₦airaland Forum

gidgiddy:
Last weekend, I came across a documentary online of an incident that happened in Ethiopia, a terrible incident. An armed rebel group invaded a village and left destruction. Survivors narrated how the armed men stormed into the village, shooting in all directions. People were rounded up, men seperated from women. The men were lined up and shot, while some of the women were sexually assaulted in front of their children. Many houses were looted then burnt

I thought that this was terrorism and violence. However, Justice Omotosho, the judge that handled the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has made us know that terrorism and violence is all about "talking". The Judge rendered his judgement in which he kept saying Nnamdi Kanu said this, said that, ordered this, ordered that, made broadcast.

In other words, "Nnamdi Kanu talked". The judge could not tell anyone that Nnamdi Kanu's words led to violence, killings or harm. He couldn't do this because unlike social media, courts are not places of speculation, you have to prove anything you allege.

The judge called Kanu a terrorist based on spoken words alone, he reduced a very serious issue such as terrorism and violence to what words come out of a persons mouth. What sort of terrorist goes to announce his plans of violence on Radio first?

Armed men invaded Yelwata, Benue State, and burnt over 200 people alive. Can you imagine if I go to Yelwata and tell them that what happened to them is not terrorism, that terrorism is if the killers had gone on Radio to announce or order that they be burnt?

Or that what happened in the village in Ethiopia was not violence or terrorism because the armed men should have announced it on Radio only

Omotosho has shown us how bad the judiciary has become. Crime is mainly about what was done, not what was said. When a judge believes that terrorism is all about spoken words, Radio broadcasts, sit at home orders,which is still spoken words, in a country where communities are being invaded daily, people killed or abducted, property destroyed, then we are in a big mess.

Someone should tell the judge that terrorism is about the use of violence, and violence must be an action. No amount of spoken words amounts to an action. No amount of words amounts to violence. A judge who believes that spoken words alone amounts to violence or terrorism, has no business presiding over court affairs.

You turned around and sentenced a man to life in jail based only on the words that came out of his mouth? You reduced terrorism to mere words alone? A terrorist is determined by what he says and not what he does?

We are finished

The man can not even pronounce English words as a judge. The man is a disgrace to education and profession. Not sound to be a high court judge

DeepSight:
+
Fair point.

For your 3
Calling for secession is treason by Nigerian laws
There's no self-determination clause in Nigerian law

Kukutente23:
For your 3
Calling for secession is treason by Nigerian laws
There's no self-determination clause in Nigerian law

+
I explained how to go about it legally. Seek amendment of the constitution, lobby the NASS legitimately. I didnt say he did it right. I said calling for an independent state is not by itself a crime. You approach the NASS and put in proposals for plebiscites when sufficient petitions are received, etc.

Self-determination is a right in various treaties Nigeria is a party to. Its just a question of the legal and legitimate approach.
Even state creation is a form of self determination.

gidgiddy:
Thats why I said that a court of law is not social media. Social media, you speculate what you like. But in a court of law, you prove what you allege. Of Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB were were causing violence anywhere, it is for the prosecution to prove it. If you say that Kanu said something on Radio, and it caused violence somewhere, come to court and prove it. But this was a case of Kanu said this, Kanu said that, and that the words themselves were terrorism

If spoken words alone is terrorism in Nigeria, most countries of the world that know what terrorism is are not going to take Nigeria seriously

Video and audio evidence were tendered during the course of the trial. Please learn to condemn whatever is wrong. Nnamdi Kanu incited violence through his radio Biafra. You know this fact. Why are you trying to live in self denial?

Kukutente23:
@gidgiddy
First of all you need to know that when Kanu failed to put up a defence, he summarily accepted whatever the prosecution accused him of. Silence means approval is a legal principle as old as time.
So you can't blame the judge here. The blame should be to Kanu who chose to make himself a Martyr by forgoing his defence. That's the point I've been expecting zombies to make since yesterday on a thread where I asked what constituted am act of terrorism but they've been attacking me instead. Mvnster even said I'm ipob

Secondly and more importantly, while what you say might not be an act, it is an incitement which is almost at same level as an act except where you can show that the context of your speech is being misconstrued. In the case of Kanu, calling for an attack on agents of state such as the police and army constitutes an act of terrorism. More importantly, he failed to put up a defence to the accusations which I already explained above is an admission of guilt.
Even AU and UN charters and conventions frown on verbal attacks and dehumanisation of people based on their tribes and nationality. Kanu did this a lot without guardrails. Maybe he did not intend for it to get this far but it did and he has to bear responsibility for it.
As for calling for Biafra, I'm sure you don't need to be educated that it's simply treason as far as Nigerian laws are concerned.
N.B. check out the case of Rwanda and the owners and broadcasters of RTLM

Did you just stumble on the kanu case by chance yesterday? Even at that the Judge did make reference to a number of instances some have died as a result of the orders the mad man kanu gave to his psychopathic foot soldiers, he even made a point his violent orders do not have anything to do with demanding for a referrendum, so why exactly do you keep asking silly questions?

DeepSight:
+
I explained how to go about it legally. Seek amendment of the constitution, lobby the NASS legitimately. I didnt say he did it right. I said calling for an independent state is not by itself a crime. You approach the NASS and put in proposals for plebiscites when sufficient petitions are received, etc.

Self-determination is a right in various treaties Nigeria is a party to. Its just a question of the legal and legitimate approach.
Even state creation is a form of self determination.

They are crying for a plebiscite to leave Nigeria.

Ask them how the majority Ibo regional house in Enugu did everything to block the minority people in the eastern region from seeking a motion to leave the eastern region.

What was even the reason Ojukwu declared Biafra ?

Was it not after Gowon finally granted minority people their own States out of the Eastern region?

I hold the opinion that even the coup of Jan 15 was staged to prevent the federal parliament from reconvening after the Christmas break to address the demands of the minorities to have their own COR region.

Karma is truly a bitch

Do you think these terrorists just act indiscriminately? They're being ordered by someone. That person ordering them is the real terrorist. Did you see bin laden on the planes that destroyed the twin towers? No! But he was the ringleader because he gave the order.
If the one giving orders does not give orders, no one will be terrorized.

gidgiddy:
Last weekend, I came across a documentary online of an incident that happened in Ethiopia, a terrible incident. An armed rebel group invaded a village and left destruction. Survivors narrated how the armed men stormed into the village, shooting in all directions. People were rounded up, men seperated from women. The men were lined up and shot, while some of the women were sexually assaulted in front of their children. Many houses were looted then burnt

I thought that this was terrorism and violence. However, Justice Omotosho, the judge that handled the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has made us know that terrorism and violence is all about "talking". The Judge rendered his judgement in which he kept saying Nnamdi Kanu said this, said that, ordered this, ordered that, made broadcast.

In other words, "Nnamdi Kanu talked". The judge could not tell anyone that Nnamdi Kanu's words led to violence, killings or harm. He couldn't do this because unlike social media, courts are not places of speculation, you have to prove anything you allege.

The judge called Kanu a terrorist based on spoken words alone, he reduced a very serious issue such as terrorism and violence to what words come out of a persons mouth. What sort of terrorist goes to announce his plans of violence on Radio first?

Armed men invaded Yelwata, Benue State, and burnt over 200 people alive. Can you imagine if I go to Yelwata and tell them that what happened to them is not terrorism, that terrorism is if the killers had gone on Radio to announce or order that they be burnt?

Or that what happened in the village in Ethiopia was not violence or terrorism because the armed men should have announced it on Radio only

Omotosho has shown us how bad the judiciary has become. Crime is mainly about what was done, not what was said. When a judge believes that terrorism is all about spoken words, Radio broadcasts, sit at home orders,which is still spoken words, in a country where communities are being invaded daily, people killed or abducted, property destroyed, then we are in a big mess.

Someone should tell the judge that terrorism is about the use of violence, and violence must be an action. No amount of spoken words amounts to an action. No amount of words amounts to violence. A judge who believes that spoken words alone amounts to violence or terrorism, has no business presiding over court affairs.

You turned around and sentenced a man to life in jail based only on the words that came out of his mouth? You reduced terrorism to mere words alone? A terrorist is determined by what he says and not what he does?

We are finished

gidgiddy:
Last weekend, I came across a documentary online of an incident that happened in Ethiopia, a terrible incident. An armed rebel group invaded a village and left destruction. Survivors narrated how the armed men stormed into the village, shooting in all directions. People were rounded up, men seperated from women. The men were lined up and shot, while some of the women were sexually assaulted in front of their children. Many houses were looted then burnt

I thought that this was terrorism and violence. However, Justice Omotosho, the judge that handled the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has made us know that terrorism and violence is all about "talking". The Judge rendered his judgement in which he kept saying Nnamdi Kanu said this, said that, ordered this, ordered that, made broadcast.

In other words, "Nnamdi Kanu talked". The judge could not tell anyone that Nnamdi Kanu's words led to violence, killings or harm. He couldn't do this because unlike social media, courts are not places of speculation, you have to prove anything you allege.

The judge called Kanu a terrorist based on spoken words alone, he reduced a very serious issue such as terrorism and violence to what words come out of a persons mouth. What sort of terrorist goes to announce his plans of violence on Radio first?

Armed men invaded Yelwata, Benue State, and burnt over 200 people alive. Can you imagine if I go to Yelwata and tell them that what happened to them is not terrorism, that terrorism is if the killers had gone on Radio to announce or order that they be burnt?

Or that what happened in the village in Ethiopia was not violence or terrorism because the armed men should have announced it on Radio only

Omotosho has shown us how bad the judiciary has become. Crime is mainly about what was done, not what was said. When a judge believes that terrorism is all about spoken words, Radio broadcasts, sit at home orders,which is still spoken words, in a country where communities are being invaded daily, people killed or abducted, property destroyed, then we are in a big mess.

Someone should tell the judge that terrorism is about the use of violence, and violence must be an action. No amount of spoken words amounts to an action. No amount of words amounts to violence. A judge who believes that spoken words alone amounts to violence or terrorism, has no business presiding over court affairs.

You turned around and sentenced a man to life in jail based only on the words that came out of his mouth? You reduced terrorism to mere words alone? A terrorist is determined by what he says and not what he does?

We are finished

This is a very intelligent argument. God bless you. Nairaland needs smart brains like yours not dead brains who all they can say is crucify him, crucify him without any logical presentation fuelling thier conclusions.

Even when MNK was shouting "you don't know the law" he actually knew what he was saying but of course he can't be the judge in his own case, so trust illiterate filled country with empty headed and corrupt judges, they would rather deliver judgement based on the wicked script given to them.

Although, MNK was too arrogant even to his own people who should have come to his rescue, he didn't deserve the kind of sentencing he got for mere spoken words and so Igbo elites seems to distance themselves from his matter.

Again, thank you for showing that we still have remnant of intelligent analyst in this country, you have restored my hope.

Mvnster:
Did you just stumble on the kanu case by chance yesterday? Even at that the Judge did make reference to a number of instances some have died as a result of the orders the mad man kanu gave to his psychopathic foot soldiers, he even made a point his violent orders do not have anything to do with demanding for a referrendum, so why exactly do you keep asking silly questions?

The simple question is if any ipob members have been sentenced who confessed to being a member of ipob and was following Kanu's orders.
Common sense should tell you that Kanu refusal to defend himself is why the court had no choice but to take the prosecution's claims as fact.
Some of you are not really bright

DeepSight:
+
I explained how to go about it legally. Seek amendment of the constitution, lobby the NASS legitimately. I didnt say he did it right. I said calling for an independent state is not by itself a crime. You approach the NASS and put in proposals for plebiscites when sufficient petitions are received, etc.

Self-determination is a right in various treaties Nigeria is a party to. Its just a question of the legal and legitimate approach.
Even state creation is a form of self determination.

I get your stand now

He will eventually be released.
However spoken word can get you into problems. Ken Saro Wiwa only spoke and it ended up in his listeners killing some people and he paid for it with his life though it was a kangaroo judgement but it can happen. Ken Saro Wiwa did not do one hundredth of what Kanu did.

Kukutente23:
The simple question is if any ipob members have been sentenced who confessed to being a member of ipob and was following Kanu's orders.
Common sense should tell you that Kanu refusal to defend himself is why the court had no choice but to take the prosecution's claims as fact.
Some of you are not really bright

Sorry mr brightest, the prosecution team never presented any evidences to prove their argument, Justice Omotosho only relied on here-say. Now it is obvious your logic isnt beyond a 5 year olds.