An Abuja-based Legal Practitioner, BARRISTER JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has offered ABSOLUTELY FREE LEGAL SERVICES/REPRESENTATION to ALL PERSONS standing criminal trial in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja who are INDIGENT and cannot afford the legal fees. This is contained in a PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT published on his facebook wall. Below is the information;

" PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: ANYBODY who has a loved one or loved ones OR who knows those whose loved ones are standing criminal trial in either the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or the Federal High Court, Abuja but are not being REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER because they are "INDIGENT" should quickly contact this line for immediate PRO BONO (ABSOLUTELY FREE) LEGAL REPRESENTATION/SERVICES: 08131131942 AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR SEND TEXT MESSAGE."

An Abuja-based constitutional Lawyer, Barrister JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has declared as unconstitutional the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. Making reference to its section 396(7) which purports to accord dispenation to an Appeal Court Jutsice to descend to the High Court and hear criminal matters, the Lawyer that the National Assembly lacks the legislative competence to alter any part of the constitutional by enacting a mere Act which is inferior to and derives its validity from the constitution.
According to him "this contribution is to lay open the unconstitutionality of a Court of Appeal Justice sitting in the High Court as a High Court Judge and discharging the functions of that office to whatever end(s)"

Going further he reasoned; "the National Assembly lacks the legislative competence to enact a provision capable of mutilating the Constitutional provisions covering the composition of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal"

"Under no circumstance should an Appeal Court Justice descend to perform the office of a High Court Judge. Whenever and if ever it happens, all that will result from the exercise of such powers will be a nullity since the jurisdiction to so act never existed in him and could not have been validly conferred on him by an Act of the National Assembly such as the ACJA since the Constitution has totally covered the field on all issues touching on the composition of Court under that ancient doctrine of “covering the field”

The Lawyer cited extensively different constitutional provisions and decisions of the Supreme Court in Lakanmi v. Attorney-General Western State (1971) 1 UILR 201 at 209
- A-G Ogun of State v. A-G of the Federation (1982) 13 NSCC 1
- A-G of Abia State & 35 Ors v. A-G of the Federation (2002) 3 S.C. 106
- INEC v. Musa (2003) 1 S.C. (Pt. 1) 106.
The Lawyer "agreed that the National Assembly has the powers to make laws, such as the ACJA, 2015," He was however quick to emphasis the proviso which is that "the National Assembly can never and it is indeed incompetent to enact an Act, such as Section 396(7) of ACJA, 2015, purporting to modify, alter, increase, add, subtract from or even repeat a provision of the Constitution in any field where the Constitution itself has evinced the intention of covering such as the establishment and composition of both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. See A-G of Abia State & 35 Ors v. A-G of the Federation (supra); INEC v. Musa (supra)."

It will be recalled that the Adiministration of former President Jonathan had in May, 2015 assented to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. Section 396(7) of the Act provides as follows;
"Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time:
Provided that this subsection shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal"

Asked of the way out of the quagmire, the Lawyer, threatened to drag the National Assembly to the Federal High Court for the Court to strike down the offensive portion of the law. Below is found a full copy of his argument.


https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1045354528856270

An Abuja-based constitutional Lawyer, Barrister JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has descended heavily on Chief Femi Falana in his letter to the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, accusing Falana of propagating legal heresy. In his letter dated 27th January, 2016 and recieved in the AGF's Office the same day, the Lawyer told the AGF that "It is already bad enough that a Senior Advocate consecrated to uphold the Nigerian Constitution (and not any undomesticated treaty) is betraying the Constitution he swore to protect in circumstances far away from good faith and at best self-serving.". Below is found a full copy of the letter.

27th January, 2016
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION,
ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,
ABUJA.
DEAR SIR,
THE INVITATION LETTER OF CHIEF FEMI FALANA, SAN, TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND POSSIBLE TRIAL OF SOME ALLEGEDLY-CORRUPT NIGERIANS: A DANGLING SWORD OF DAMOCLES OVER THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA.
The above subject-matter refers.
1. I humbly write to draw your ever-kind attention to the letter written by Chief Femi Falana, SAN, and addressed to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court sitting in the Hague which was widely published both in the print and electronic media on the 25th January, 2016.

2. I have three core concerns that compelled this letter to your esteemed office. Firstly, by the infinite mercies of God Almighty, I am a member of this most honourable profession on this planet earth, the Legal profession to which all of us belong. Secondly, Chief Femi Falana is a high-ranking member of this ancient and noble profession by reason of which he is expected to be a shining example especially as it relates to his fidelity to the laws of the land. Thirdly, your highly-placed office is a historic one that shoulders enormous responsibilities especially as it relates to the protection of our Constitution and putting at the disposal of the President of the nation the best available legal advice on all issues of law.


3. While I make haste to recognize the right of Chief Femi Falana to hold his personal opinion on any issue of law, I will equally highlight the certainty of the qualifications of such right same not being absolute especially when public good and the dignity of our Constitution have come under a dangerous threat. Being a Minister in the Temple of Justice who has equally been charged to remain consistent in defending the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Rule of Law generally, I consider this letter a discharge of duty that I owe my society in conscience so that propagation of legal heresy will not be allowed to take root in our society.

4. There is no doubt that all issues verging on the relationship between the Nigerian State and the International Criminal Court carries both international and Constitutional law elements which can easily sway or pull a wool over the eyes of undiscerning section of the Nigerian populace as Chief Femi Falana’s letter under consideration has tended to do in the present circumstance. The heart and soul of this letter therefor is to remove the chaff from the grain since any attempt by the Nigerian Authorities to heed the promptings of that letter will strike a mortal blow on the most sacred document that holds our Dear nation in balance and in being. That will be bad for not only our democracy but indeed each and every one of us.


5. I will quickly move to clear the debris accumulated by Chief Femi Falana’s letter by juxtaposing the most relevant section of our Constitution that circumscribes issues of Foreign instruments/treaties with the Rome Statute which is the base and springboard of Chief Femi Falana’s voyage to the Hague through the vehicle of his letter. Section 12 of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly provides in this unmistakable language;

6. 12 “(1) No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.
7. (2) The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thererof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List for the purpose of implementing a treaty.
8. (3) A Bill for an Act of the National Assembly passed pursuant to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section shall not be presented to the President for assent, and shall not be enacted unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.

9. There is no doubt that under international law, treaties are seen as contracts between states and if they do not receive the consent of the various states, their provisions will not be binding upon them. The fundamental principle of treaty law is undoubtedly the proposition that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith. Under Article 11 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is now firmly settled that among other ways, a state may signal its consent to international agreements by signature, exchange of instrument constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.


10. All students of international law will recall the never-ending battle between domestic and foreign courts. Thus, the place/fate of foreign laws/treaties before domestic courts vis-a- vis the place/fate of municipal laws before foreign courts have remained an enduring debate in the field of International law world over. While foreign courts/international tribunals have consistently held that municipal laws are amenable to foreign laws/treaties, the municipal courts of many nations have taken the opposite direction in consistently holding that foreign laws/treaties are amenable to domestic laws. In this regard, while interpreting Article 46(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the International Court of Justice held in the case of Cameroon V. Nigeria (Judgment) (2002) that a state cannot plead a breach of its constitutional provision as to the making of treaties as a valid excuse for condemning an agreement and resiling therefrom.

11. In contradistinction to the above position held by foreign courts, the House of Lords in England has come to the settled conclusion that “except to the extent that a treaty becomes incorporated into the laws of the United Kingdom by statute, the courts of the United Kingdom have no power to enforce treaty rights and obligations at the behest of a sovereign government or at the behest of a private individual” and further reaffirmed in the very recent case of A (FC) and Others (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 71 where it was held that “a treaty, even if ratified by the United Kingdom, has no binding force in the domestic law of this country unless it is given effect by statute or expresses principles of international law”. The position is no different in the United States of America. The question of a possible conflict between treaty obligations and domestic legislation was raised in Diggs v. Schultz 470 F. 2d 461, where the Supreme Court of the United States came to the conclusion that “under our constitutional scheme, Congress can denounce treaties if it see fit to do so, and there is nothing the other branches of government can do about it”

12. Sir, fortunately for us in Nigeria, the position is no different as our own Supreme Court has had the opportunity to show the Nigerian position in the case of Abacha V. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt.660) 228 where it was held as follows ““I have carefully considered all that has been said by learned counsel for the parties on the status of the Charter as an international treaty entered into by our country. I do not consider it necessary to set out in extenso in this judgment their submissions. Suffice it to say that an international treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly. See s 12(1) of the 1979 Constitution, which provides……….In my respectful view, I think the above passage represents the correct position of the law, not only in England, but in Nigeria as well.”

13. It is not in doubt that the Nigerian State acceded to the Rome Statute. It is equally not in doubt that on three different occasions, our National Assembly made efforts to pass the Rome Statute into law without success signifying the intention of the Nigerian people not to be bound yet by the provisions of the said Rome Statute. It logically flows from the foregoing that no Nigerian citizen can derive any benefit nor suffer any injury under the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court same not haven acquired the force of law in the Federation.

14. It therefore boggles the mind and challenges established constitutional order that the request to the International Criminal Court of Justice to investigate and possibly try Nigerian citizens could emanate from a Nigerian Legal Practitioner. That this request is coming from a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who ordinarily and primarily owes his allegiance and fidelity to the Constitution of the land, calls for a serious worry. Let it be said here Sir, that the Rome Statute in its entirety cannot be lawfully enforced by any person or authority in any part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria where the said Rome Statute has not been domesticated in Nigeria by a Legislation by the National Assembly in faithful compliance with section 12 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria being the supreme law of Nigeria.


15. In conclusion, I would urge you to use your good offices, when and if the occasion demands, to ensure that the Nigerian nation does not slide away from the sure path of constitutionalism by siren voices dripping with nebulous intentions other the promotion of the organic law of the land. It is already bad enough that a Senior Advocate consecrated to uphold the Nigerian Constitution (and not any undomesticated treaty) is betraying the Constitution he swore to protect in circumstances far away from good faith and at best self-serving. May I again restate my personal support and commitment to the current war against corruption being waged by the present administration which all well-meaning Nigerians must rise to support robustly in line with extant laws of the land. However, nobody should be allowed to hide under the guise of supporting the war against corruption to undermine and spurn our Constitution by pulling wool over the eyes of undiscerning members of the public. A call by Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, on the Nigerian Authorities to practically torpedo the organic law of the land is most unfortunate and uncharitable and deserves the outright condemnation of all stake-holders.

16. But assuming without conceding, for the purposes of argument, that under our laws the coast is clear for the Nigerian State to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, is Mr. Femi Falana in all sincerity claiming ignorance of the circumstances under which the International Criminal Court will not exercise jurisdiction? Indeed, the key feature of the International Criminal Court is founded on the concept of “complementarity” meaning essentially that the national courts have priority. Article 17 of the Rome Statute clearly outlines the circumstances under which the court will decline jurisdiction and a case will be inadmissible. These circumstances, among others, include where the case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it, unless the state is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. Interestingly, Mr. Femi Falana did not allude to this Article 17 in his letter knowing fully well that those he is proposing to be arraigned at Hague are already having their day in different Nigerian Courts. There must indeed be a limit to outright lies and standing of logic on its head. I choose to say no more.
Please Sir, do graciously accept the assurances of my highest regards.

Yours in defence of Constitutionalism,

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOB, Esq.

4th January, 2016
MR. AUGUSTIN ALEGEH, SAN,
THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS,
NBA HOUSE, NO 24 ORO-AGO CRESCENT,
MUHAMMADU BUHARI WAY,
GARKI 2, ABUJA
DEAR SIR,

INTIMIDATION OF THE NIGERIAN JUDICIARY, CONTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT, AND SUBVERSION OF SECTION 287(3) OF THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BY PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI AND THE IMPERATIVE OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NIGERIAN BAR TO RISE UP AND CONDEMN IMPUNITY

1. It is no longer news that President Muhammadu Buhari on Wednesday being the 30th of December, 2015 had his maiden Presidential Media Chat where he fielded questions from the Nigerian Media on wide-ranging salient national issues. While the merits or otherwise of the answers proffered by Mr. President should be left to the determination of the citizens as it is outside the intendment of this letter however, I got agitated, as a Nigerian Legal Lawyer who was charged by the Nigerian Chief Justice to defend the Nigerian Constitution, when Mr. President declared two Nigerian citizens undeserving of the bail duly granted them by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. While the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory presided over by My Lord Justice Afem granted bail to the former National Security Adviser, the Federal High Court of Nigeria presided over by My Lord Justice Ademola granted bail to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

2. Sir, let put the matter straight before you. I was led in appearance by my Learned Friend and Senior, Barrister Vincent Obeta, for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on the 17th December, 2015 when My Lord Justice Ademola J., after a dispassionate consideration of the issues raised in Kanu’s bail application, ordered his immediate UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE from the DSS custody. Sir, as at the time I am writing this letter, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is still in the custody of the DSS. That subsisting and valid Order of the Court against the DSS has neither been appealed against, vacated nor its execution stayed.

3. All along, my thinking has been that the defiant posturing of the DSS was a case of overzealousness on the part of an agent to please Mr. President who is their Principal and Commander in Chief of the Republic. This erroneous thinking necessitated me to write an open Letter to the National Chairman of the All Progressive Congress wherein I urged him to use his good offices to have Mr. President see reasons why he should ensure that the Order of Court made against the DSS is promptly complied with. Alas, I was wrong. On the 30th day of December, 2015, President Muhammadu Buhari confirmed to the whole world that the continuous detention of the duo, notwithstanding existing valid Court orders to the contrary, is at his own pleasure since they have committed weighty crimes and they would likely jump bail if released. Sir, herein lies the fulcrum of my discomfort as a Nigerian trained Lawyer, this is the heart and soul of my letter, herein lies the meat of the matter.

4. Since I will be correct to assume that you are a man of sound and capable law, as vindicated by your pedigree and that being so, I would not bore you with many propositions of Law concerning the matter at hand as that would amount to preaching to the converted which I consider most unnecessary. However, for purposes of clarity and completeness, I shall only refresh your memory of such propositions that are indispensable in conveying the message of my letter.

5. There is no gainsaying the fact that anarchy looms large on the horizon when one Branch of the Government starts making unholy encroachments into the sacred province of the other. Consistent with the foregoing, our Constitution has painstakingly delineated the parameters and scope of the powers of the tripartite arms of government in its Sections 4, 5, and 6. A community reading and conflated interpretation of our laws would amply reveal that all issues pertaining to the grant of bail and entire criminal trial down to pronouncement of guilt or acquittal belongs to the sacred province of the Judiciary. Our founding Fathers and framers of our Constitution, in their profound wisdom, never contemplated any role to be played by the President of Nigeria when the issue before the Court is whether the bail application of an accused person is meritorious or lacking in merit. This sacred duty is wholly at the discretion of the Court which is exercisable within the orbit of well-circumscribed and neatly-defined consecrated principles of law as frequently nourished and expounded by the Nigerian Supreme Court especially in the well-known and often-cited case of BAMAIYI V. THE STATE.


6. Where therefor, for whatever reason, Mr. President forms the view that an Order of Court is unsatisfactory, the only Constitutionally-recognized remedy is an appeal to invite a higher Court to review the decision of the trial Court. After all, the hallmark of our Criminal Justice is the Constitutional safeguard of presumption of innocence. If therefore Mr. President decides to interfere with the civil liberty of citizens in the face of Sacred Court Order to the contrary, Mr. President is inviting anarchy, intimidating the Judiciary and subverting the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is the fons et origo and the most sacred document binding the entire nation. That is indeed bad for democracy since such defiance does not foster the rule of law, which is the life blood of democracy, rather the rule of man which is an anathema in a modern civilized state. This is what it has crystallized to. To find otherwise will certainly be eyewash.

7. It is against the background of the foregoing that one is worried that the Nigerian Bar under your Leadership is yet to lift a finger in protecting the dignity of both Our Constitution and our Courts which is now dangling on a perilous cliff. While it is true that the Leadership of the Nigerian Bar may not possibly take a position on all issues afflicting our nation since they are almost overwhelming, it is equally true that the Leadership of the Nigerian Bar cannot afford to look the other way when the organic law of the land is suffering indignity in the hands of the President of our Nation. That would be one indifference rather too many. It is the tradition of the Bar to always rise in protection of the Bench since Judges cannot openly come to defend themselves. However and whatever the Bar under your Leadership does with respect to all the salient issues raised herein would always be a reference point for the future generation of the Nigerian Bar and society. Coming down from the fence and showing a direction is now clearly warranted.

8. The Constitution itself, in its Section 287 (3), commands all authorities with force, Mr. President inclusive, in the following unmistakable language;

a. The decisions of the Federal High 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, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively. (italics supplied by me for emphasis)

9. Indeed, the Order of the Federal High Court made on the 17th December, 2015 to free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu UNCONDITIONALLY has now crystallized as a standing duty on all authorities to enforce, including Mr. President and there is no room for argument, deliberation or discretion in the matter. Since Section 287(3) is part of our Constitution, Mr. President should do well to respect the proclamation of Section 1(1) of the amended 1999 Constitution which eloquently declares that: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” This summarises all I have been saying and very eloquently conveys the statement I have been trying to make all along. I hope I have succeeded in making it and I should be happy if I did.

10. In Conclusion, Sir, it is good we remember that while it may seem to be Nnamdi Kanu’s turn today, nobody knows whose turn it would be tomorrow. Since law and law only is my constituency, I am only writing in defence of the future of our democracy. I wholeheartedly support the fight against this monster called corruption which has been threatening our economy. All those found guilty must serve the consequences ordained by our laws so that we can end impunity. Our Supreme Court has equally endorsed same in the case of Attorney-General of Ondo State V. Attorney-General of the Federation. Additionally, Section 15 (5) of our Constitution clearly mandates the Nigerian State to “abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” However, in fighting corruption, the caution should be the kind urged by the German Philosopher, Fredrich Nietzsche, and it is that “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” All the fights must be within the ambit of the law since fighting impunity with impunity could be counter-productive and bungle the fight. We must not push it too hard lets we have a still birth. This is one instance where we must set forth at dawn.

11. Please, Sir, do graciously accept the assurances of my esteemed regards.

12. Yours in the Services of Humanity,


13. JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, LL.B (Nig.), BL (Nig.)

6th December, 2016.
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 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 graciously accept the assurances of my highest esteem,

Yours in Defence of Democracy,
JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, LL.B (Nig.) BL (Nig.)

Barely 24 hours after writing to the NBA National President over President Buhari's continuous defiance of the Order of the Federal High Court for the UNCONDITIONAL release of the IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu, an-Abuja based Lawyer has finally written the President an open Letter accusing the president of being an anarchist and terminator of democracy. Tutoring the President on the fundamentals of Constitutionalism, the Lawyer informed the President that:
"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."
He regretted that Mr. President's 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."

Tutoring the President on Supremacy of the Constitution, the Lawyer, citing the Supreme Court case of AG, ABIA VS. AGF, reasoned that:

"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.”

Citing Section 287(3) of the Constitution, the Lawyer argued that the said section imposes a standing duty on the President to enforce all Orders of the Federal High Court notwithstanding his personal opinion or reservations. "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."
He reminded the President of the consequences of disobeying Court orders: "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."
Quoting from the Supreme Court case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184, the Lawyer painted a grim picture of the consequences of disobeying Court order: "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.”
Labeling the President a contemnor, he was unsparing and brunt in telling the President that: "your continuous detention of Citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, despite a subsisting Order of Court 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

In ending his Letter, the Lawyer expressed his support for the ongoing fight against corruption: "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 [b]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." He was however quick to voice his concerns: "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"

He has some advice to the President: "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.”

source:

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

An-Abuja based Lawyer has forwarded a strongly-worded Letter to the National President of the Nigerian Bar Association over the intimidation of the Nigerian Judiciary and subversion of the Nigerian Constitution by President Muhammadu Buhari, calling on the National Leadership of the NBA to rise and condemn impunity. Barrister Johnmary C. Jideobi frowned on the insistence of President Buhari that MR. NNAMDI KANU and DASUKI will remain in detention despite valid Orders of the Courts to the contrary. The Letter is titled:

"INTIMIDATION OF THE NIGERIAN JUDICIARY, CONTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT, AND SUBVERSION OF SECTION 287(3) OF THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BY PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI AND THE IMPERATIVE OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NIGERIAN BAR TO RISE UP AND CONDEMN IMPUNITY"

Arguing that the doctrine of separation of power does not allow President Buhari to overrule the Courts on who should be granted bail, the Lawyer wrote " There is no gainsaying the fact that anarchy looms large on the horizon when one Branch of the Government starts making unholy encroachments into the sacred province of the other. Consistent with the foregoing, our Constitution has painstakingly delineated the parameters and scope of the powers of the tripartite arms of government in its Sections 4, 5, and 6.

Arguing that the Constitution did not reserve any role for the Nigerian President when issues of bail are considered, the Lawyer wrote:

"Our founding Fathers and framers of our Constitution, in their profound wisdom, never contemplated any role to be played by the President of Nigeria when the issue before the Court is whether the bail application of an accused person is meritorious or lacking in merit. This sacred duty is wholly at the discretion of the Court which is exercisable within the orbit of well-circumscribed and neatly-defined consecrated principles of law as frequently nourished and expounded by the Nigerian Supreme Court especially in the well-known and often-cited case of BAMAIYI V. THE STATE."
The Lawyer argued that "After all, the hallmark of our Criminal Justice is the Constitutional safeguard of presumption of innocence."
Advising President Buhari on what to do in the circumstances, the Lawyer wrote "Where therefor, for whatever reason, Mr. President forms the view that an Order of Court is unsatisfactory, the only Constitutionally-recognized remedy is an appeal to invite a higher Court to review the decision of the trial Court." Warning of dangerous consequences if the President fails to do otherwise, the Lawyer wrote:

"If therefore Mr. President decides to interfere with the civil liberty of citizens in the face of Sacred Court Order to the contrary, Mr. President is inviting anarchy, intimidating the Judiciary and subverting the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is the fons et origo and the most sacred document binding the entire nation. That is indeed bad for democracy since such defiance does not foster the rule of law, which is the life blood of democracy, rather the rule of man which is an anathema in a modern civilized state. This is what it has crystallized to. To find otherwise will certainly be eyewash." The Lawyer therefore called on the National Leadership of the NBA not not to "look the other way when the organic law of the land is suffering indignity in the hands of the President of our Nation." as "That would be one indifference rather too many."

Citing Section 287 (3) of the Constitution, the Lawyer claims that President Buhari and all other authorities are under a Constitutional duty to enforce all the Orders of the Courts established by the Constitution. Advising President Buhari to toe the path of Constitutionality, the Lawyer added: "Since Section 287(3) is part of our Constitution, Mr. President should do well to respect the proclamation of Section 1(1) of the amended 1999 Constitution which eloquently declares that: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

The Lawyer equally expressed his support for the war against corruption. According to him: "I wholeheartedly support the fight against this monster called corruption which has been threatening our economy. All those found guilty must serve the consequences ordained by our laws so that we can end impunity."

He was however quick to caution that: "All the fights must be within the ambit of the law since fighting impunity with impunity could be counter-productive and bungle the fight.

http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/01/nnamdi-kanu-dasuki-lawyer-writes-nba.html

An-Abuja based Lawyer has forwarded a strongly-worded Letter to the National President of the Nigerian Bar Association over the intimidation of the Nigerian Judiciary and subversion of the Nigerian Constitution by President Muhammadu Buhari, calling on the National Leadership of the NBA to rise and condemn impunity. Barrister Johnmary C. Jideobi frowned on the insistence of President Buhari that MR. NNAMDI KANU and DASUKI will remain in detention despite valid Orders of the Courts to the contrary. The Letter is titled:

"INTIMIDATION OF THE NIGERIAN JUDICIARY, CONTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT, AND SUBVERSION OF SECTION 287(3) OF THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BY PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI AND THE IMPERATIVE OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NIGERIAN BAR TO RISE UP AND CONDEMN IMPUNITY"

Arguing that the doctrine of separation of power does not allow President Buhari to overrule the Courts on who should be granted bail, the Lawyer wrote " There is no gainsaying the fact that anarchy looms large on the horizon when one Branch of the Government starts making unholy encroachments into the sacred province of the other. Consistent with the foregoing, our Constitution has painstakingly delineated the parameters and scope of the powers of the tripartite arms of government in its Sections 4, 5, and 6.

Arguing that the Constitution did not reserve any role for the Nigerian President when issues of bail are considered, the Lawyer wrote:

"Our founding Fathers and framers of our Constitution, in their profound wisdom, never contemplated any role to be played by the President of Nigeria when the issue before the Court is whether the bail application of an accused person is meritorious or lacking in merit. This sacred duty is wholly at the discretion of the Court which is exercisable within the orbit of well-circumscribed and neatly-defined consecrated principles of law as frequently nourished and expounded by the Nigerian Supreme Court especially in the well-known and often-cited case of BAMAIYI V. THE STATE."
The Lawyer argued that "After all, the hallmark of our Criminal Justice is the Constitutional safeguard of presumption of innocence."
Advising President Buhari on what to do in the circumstances, the Lawyer wrote "Where therefor, for whatever reason, Mr. President forms the view that an Order of Court is unsatisfactory, the only Constitutionally-recognized remedy is an appeal to invite a higher Court to review the decision of the trial Court." Warning of dangerous consequences if the President fails to do otherwise, the Lawyer wrote:

"If therefore Mr. President decides to interfere with the civil liberty of citizens in the face of Sacred Court Order to the contrary, Mr. President is inviting anarchy, intimidating the Judiciary and subverting the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is the fons et origo and the most sacred document binding the entire nation. That is indeed bad for democracy since such defiance does not foster the rule of law, which is the life blood of democracy, rather the rule of man which is an anathema in a modern civilized state. This is what it has crystallized to. To find otherwise will certainly be eyewash." The Lawyer therefore called on the National Leadership of the NBA not not to "look the other way when the organic law of the land is suffering indignity in the hands of the President of our Nation." as "That would be one indifference rather too many."

Citing Section 287 (3) of the Constitution, the Lawyer claims that President Buhari and all other authorities are under a Constitutional duty to enforce all the Orders of the Courts established by the Constitution. Advising President Buhari to toe the path of Constitutionality, the Lawyer added: "Since Section 287(3) is part of our Constitution, Mr. President should do well to respect the proclamation of Section 1(1) of the amended 1999 Constitution which eloquently declares that: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

The Lawyer equally expressed his support for the war against corruption. According to him: "I wholeheartedly support the fight against this monster called corruption which has been threatening our economy. All those found guilty must serve the consequences ordained by our laws so that we can end impunity."

He was however quick to caution that: "All the fights must be within the ambit of the law since fighting impunity with impunity could be counter-productive and bungle the fight.