leveled against the 4th Defendant by the State Security Service (otherwise called the DSS) in its letter to the 1st Defendant, the basis upon which the 4th Defendant’s nomination was rejected by the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant has not been arraigned before any court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of the determination of his guilt or otherwise of the grave allegations dangling over his head like the sword of Damocles.

The matter is yet to be fixed for hearing.

Source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2017/03/ibrahim-magu-faces-yet-another-legal.html

News Telegraph


The Senate has been dragged before the Federal High Court, Abuja over its presumed bid to reconsider the nomination of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) after the parliament had earlier rejected same nomination based on a security report. Also joined in the suit are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the EFCC as well as Magu.

A constitutional lawyer, Chukwukasi Jideobi, who filed the suit, is asking the court to determine whether having regard to the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, the rejection of Magu’s nomination by the Senate on December 15, 2016 has not ended his tenure as the Acting Chairman of the anti-graft agency.

In the originating summons exclusively obtained by New Telegraph, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that by virtue of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act, Ibrahim Magu cannot continue to function in office as Acting Chairman of the Commission after the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria rejected his nomination.

Jideobi argued that the failure of Magu to vacate his office as Acting Chairman of the EFCC after the rejection of his nomination by the Senate has disqualified him from further consideration for confirmation as the substantive chairman of the commission by the parliament.

In the summons, Jideobi also argued that the Attorney General of the Federation and, by extension, the Federal Government of Nigeria, are bound by the decision of the Senate rejecting Magu as Chairman of EFCC and cannot continue to treat, recognise, deal with him as acting chairman of the commission.

He further urged the court to declare that Magu “is not a fit and proper person” to lead the EFCC as its chairman either in its acting or substantive capacity.

The plaintiff is also seeking a declaration of the court that the EFCC, its servants and officers are bound by the decision of the Senate, rejecting Magu and cannot continue to treat, recognise or deal with him as the Acting Chairman of the commission.

It said that by virtue of Magu’s rejection by the Senate on December 15, 2016, all actions taken by him, especially charges and information filed in various courts since then should be declared illegal, null, void and invalid because he acted in excess of his legal term as Acting Chairman of the Commission.

In clear terms, the suit seeks an injunction restraining Magu, whether by himself, his servants, agents or privies, or in any manner whatsoever from functioning in office as performing or continuing to perform the duties of it, holding himself out or parading himself as Acting Chairman of the EFCC. Jideobi also sought an injunction restraining the Senate from receiving, entertaining, considering or deliberating upon any request, letter, application or demand for approval, confirmation or endorsement of Magu as Chairman of the EFCC.

In a letter dated March 2, 2017 and addressed to the Clerk of the Senate, the plaintiff recalled that that President Muhammadu Buhari had, on January 17, 2017, sent a letter to the Senate re-nominating Magu as Executive Chairman of the EFCC, but faulted the move, given the grave security reasons that informed Magu’s earlier rejection by the Senate.

The plaintiff urged the Senate to stay action on the said letter re-nominating Magu and requesting for his confirmation pending the determination of the suit already filed against him.


Source: http://newtelegraphonline.com/news/lawyer-drags-senate-court-seeks-magus-disqualification/

OF APOSTLE SULEMAN,MISS OTOBO AND CASINO GAMBLERS
It is rather gut-wrenching and mind-boggling to discover how low some people could descend for the devil in other to enlarge their bank account balance. Speaking for myself, allegations of breach of promise of marriage are issues for the civil courts to resolve. I am not aware that this lady, Miss Otobo, has approached any court to claim damages for the breach of the Apostle's promise to marry her. There is no other answer to the reason why she has not deemed it fit to toe that path marked by our laws.

It is because no evidence exists towards fortification or let alone establishment of such bogus claims. Being drained of the requisite oxygen to enjoy favourable admittance into the Temple of Justice, some persons, who unfortunately ought to know better than her, have disingenuously led her up the garden path. Indeed, initiating the relevant civil suit will take this matter away from the slippery realms of rumours, innuendos and finger-pointing to the solid pedestal of full-blown trial in an open court. Therein, all the parties will put their claims and counter-claims before the court. They will have the unbridled opportunity to go further and establish the veracity of their individual claims through the testimony of their witness who would be subjected to the merciless scrutiny and crucibles of cross-examination. Thereafter, the Court would have to review the evidence received, belief or disbelief different witnesses, weigh the evidence of contending parties on the imaginary scale, ascribe probative value to the evidence so received, make the necessary inferences and apply the laws to the case before it.

Having abandoned the acceptable mode of vindicating her rights in a civilized clime, in preference to unorthodox game of rough and tumble, the law of unintended consequences is now making an example of her. How it will all end remains to be seen. By the time this mis-adventurous dust settles, one of the hard lessons to be drawn inevitably by Miss Otobo and her confederates will include that there is certainly more to claiming 500 million Naira from Apostle Suleman than blowing up of sentiments and churning out uncoordinated razzmatazz.

It is only fools that "experience" teach as their best teacher. The wise ones are taught by "history" which is a compassionate teacher. Knowing fully well that our law courts are not casinos, those leading Miss Otobo have chosen different media platforms (where nowadays faceless charlatans hold sway) to play casino on the intelligence of undiscerning members of the public.

UNTIL THEN: HERE IS MY STATEMENT ON THIS MATTER

"I know that all we see today flying over and around the revered Apostle Suleman is a scene culled from a larger plot to discredit him by those who are yet to stomach the Apostle's uncommon courage. The dark forces behind the scene we are now witnessing, in their unholy bid to undo the Apostle, could go all out to enlist the services of even the devil himself with a view to permanently gagging the Apostle so that impunity in the land would continue to flourish unchallenged. There is no doubt that these dangerous forces of darkness, in high places, are acting with dark conscience, their intention being far from noble."

"My message for them is simple. Their plots are well-known but will be resisted by men of good will, including my humble self, who have whole heartedly put our legal services at the disposal of the Man of God at no cost to him. Evil must be opposed at all times. As no one man has the monopoly of legal arsenal to run riot in the system, we are hundred per cent standing firm behind the Man of God and very willing to match iron for iron in any kind of legal gymnastics. Those baying for this game of rough and tumble should be willing to carry to a logical end what they have started."
"We very much acknowledge the legitimate right of every citizen to seek legal remedy when and wherever there is a proven breach of his/her right(s). However, resorting to contumelious blackmail and mud-slinging against the revered Man of God without any justifiable legal reason to so do is way too far off tangent. That is a gamble being carried to a dangerous extreme.Our legal system is not a casino. Those fanning the embers of this ruinous charade should get ready to harvest their whirlwind in due course."

source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1374119532646433

OF APOSTLE SULEMAN,MISS OTOBO AND CASINO GAMBLERS
It is rather gut-wrenching and mind-boggling to discover how low some people could descend for the devil in other to enlarge their bank account balance. Speaking for myself, allegations of breach of promise of marriage are issues for the civil courts to resolve. I am not aware that this lady, Miss Otobo, has approached any court to claim damages for the breach of the Apostle's promise to marry her. There is no other answer to the reason why she has not deemed it fit to toe that path marked by our laws.

It is because no evidence exists towards fortification or let alone establishment of such bogus claims. Being drained of the requisite oxygen to enjoy favourable admittance into the Temple of Justice, some persons, who unfortunately ought to know better than her, have disingenuously led her up the garden path. Indeed, initiating the relevant civil suit will take this matter away from the slippery realms of rumours, innuendos and finger-pointing to the solid pedestal of full-blown trial in an open court. Therein, all the parties will put their claims and counter-claims before the court. They will have the unbridled opportunity to go further and establish the veracity of their individual claims through the testimony of their witness who would be subjected to the merciless scrutiny and crucibles of cross-examination. Thereafter, the Court would have to review the evidence received, belief or disbelief different witnesses, weigh the evidence of contending parties on the imaginary scale, ascribe probative value to the evidence so received, make the necessary inferences and apply the laws to the case before it.

Having abandoned the acceptable mode of vindicating her rights in a civilized clime, in preference to unorthodox game of rough and tumble, the law of unintended consequences is now making an example of her. How it will all end remains to be seen. By the time this mis-adventurous dust settles, one of the hard lessons to be drawn inevitably by Miss Otobo and her confederates will include that there is certainly more to claiming 500 million Naira from Apostle Suleman than blowing up of sentiments and churning out uncoordinated razzmatazz.

It is only fools that "experience" teach as their best teacher. The wise ones are taught by "history" which is a compassionate teacher. Knowing fully well that our law courts are not casinos, those leading Miss Otobo have chosen different media platforms (where nowadays faceless charlatans hold sway) to play casino on the intelligence of undiscerning members of the public.

UNTIL THEN: HERE IS MY STATEMENT ON THIS MATTER

"I know that all we see today flying over and around the revered Apostle Suleman is a scene culled from a larger plot to discredit him by those who are yet to stomach the Apostle's uncommon courage. The dark forces behind the scene we are now witnessing, in their unholy bid to undo the Apostle, could go all out to enlist the services of even the devil himself with a view to permanently gagging the Apostle so that impunity in the land would continue to flourish unchallenged. There is no doubt that these dangerous forces of darkness, in high places, are acting with dark conscience, their intention being far from noble."

"My message for them is simple. Their plots are well-known but will be resisted by men of good will, including my humble self, who have whole heartedly put our legal services at the disposal of the Man of God at no cost to him. Evil must be opposed at all times. As no one man has the monopoly of legal arsenal to run riot in the system, we are hundred per cent standing firm behind the Man of God and very willing to match iron for iron in any kind of legal gymnastics. Those baying for this game of rough and tumble should be willing to carry to a logical end what they have started."
"We very much acknowledge the legitimate right of every citizen to seek legal remedy when and wherever there is a proven breach of his/her right(s). However, resorting to contumelious blackmail and mud-slinging against the revered Man of God without any justifiable legal reason to so do is way too far off tangent. That is a gamble being carried to a dangerous extreme.Our legal system is not a casino. Those fanning the embers of this ruinous charade should get ready to harvest their whirlwind in due course."

source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1374119532646433

Cc: Lalasticlala, Seun

An Abuja based Constitutional Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, has stoutly risen to the defence of Apostle Suleman while dismissing the allegations against the Apostle as a "scene in a larger plot" being executed to rub the Apostle's head in the mud with a view to tarnishing his image and hold him out for public ridicule and odium. In his words;

"I know that all we see today flying over and around the revered Apostle Suleman is a scene culled from a larger plot to discredit him by those who are yet to stomach the Apostle's uncommon courage. The dark forces behind the scene we are now witnessing, in their unholy bid to undo the Apostle, could go all out to enlist the services of even the devil himself with a view to permanently gagging the Apostle so that impunity in the land would continue to flourish unchallenged. There is no doubt that these dangerous forces of darkness, in high places, are acting with dark conscience, their intention being far from noble."

"My message for them is simple. Their plots are well-known but will be resisted by men of good will, including my humble self, who have whole heartedly put our legal services at the disposal of the Man of God at no cost to him. Evil must be opposed at all times. As no one man has the monopoly of legal arsenal to run riot in the system, we are hundred per cent standing firm behind the Man of God and very willing to match iron for iron in any kind of legal gymnastics. Those baying for this game of rough and tumble should be willing to carry to a logical end what they have started."

"We very much acknowledge the legitimate right of every citizen to seek legal remedy when and wherever there is a proven breach of his/her right(s). However, resorting to contumelious blackmail and mud-slinging against the revered Man of God without any justifiable legal reason to so do is way too far off tangent. That is a gamble being carried to a dangerous extreme.Our legal system is not a casino. Those fanning the embers of this ruinous charade should get ready to harvest their whirlwind in due course."

An Abuja-based hu­man rights lawyer, Mr Johnmary Jide­obi, has dragged the Nige­rian Senate before a Federal High Court in Abuja to stop it from confirming the re-nomination of Mr Ibrahim Magu as substantive Chair­man of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commis­sion.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17 filed on Thursday, the plaintiff named the Senate, the At­torney General of the Fed­eration, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commis­sion and Mr Magu as 1st to 4th defendants, respectively.

According to the plain­tiff in his originating sum­mons, he said by the virtue of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act (2004), Magu cannot continue to function in of­fice as Acting Chairman of the anti-graft body after the decision of the Senate which earlier rejected his nomina­tion.
In his reliefs, Jideobi is seeking the court’s declara­tion that the failure of the Acting EFCC boss to vacate his office after been rejected by the Senate, has disquali­fied him from further con­sideration for confirmation as the substantive Chairman of the anti-graft body.

In seeking the court’s injunction, the plaintiff is asking the court to stop the EFCC from recognising Magu as its Chairman.
“An order, forthwith di­recting the 4th defendant, Ibrahim Magu, to vacate, relinquish and surrender his office as Acting Chair­man of the 3rd defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission”, among others.

Source: http://authorityngr.com/2017/03/Lawyer-drags-Senate-to-court-over-Magu-s-confirmation-bid/
No date has been fixed for mention.