₦airaland Forum

Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, met behind closed doors for several hours in Abuja, on Friday.

Although the agenda of the meeting which held at the Benue State Governors Lodge, Asokoro, was not made public, it was gathered that the meeting was initiated by the governor to possibly woo the two All Progressives Congress chieftains into joining the Peoples Democratic Party.

Both Dogara and Lawal had voiced their opposition to the Muslim-Muslim ticket of the APC.

Dogara had at a public function in Abuja, on Friday said he was not opposed to a Muslim emerging as President.

He stressed that he was one of several Nigerians who want Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu to win in 2023 owing to his sacrifices for the APC and the nation.

He however said, “But when it comes to choosing between the love and admiration I have for an individual and what is right and what I believe represents my vision for Nigeria, my choice will clearly be for the latter.

“After all, my rise to the position of Speaker was never going to be possible without the support of some Muslim members who believe that our diversity must be reflected in national positions for the unity, peace and advancement of our dear country.

“What gives me more hope about the Nigeria project is that there are many of our Muslim brothers and leaders who did not only warn the APC, but have had to call out the APC for adopting a Muslim-Muslim ticket which resulted into the Party ructions we are witnessing today. “ end.

Justice Okon Abang of a federal High court in Warri, Delta state has ruled that the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Rt Hon Sheriff Oborevwuori was validly elected as the candidate of the party at the governorship primaries of the party in Asaba, Delta state.

A suit filed by a governorship aspirant of the party at the primaries Chief Novwe Ikie among other things challenged the processes that resulted in the election of Sheriff as the Guber candidate.

Justice Abang yesterday ruled that Hon Sheriff was validly nominated, adding that he won the primaries election.

“Chief Novwe Ikie one of the contestant for the governorship ticket of the PDP at the primaries went to the federal High court to challenge the process. And at the end the court ruled that Hon Sheriff was validly nominated and he won the primaries “, a party chieftain told the Vanguard..

Sheriff is also the Speaker of the Delta state House of Assembly.

Effort to get Chief Novwe’s comment at press time was futile.as his phone was switched off.

A military checkpoint located at Zuma rock, a border between Niger State and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has been attacked by suspected terrorists on Thursday evening.

Information on the attack is still sketchy as of the time of filling this report.

However, it was gathered that the personnel of the Nigerian Army have embarked on a clearance operation after the attack.

The incident was said to have caused gridlock in the area.

Our correspondent also gathered that the Mandala-Kaduna road has been cordoned off by the men of Nigerian Army.

Efforts to get the Director, Army Public Relations, Brig Gen Onyema Nwachukwu were not successful.

Details later…

Indispensable85:
From a sensible person

garfield1:
Stop this pettiness

DETERMINED TO BE IN THE HEADLINES, PDP SENATORS ARE DIVIDED, CONFUSED


The performative and babyish antics of those senators staging a walk out notwithstanding, Senate President Ahmad Lawan’s refusal on Wednesday to entertain the ridiculous motion to impeach our President was quite appropriate and correct.

Rather than making a mockery out of voters by trying to imitate what they see in America, the opposition would be well advised that their time would be better spent tackling the pressing issues Nigerians face, such as the current global cost of living crisis.

Their continued failure to do so goes some way to explaining why they remain in opposition.

In contrast, the President Muhammadu Buhari administration is committed to finding lasting solutions to the emerging security threats, including those left behind by the PDP in the South-South, the Northeast and throughout the federation. In the last 24 hours, two more Chibok girls were freed, in addition to the three brought home last week.

These kinds of headline grabbing stunts for which the opposition is now well known serve no one, least of all their constituents. We would respectfully remind them that it is those same constituents that they were elected to serve, and are paid to do so with public money.

We would welcome their collaboration in our efforts to solve the problems Nigerians face on a daily basis. No one is asking them to waste their time attempting to impeach a democratically elected President at the end of his second term – certainly not their constituents.

They should ask themselves: do they want to be in government or do they want to be in the headlines? If they want to be in government they should start acting like it and stop undermining Nigerian voters.

Garba Shehu
Special Adviser to the President
(Media & Publicity)
July 27, 2022

Terrorists have on Monday 25th July, 2022 around 6:00pm, attacked Damari community in Birnin-Gwari Local Government Area of Kaduna State on motorcycles wielding sophisticated weapons.

Locals said the terrorists had invaded Damari town of Kazage Ward in the Eastern part of Birnin-Gwari Local Government Area on several occasions.

Last Monday; the hoodlums killed three people, namely; Hashimu Dan-Daura, Nazifi Adamu and Alhaji Dangude.

Ishaq Usman Kasai,the Chairman of Birnin-Gwari Emirate Progressives Union (BEPU),told journalists on Wednesday night that “the terrorists operated in the town stylishly and unchallenged for about an hour.”

According to him; ” the terrorists also returned the following day on 26th July, 2022 around 6:00pm, forcefully looted many shops of traders in the town and on their way back to the forests kidnapped 13 persons at Hayin-Gada of the same Damari community.”

“The attacks came after Ansaru members who were considered to be defending the locals deserted the area for about four days now.”

It could be recall that, Ansaru members clashed with the bandits when they earlier invaded the town on 13th July, 2022 where damages were made to the town including burning of private hospital, two vehicles and one shop.

However, following the recent series of attacks, residents, including women and children, continued to flee the community for safety.

The locals therefore called on Government to address the continued loss of lives and property in the area.

In spite of recent efforts by the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Bola Tinubu, to push back on his belief in a Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket, a book recently launched by his political ally, Chief Bisi Akande, may have put the lie to the former Lagos state governor’s denial.

The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, while speaking on Arise Television last week, had disclosed that his point of disagreement with Tinubu had always been his insistence on a Muslim-Muslim ticket.

“Together with Asiwaju, we formed Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and I was given a ticket in Lagos and he insisted to be my running mate and I said no, I am not going to have a Muslim-Muslim ticket and because of that he switched his support to the late Umaru Yar’Adua and that was the departing point,” Atiku had said.

But Tinubu had responded to the former vice president, stating that indeed he (Tinubu) was offered the running mate position by Atiku in 2007, because it was in Atiku’s political interests to do so.

“Let me say openly that Atiku offered me the vice presidential ticket in 2007. Let me also say that my religion has not changed. When he offered the position to me, I was a Muslim and I believe he was aware of my religious faith at the time.

“Atiku has no business raising the issue of a Muslim-Muslim ticket except as a hypocrite. Perhaps he believes people have forgotten his antics during the 1993 election…When it benefitted him personally, Atiku did not see anything wrong with Muslim-Muslim ticket,” he had stated in a riposte.

But a check by THISDAY indicated that Akande actually disclosed in his book titled: ‘My Participations,’ published recently by Gaskia Media Limited, that while forming the Action Congress (AC), the understanding then was that Atiku would run on a joint ticket with Tinubu as his running mate.

Also, contrary to Tinubu’s statement that Atiku was drafted into the party without being a founding member, Akande had alluded to the fact that the formation of the party was a joint effort by major stakeholders, including Atiku.

“It was the second time Tinubu was tantalisingly close to the VP slot. In 2007, we formed a party, the AC, with Abubakar Atiku. We agreed that Atiku should be our presidential candidate and we had the understanding that he would run with Bola Tinubu.

“I was the chairman of the AC. One day, after we had nominated Atiku as our presidential candidate, one young man came and gave me a form from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). I told him I could not sign a blank form and that I, as the chairman, must know the name that would be filled in it,” he stated.

Akande also hinted that his reluctance to sign the necessary documents during the entire drama was because the forms eventually sent to him came without the name of a running mate to Atiku.

He stressed that even if Atiku wasn’t favourably disposed to a joint ticket with Tinubu, he should have at least, picked another person from the Alliance for Democracy (AD).

“The young man, Bashir Yusuf Ibrahim, must have been the organising right hand man of Atiku. He was an active person from Kano. The following morning, he came again with Lawan Kaita.

“Kaita begged me and said it was Ben Obi whom Atiku had chosen as his running mate behind our back. So, I signed the form because I believed as the candidate, Atiku had the right to choose his running mate. If I refused to sign, that would create a crisis,” Akande explained in his autobiography[b][/b].

In the book, Akande also revealed that President Muhammadu Buhari declined to accept Tinubu as his running mate in 2015, thereby confirming that it was not the first time Tinubu would confront serious opposition to his vice presidential ambition on same faith ticket.

The AC had thereafter fielded Atiku, who had at the time just defected from the PDP, following his fallout with his then boss, President Olusegun Obasanjo, who never hid his disdain for the idea of Atiku succeeding him.

According to Akande, despite the pressure mounted by the leaders of the party, including former Ogun State Governor, Mr Segun Osoba; ex-Ekiti Governor, Mr Niyi Adebayo and a one-time Governor of Oyo State, the late Lam Adesina, Atiku never gave them his word on the matter until he picked Obi.

He stressed that with Atiku, the belief was that the party would be strong in the north, but because of the majority of PDP supporters in the South-east and the South-south, it would face more resistance in that area.

“Sequn Osoba, Niyi Adebayo, and Lam Adesina had earlier met Atiku and we proposed to him our choice of Tinubu, and he promised to come back to us. He gave us a date. On that date, we all assembled. Atiku came with Audu Ogbe, Tom Ikimi and Usman Bugaje.

“We proposed that Tinubu should be the running mate, though Tinubu was not at the meeting. Atiku would not give us an immediate answer. He said he wanted to have more consultations,” he added.

Akande also said Ikimi, Ogbe, and quite a handful of party leaders were all very strong against Tinubu, because they reasoned that it would mean a Muslim-Muslim ticket which eventually ended the discussion in a deadlock. “Atiku never said anything. We left the meeting,” he wrote.

The former interim national chairman stated that what prompted the pressure to field Tinubu was that anytime there was the need for money in the party, Atiku would always call for Tinubu’s assistance.

“Bola was the only one spending the money among us. The rest of us were poor. Tinubu also put all his energy and resources into the formation of the AC and we felt he deserved a spot on the ticket,” he added.

VERITAS University, Bwari, Abuja, has shut down academic activities following the worsening insecurity in Abuja and its environs.

The abrupt closure of the Roman Catholic owned university, located in Bwari Local Government Council of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, followed security reports indicating that terrorists could attack and abduct students of the school after foiled attempt at the Nigerian Law School, sited some few kilometres apart.

New academic session which was hitherto slated to commence in September, had been put on hold following security threat to the institution.

Besides, the 100 students examination billed to begin this week,was suspended indefinitely. The school said the examination would be “conducted at a date to be announced.”

Although, Veritas University, in a statement, Wednesday, said it had concluded academic activities hence the closure, Vanguard gathered the development is not unconnected with security threat received by the school and security agencies.

The Public Relations Officer of Veritas University, Evelyn Obekpa, confirmed in a terse statement, Wednesday, saying: “The Management of Veritas University wishes to notify the general public that the University has successfully completed the 2021/2022 academic session.

“However, due to the current security tension and the directives of the Minister of the FCT for the closure of schools in Abuja, examinations for our 100 level students shall be conducted at a date to be announced later.”

According to the statement, “Candidates seeking admission into Veritas University for the 2022/2023 academic session are encouraged to visit the university or the university’s website – www.veritas.edu.ng to obtain admission form. All correspondences may be forwarded to the following emails”.

Presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, said he has never received any pension since he left office as the governor of Anambra state eight years ago.

Obi made this disclosure on Saturday, while speaking at a function in Umuahia, the Abia State capital.

He said, “Since I left office eight years ago, I have never received any pension. Anambra State has never bought me any pure water because governors should not have any retirement package.

“You came to serve and when you finish, you should go home. God has blessed you enough. Whatever power God has given you, it’s by grace. Don’t abuse the grace of God. We must stop abusing God’s grace in this country and use public funds to serve the people.”

The former Governor said that as he was exiting office, he invited the chief executives of three banks where he had warehoused state funds for the next administration and publicly handed them over to his successor.

“When I was leaving office as Anambra Governor, I invited the Managing Director of Access Bank, Diamond Bank, and Fidelity Bank, and told them publicly that the balance of Anambra State money I kept in each of those banks was $50 million, and N12 billion each. They publicly confirmed it and I told them to give it to my successor to use and develop the state.

“Nobody asked me to save the money but it’s a public fund not my own. I needed to use it to work for the people.”

Obi said Nigeria must transition from a consuming nation to a producing nation if it wanted to survive.

“Nigeria is a country with a landmass of 923,000 square kilometers and a population of 200 million people. God blessed us with everything but we have over 100 million people living in poverty.

“Last year, Nigeria’s total export including oil was less than$30 billion but Vietnam has 331,000 square kilometers of land with a population of 100 million people, and their total export was $312 billion. Yet they have no oil. Their export is manufactured goods,” he said.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has revealed that the former Lagos state governor, Bola Tinubu has lobbied to be a vice president on a Muslim-Muslim ticket to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Both Atiku and Tinubu eyeing to be the nation’s President in 2023 on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) have been trading words on the issue of Muslim-Muslim ticket.

While Atiku berated Tinubu for choosing to run with Senator Kashim Shettima on a Muslim-Muslim ticket, the latter said the former is a hypocrite who wanted him to be his vice in the past presidential election.

This was contained in a statement by Atiku’s media aide, Paul Ibe, reacting Tinubu’s claim that the PDP presidential candidate has lost moral comapass.

The statement read: “We would also like to remind Nigerians that even though multiple sources have testified that Bola Tinubu desperately lobbied to be made Buhari’s deputy in a Muslim-Muslim ticket, Bola Tinubu himself denied this on June 22, 2022, and instead accused President Buhari of offering him the position of Vice President.

“Which is exactly the same false allegation he has made against Atiku Abubakar. This is a pattern of behaviour. Not owning up to his actions.

“Nigerians may want to note that on 14 September, 2005, the then US Consul General, Brian L. Browne, drafted a memo, leaked via Wikileaks, wherein he stated that Bola Tinubu was scheming to be a running mate to either Atiku Abubakar or Muhammadu Buhari.

“This is further historically corroborated by the subsequent political history of Nigeria. Biographers of President Muhammadu Buhari have variously recounted how that Bola Tinubu made the same request of then Presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari in 2015.

“In his 2016 authorised biography of President Muhammadu Buhari titled ‘Muhammadu Buhari: The Challenges of Leadership in Nigeria’, Professor John Paden, an American, wrote about the issue as follows: “Tinubu, a former governor of Lagos State and political ‘godfather’ of the South-West geopolitical zone, felt he should be the vice-presidential candidate.”

In reaction, Tinubu, in a statement by Bayo Onanuga said: “We should not lose sight of the issue: Atiku sought to put himself on a religious higher ground by pretending to hate same faith ticket, citing most erroneously how he rejected Asiwaju as running mate in 2007.

“Asiwaju said it didn’t happen as he said. It was rather Atiku who offered him the post, which he rejected.

“We will like to restate that Atiku is now merely making a politically convenient and opportunistic argument, trying to fault our Tinubu-Shettima ticket using the emotive issue of religion.

“Our ticket is not about religion. It’s about two men, two Nigerians with track records in their various states, with verified competence and strength of character, who are coming to help fix our nation’s problems of insecurity, the economy and infrastructure.

“These problems did not begin seven years ago. The foundation was laid in 16 years of PDP mismanagement of our country’s commonwealth.”

Northerners have taken over Peter Obi campaign.

Aguwanyi:
Let d vawulence begin....

garfield1:
How will obi win in the north

majole:
Garfield1 seems you've recovered from Osun. Anything that doesn't fit your narrative is irrelevant. Na so things go shock you like Osun. Sorry what was your prediction on Osun again?

Penguin2:
People like Odii.

But for some reasons, we prefer Nwifuru, the APC candidate.

Carmal90:
You shouldn't bother, because I strongly believe he will struggle to win Anambra state, that is if it possible sef

Jack500:
This sore loser!

February is here, Tinubu will win Borno and Yobe next year in Atiku region, you will see

Carmal90:
2021 wasn't the first year soludo was contesting and he lost.
He backed Oseloka in 2017 and lost as well, coming distant third.
Obi is not grounded politically, that is the fact.

Shascky33:
Obasanjo lost Ogun in 1999 and won the general elections. Some are hated at home bt loved abroad.

Carmal90:
Why didn't Obi deliver those he nominated and backed as governor in Anambra state for two consecutive election cycle?

Follow-up procedure:

“In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Governments to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including: (a) Whether Mr. Kanu has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Kanu;
(c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Kanu
rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation; (d) Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to harmonize the laws and practices of Kenya and Nigeria with its international obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

“The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working Group.

“The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the abovementioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.

“However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.

” The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken”

Victory for freedom fighters – Kanu’s family

Meanwhile, Kanu’s family has expressed delight over the UN recommendations, describing the report as victory for freedom fighters.

Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, who conveyed the position of the family in an exclusive interview with Vanguard, said that Nigeria must comply with the UN recommendations.

“In as much as they are lawless, they must obey. After now they must still face the music because Internationally they must be held accountable.”

The UN Working Group said Nigeria also failed to disprove that Kanu was a victim of political persecution.

“Mr. Kanu is an activist and the leader of the organisation Indigenous People of Biafra,
which he founded in 2012. The source alleges that the Government of Nigeria is targeting
Mr. Kanu due to his political expression, in particular, due to his membership in a group
politically opposed to the Nigerian Government on the question of Biafra, his widely published criticism of the Government, and his work with and advocacy for the Indigenous People of Biafra. The Government has chosen not to address these allegations.

“The Working Group finds that Mr. Kanu has indeed been targeted by the Government
as a human rights defender on account of his freedom of opinion and expression as well as
his position regarding the sovereignty of Biafra. As Mr. Kanu has been targeted on account of his activism in galvanising momentum for a referendum on the sovereignty of Biafra, the Working Group considers that his detention violates articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and is arbitrary under category V.

Concluding remarks: “The Working Group wishes to record its very serious concern for the well-being of
Mr. Kanu, who, according to the source and uncontested by the Government of Nigeria,
remains in solitary confinement since his arbitrary detention in Nigeria on 29 June 2021. He has been denied medical treatment and medication for his heart condition. The Working Group recalls that prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive days is prohibited under rules 43(1)(b) and 44 of the Mandela Rules.

“The Working Group is also obliged to remind the Government of Nigeria that in accordance with article 10 of the
Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect to the inherent dignity of the human person and that denial of medical assistance constitutes a violation of the Nelson Mandela Rules, rules 24, 25, 27 and 30 in particular.

” According to the source, throughout Mr. Kanu’s detention in Kenya and transfer to
Nigeria, no family members knew about his location or could access him, and Mr. Kanu was not permitted to contact his family during this detention. These allegations have not been contested by either Governments. The Working Group stresses that, under international human rights law, all detained and imprisoned individuals have the right to communicate and be visited by their families.

“The right to receive visits applies to all detainees, “regardless of the offence of which they are suspected or accused.” Under Principle 19 of the Body of Principles, this right could be subject only to conditions and restrictions that are appropriate to a legitimate aim. Neither Governments have argued that the restrictions placed on Mr. Kanu’s contact with his family conformed with this requirement. As a result, the Working Group finds that the restrictions placed on Mr. Kanu’s contact with his family violated his right to contact with the outside world under rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles.

“Noting the treatment to which Mr. Kanu has been subjected at the hands of both
Kenyan and Nigerian authorities as well as his continued solitary confinement, the Working
Group refers this case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for further consideration.

“The Working Group also wishes to reemphasize its very serious concern over the
apparent collusion between the Governments of Kenya and Nigeria in this case and reiterates its findings that both Governments are jointly responsible for the violations of Mr. Kanu’s rights in both jurisdictions. The present Opinion concerns solely the treatment and rights of Mr. Kanu and is sposition

“In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
In relation to Kenya and Nigeria.

The deprivation of liberty of Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within Categories I, II, III and V.

“The Working Group requests the Governments of Kenya and Nigeria to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Kanu without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

” The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be for the Government of Nigeria to release Mr. Kanu
immediately and for both Governments to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.

” In the current context of the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government of Nigeria to take urgent action to ensure the immediate unconditional release of Mr. Kanu.

” The Working Group urges the two Governments to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Kanu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of hisrights.

” In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.

“The Working Group requests the Governments to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.

The United Nations, UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, has indicted both Nigeria and Kenya Governments for the arrest and extraordinary rendition, torture and continued detention of the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, without due process.

UN therefore, asked Nigerian Government to, “immediate release Kanu unconditionally” and pay him adequate compensations for the arbitrary violation of his fundamental human rights.

It also recommended that Government officials responsible for the torture meted to the IPOB Leader be investigated and punished.

The UN body further directed Nigeria to report back within six months of the transmission of its opinions on Kanu’s matter, steps taken to comply with all the recommendations thereof.

It referred the case of Kanu’s torture to Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for further consideration

The UN Working Group also threatened to take further action to ensure the recommendations are complied with, noting that both Nigeria and Kenya are signatories to the Convention and should comply.

The 16-page report dated July 20, 2022 was adopted on April 4 by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its 93rd session, held between March 30 – April 8, 2022.

The unedited version of the document sighted by Vanguard, was marked:”Opinion No. 25/2022 concerning Mr. Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu (Nigeria and Kenya).

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

In accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group, on December 30, 2021, transmitted to the Nigeria and Kenya Governments, a communication concerning
Mr. Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu.

According to the report, Nigeria replied to the communication on 25 January 2022 while the Government of Kenya did not reply.

Both countries are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Working Group said in the report that Kanu was a victim of State persecution as Nigeria failed to provide convincing explanations with proof that he is guilty of treason and other criminal allegations levelled against him.

“Noting the failure of the Government to explain what actions of Mr. Kanu amounted
to such criminal acts and how, and observing the lack of any evidence that any of his actions may in fact amount to such crimes, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Kanu is in fact being persecuted for the peaceful exercise of his rights, most notably his freedom of opinion and expression.

“In the present case, the Government of Nigeria has presented no exceptions permitted under article 19 (3) of the Covenant nor is there any evidence to suggest that Mr. Kanu’s exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression was anything but peaceful.

” In fact, the Government has chosen not to provide any explanation for the arrest, detention and subsequent proceedings against Mr. Kanu. In these circumstances, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Kanu’s detention is thus arbitrary under category II”, UN Working Group said.
[/b]
The Working Group also said there was no evidence that International laws were observed in the arrest and rendition of Kanu from Kenya.

The 16-page dossier read in part: “In the present case, Mr. Kanu was not furnished with an arrest warrant by Nigerian
authorities nor was he promptly informed of the grounds for his arrest in Nigeria.
Consequently, the Working Group finds that Mr. Kanu’s continued deprivation of liberty
violates his rights under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article
9 of the Covenant, and principles 2, 4, and 10 of the Body of Principles and constitutes
arbitrary detention under category I.”

“Turning to the uncontested allegations that following his rendition to Nigeria,
Mr. Kanu remained in pre-trial detention with his trial having been scheduled to commence
in January 2022, the Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that pre-trial detention should be the exception rather than the rule, and should be ordered for the shortest time possible. Put differently, liberty is recognised under article 9 (3) of the Covenant as the core consideration with detention merely as an exception.

“Therefore, detention pending trial must be based on an individualised determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. Such determination was not carried out in the present case, in violation of Mr. Kanu’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

“Further, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant, an arrested person is to be
brought before a judge within 48 hours.27 This was not satisfied in the case of Mr. Kanu and
the Working Group therefore finds a violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principles 11, 37 and 38 of the Body of
Principles.

“Furthermore, in order to establish that a detention is indeed legal, anyone detained has
the right to challenge the legality of his or her detention before a court, as guaranteed by
article 9 (4) of the Covenant. The Working Group wishes to recall that according to the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Rights of Anyone Deprived of their Liberty to Bring Proceedings before a Court, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right, which is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.

“This right, which is in fact a peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty, 29 to “all situations of
deprivation of liberty, including not only to detention for purposes of criminal proceedings but also to situations of detention under administrative and other fields of law, including military detention, security detention, detention under counter-terrorism measures”.

“Moreover, it also applies “irrespective of the place of detention or the legal terminology used in the legislation. Any form of deprivation of liberty on any ground must be subject to
effective oversight and control by the judiciary. This was also denied to Mr. Kanu, thus, violating his right under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.

“Finally, turning to Mr. Kanu’s pre-trial detention in Nigeria, the Working Group
recalls that according to international human rights law, in particular article 9 (3) of the
Covenant, any person detained while awaiting trial is entitled to trial within a reasonable
time, or otherwise shall be released. Article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant also guarantees the
right of anyone charged with a criminal offence to be tried without undue delay. In the
absence of a substantive response from the Government of Nigeria, the Working Group finds no legitimate grounds for the delays in the trials against Mr. Kanu.

“Consequently, the Working Group finds that the Government of Nigeria failed to
establish a legal basis for the detention of Mr. Kanu. His detention is thus arbitrary under
category I.”

The UN Working Group said that both the Nigerian and Kenyan Governments should take responsibility for Kanu’s rights violations.

“The Working Group wishes once again to underscore the collusion between the
Governments of Kenya and Nigeria in the rendition of Mr. Kanu and reiterates that both
Governments bear joint responsibility for any violations of Mr. Kanu’s rights in Kenya and
Nigeria.

“The Working Group has already established in its discussion of the detention of Mr. Kanu in Kenya that he was arrested and detained due to the peaceful exercise of his rights (see paras 52-54 above). The Working Group notes that the source has argued the same in relation to Mr. Kanu’s arrest, detention and trial proceedings in Nigeria. Notably, the
Government of Nigeria has chosen not to address the substance of these allegations.

“The Working Group notes that it is not contested that Mr. Kanu is accused of the crime of conspiracy to commit a treasonable felony through an agreement with others to be broadcast from London, in view of the establishment of a Biafran sovereignty. The source notes that, while treason consists of “levying war” against Nigeria under Nigerian law, the Federal Government of Nigeria does not allege any action implicating Mr. Kanu in the contemplation, planning, or incitement of war against Nigeria. The source argues that
Mr. Kanu was in fact advocating for a peaceful referendum for the establishment of a Biafran
sovereignty, in conformity with international and other relevant laws.

“The Working Group recalls that freedom of opinion and expression, as expressed in article 19 of the Covenant, is an indispensable condition for the full development of the person. It is essential for any society and constitutes the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. It also recalls that freedom of expression includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and that this right includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others, including political
opinions.

“Similarly, in Resolution 12/16, the Human Rights Council called on States to refrain
from imposing restrictions which are not consistent with article 19 (3), including on the
discussion of government policies and political debate; reporting on human rights; engaging in peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief.”

The UN Working Group further said that the Nigeria Government could not disprove claims by Kanu that he was denied effective lagal representation including access to his US lawyer.

“The source has submitted, and the Government did not address, that Mr. Kanu was denied effective legal representation. The Working Group considers legal representation as being a core facet of the right to a fair trial. Legal assistance should be available at all stages of criminal proceedings, namely, pre-trial, trial, and appellate stages, to ensure compliance with fair trial guarantees. Any denial of access to lawyers substantially undermines and compromises an accused individual’s capacity to defend him or herself in any judicial proceedings.

“As the Working Group has stated in principle 9 and guideline 8 of its Basic Principles,
persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice,
at any time during their detention, including immediately after the moment of apprehension, and must be promptly informed of this right upon apprehension. Access to legal counsel should not be unlawfully or unreasonably restricted.

“Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant entitles defendants to adequate time and facilities
for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. Defendants must have access to documents and other evidence, including “all materials that the prosecution plans to offer in court against the accused or that could assist the defence.

“Recalling general comment No. 32, a detainee has the right to have “prompt access” to legal counsel, meaning that a lawyer must be able to have private communications and
meetings with the detainee and be able to attend all the investigations without interference or restrictions. A detainee also ought to have access to “effective counsel.”

“All of this was denied to Mr. Kanu. In the Working Group’s view, by failing to allow
Mr. Kanu to be represented by lawyers of his choice, including an international counsel,
the Government denied Mr. Kanu’s right to legal assistance at all times, which is inherent in the right to liberty and security of the person as well as the right to a fair and public hearing
by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 of the
Covenant, articles 37 (b) and (d) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) and principles 15, 17 and 18 of the Body
of Principles and principles 1, 5, 7, 8, 21 and 22 of the Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers.

“The Working Group is also disturbed by the source’s report of the treatment of
Mr. Kanus’s lawyers and recalls its jurisprudence highlighting that such treatment of lawyers is entirely unacceptable and violates articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.41 It is the legal and positive duty of the State to protect everyone on its territory or under its jurisdiction against any human rights violation and to provide remedy whenever a violation still occurs.

“The Working Group also considers that Mr. Kanu’s presumption of innocence was
violated as the Department surrounded the court complex with an array of armed forces,
creating an atmosphere of intimidation and danger (see para. 9), a submission which the
Government has chosen not to contest. The Working Group recalls that defendants should
not be presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals, as this also undermines the presumption of innocence.The Working Group finds a breach of article 14 (2) of the Covenant.

“Further, according to the source and uncontested by the Government, following his
rendition to Nigeria, Mr. Kanu was detained in solitary confinement within the headquarters
of the Department in Abuja, Nigeria. He is reportedly currently still held in a very small cell where he is exposed to daily psychological and mental torture without access to other inmates or any other person except for the Department officers. Mr. Kanu is also allegedly denied access to reading or writing materials and has been refused access to professional medical care despite a serious heart ailment.

“The source reports that Mr. Kanu’s life is in jeopardy and that he suffers from a medical condition occasioned by gradual depletion of potassium in his system, which has defied any medical solution given to him within the Department facilities.

“The Working Group is seriously concerned about the treatment to which Mr. Kanu
has been subjected. Especially noting its finding that Mr. Kanu was subjected to
extraordinary rendition as well as his treatment prior to that, the Working Group considers it unlikely that Mr. Kanu would have been able to effectively assist with and participate in his own defence during the proceedings against him, and that such treatment roceedings against him, rendering them inherently unfair and unjust, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. For all the reasons above, the Working Group finds that the fair trial rights and procedural guarantees of Mr. Kanu under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant and other relevant human rights standards, were not observed and that such violations are of such gravity as to render Mr. Kanu’s detention arbitrary under category III.”

successmatters:
Then get off social media. Tell atiku to deactivate his twitter account.

Until then, your kidding yourself.