Nigeria is in total mayhem; strange things happen every day in this country. Recently, animals are being accused of crimes only humans can commit. funny enough people found in the bizarre stories told them with all temerity, including the president of the country. Funny country, right?
That’s what we see in a country where nothing works from federal level, state level to the local government level. Corrupt practices are now the order of the day and unfortunately animals are being accused, they are now the culprits.
Its painful that the so-called giant of Africa is now a laughing stock worldwide, other countries we were better than makes mockery of us because of the hopeless people that are giving leadership positions.
The hopelessness of our country started when youths don’t know their position in the society, they worship people that they voted to serve them, and these so-called leaders gets drunk in power thereby syphoning money that is meant for the country’s growth.
The truth is nothing good will ever come out of this country unless the youths know their stand in the country, we need to wake up and rescue these innocent animals that are suffering defamation of character. From the rats accused of chasing the president from his office to the innocent snake that swallowed 36 million naira in Joint Matriculation Examination Board(JAMB) office.
We are not fools, stop forging funny stories to steal public funds and hide your incompetence. As the saying goes “If u can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”, so if can’t serve leave the office for capable hands.
Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Syinka, has again hit hard at President Muhammadu Buhari.
He told journalists in Lagos, yesterday: “Mr. President, I think you are under a trance,” adding, “the sooner he gets out of it the better.”
He claimed that the phenomenon of herdsmen and farmers clashes was not new but an issue that graduated to an alarming state in the last eight years.
He described the armed herdsmen as a new breed of Boko Haram and internal colonialists.
“The important thing is the consciousness of a need for organised resistance against the incursion of cows.
“In Ogun State, we have formed a sort of informal organisation called OSHA, Ogun State Hunters Association, and we intend to collaborate with similar movements, the police and the military,” he said.
With the theme; “Herdsmen and Nation: Valentine Card or Valedictory Rites?”, he gave an analogical tale of a state whose master’s insensitivity allowed for the overbearing actions of his subjects.
He lamented that mass destruction of farmlands in the most horrifying manner had become a norm festering with the encouragement of the government’s body language.
The Nobel Laureate said he was not happy with “the body language” of the government in handling the matter.
He described as appalling the position of the Inspector General of Police that the continuing loss of lives in Benue State, and consequent increase of internal refugees was simply a communal clash, stressing that little would be achieved in security without the adoption of state policing.
“If the IG can sit in Abuja and say of an event that is happening under the jurisdiction of a governor in another state is a just a communal clash when people are being slaughtered and their villages are being occupied, it shows of complete alienation.
“We have been saying it for a long time. We are now getting back to the commonsensical issue that the nation cannot function under a single police command,” he said.
Soyinka said the Nigerian Army “must now turn around to face another phenomenon which is considered in some international circles more deadlier than the Boko Haram.”
According to him, the containing efforts happening now should have begun six months as he expected the force to have immediately transferred its concentration from operations such as Python Dance and Crocodile Smile to where the heat was.
He said: “Why colonies were brought in to complicate things, I do not know. Ranching that is the word used everywhere. There is no organised illegal force that does not sooner or later spin up. Are these internally generated, or are they being launched by individuals who in their interest the nation must be in a state of anarchy?
“We sometimes talk about corruption but we don’t understand how far corruption goes. When you think of the amount being stolen in this country, enough funds, illegal funds flocking to destabilise the country. We might end up discovering that some of these people profit from ensuring there is chaos from Maiduguri to Lagos.”
Speaking on restructuring, Soyinka said: “Sooner or later people will recognize the fact it’s not broken record they are listening to, it’s their hearing that is impaired.
“In other words we have been shouting restructuring, now its inevitability has always been stressed.
“Anytime you talk about restructuring, you hear this gibberish that the sovereignty of this country will not be compromised. Who is talking about sovereignty?
“We are stating that the internal components of the country needed to be addressed on rational and the parameters were always set. We must decentralise governance.”
He cited Buhari’s recall of the Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Usman Yusuf, after he was suspended for alleged graft by the Minister of Health, Prof Isaac Adewole, as a recent example of the unforced errors that characterised the government.
Reacting to Soyinka’s statement, the Special Adviser on Media to the President, Mr. Femi Adesina, said: “Wole Soyinka is respected but his opinion does not constitute the gospel. He is not in government, so he is speaking from a perspective. Not everyone believes government is not doing anything.
“A large number of people believe the government is tackling the issue of herdsmen. The president is concerned about the opinions of people, but when it comes from the PDP, you know they are interested in getting power, so they will try to de-market the president.”
I write in my capacity as the Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra with the conduct of the case in Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 pending in the Federal High Court Owerri between Biafra and Nigeria. In that case, the Claimants are described as INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA suing in a representative capacity by the human rights organization called Bilie Human Rights Initiative. The case was instituted by the authority of the Customary Government headed by the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra under the Nigerian Customary Law. Many people including some Biafran activists have raised questions on the legality of a customary government. In fact, some anarchic vociferous Biafran activists have attacked the Customary Government so vehemently that we began to ask whether they were hired by the Defendants. For these reasons, I have decided to address these issues clearly:
2. The facts and evidence of the existence of the Customary Government of Indigenous People of Biafra are fully pleaded in Court and the Defendants have been duly put on notice. The Biafrans have judicial immunity to organize themselves by a home-rule within Nigeria under Customary Law. The Defendants are forbidden by law to interfere with the home-rule of the Claimants. In this case, the Claimants are Indigenous People of Biafra who sued Nigeria in a representative capacity by the human rights organization called “Bilie Human Rights Initiative”. Let me make it clear that the human rights organization is not the same thing as Indigenous People of Biafra. It is an agent sent by the Biafran people to advocate for their rights in Court as the people are not yet a sovereign legal entity. It is an elementary doctrine of law that a non-legal entity can only sue or be sued in a representative capacity. Let the overzealous Biafran activists know that Biafra is not yet a legal entity and therefore can only sue or be sued in a representative capacity. The human rights organization can in future represent a trade association in Court such as the Market Woman Association. It is different from the people it represents in Court and cannot interfere with the affairs of the people.
3. Actually, the Customary Government of Indigenous People of Biafra is not the first in the world. It is recognised in international law as well. It is by this means that the Palestinians govern themselves within Israel as they seek for their independence. It is a natural order that a people seeking for independence must be organized as a people and must speak with one voice. The President of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari, has also mentioned the need for the Biafrans to gather themselves together as a people to pursue their common interest.
4. The cases of Palestine and Biafra are similar in a way. The Palestinians applied the power of international politics and were granted the Observer Status of the UN after 25 years of struggling for independence. They therefore enjoy some measure of diplomatic immunity. The Biafrans applied the power of national and international law to institute the case in the Nigerian Federal High Court and therefore enjoy judicial immunity. This judicial immunity continues even if the case finally moves to the International Court in The Hague. In fact, the Biafrans as the Claimants in the on-going case have an obligation to maintain law and order among themselves by an internal government structure that ensures peace in the land as long as the case lasts. This internal government structure is what we call the Customary Government of Indigenous People of Biafra. A Customary Government is called “Ochichi Amaala” in Igbo Language. It is a government by the Council of Elders. This is the Customary Government that speaks for the people. At all levels in Biafraland, there has been the customary governance from time immemorial. This is the Government that authorised the Biafran Struggle for self-determination by the Rule of Law. It is government by the Elders of the land based on Customary Law.
5. The concept of judicial immunity is that where two parties are in Court, no party will molest, disturb, harass or interfere with the other party until the case is over. We have made it clear in Court that we are Biafrans by indigenous identity but Nigerians by citizenship which was forced upon us against our will. Therefore, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General as Defendants cannot interfere with the internal governance of the Claimants. However, if any child of the claimants commits an offence, the Nigerian Government has the power to punish the offender for the said offence and not for being a Biafran by indigenous identity.
6. Let me now refer to the pleadings in Court. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Evidence adduced by the Biafrans against the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections stated as follows:
31. That the Claimants are an organized body of people under the control and management of our Customary Government known as the Government of Indigenous People of Biafra with various government departments as shown in the Policy Statements and Orders exhibited in these proceedings as Exhibit A8 headed by the Supreme Council of Elders with physical office addresses as stated in this Further Affidavit and pursuing their right to self-determination by due process of law.
32. That despite the forceful occupation of our territory by the Defendants, we the Indigenous People of Biafra are obedient and loyal to our Customary Government headed by our Council of Elders known as the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra which we recognize and submit to as the de facto government of Indigenous People of Biafra under Customary Law.
Submissions in Reply:
21. In reply to Paragraph 21 where the Defendants asserted that Nigeria had been a single and one united country right from the amalgamation of 1914 to date, Claimants aver as follows:
(1) In 1961, some parts of South Eastern Nigeria joined Cameroon by a Plebiscite (Referendum) while some parts of North Western Cameroon joined Nigeria despite the amalgamation of 1914.
(2) In 1967, the remaining Eastern Nigeria declared independence as the Republic of Biafra despite the amalgamation of 1914 and governed the Biafran territory for three years. The Republic of Biafra was recognised by five countries that have seats in the United Nations including Haiti, Zambia, Gabon, Tanzania and Ivory Coast.
(3) The Claimants declared war against the Republic of Biafra and fought with the young Republic for three years and could not defeat Biafra until the World Powers of the Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all Moslem countries helped Nigeria to defeat Biafra and force the Biafrans back into Nigeria. We draw the attention of the Court to the history books listed at Paragraph 6(b), 6(d), 6(e), 6(g), 6(h), and 6(k) of the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
(4) In 2002, the part of Cross River State of Nigeria called Bakassi Peninsula was ceded to Cameroon by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice despite the amalgamation of 1914.
(5) From the date of the amalgamation of 1914 until now, the map of Nigeria has been redrawn several times. The newest Map of Nigeria is the one without Bakassi Peninsula as Bakassi is now Cameroonian territory.
22. In reply to Paragraph 22, Claimants aver as follows:
(1) That protests against the amalgamation started almost immediately. In the National Assembly before the Independence when there were disagreements and quarrels between all the parties, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa described it as the mistake of 1914 but later changed his mind on the advice and promise of Britain to give power to the North.
(2) Defendants have failed to rebut the Claimants’ averment at Paragraph 16 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that agitation for secession has continued among the ethnic nationalities that were forced to become Nigerians; and that the people of the Islamic North do not believe in the lifestyle and philosophy of the people of the East or West and therefore want to have an Islamic Republic and have actually created an Islamic State in the North through violence by their militant group called Boko Haram.
(3) Defendants have failed to rebut the evidence attached as Exhibit B10 in these proceedings, being the Map of Nigeria showing that the Sharia Law has shared Nigeria into two.
(4) In the preface to his book, “The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War”, pleaded at Paragraph 6(b) of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, Major General Madiebo said, “Serious doubts may still exist in many minds as to why Lt Colonel Gowon (later General) suddenly did a complete turn-about and rather than secede as he had originally planned and said, preferred to plunge Nigeria into a civil war, which took a toll of an estimated three million lives, in an attempt to re-unite the same Nigeria he had set out initially to break up”. It is clear from this testimony that the North did not accept the amalgamation but agreed on the advice and promise of Britain that the North would rule Nigeria and protect British economic interests.
(5) At Page 237 of the book, “Biafra or Nigerian Presidency- What the Ibos Want”, pleaded at Paragraph 6(f) of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the Odua Group known as the EGBE IRAPADA OODUA (EIRO) is agitating for the self-determination and sovereign nation of the Oduduwa Nation described as “the children of Odua, now referred to as Itsekiri, Yoruba, Ilaje, Ijebu, Ekiti, Oyo, Egba, Igbo-mina, Ikale, Edo, Yewa, Awori, Akoko, Ondo, etc”, being all the people of Western Nigeria.
(6) At the moment, the 12 Northern States in Nigeria have adopted the Sharia Law as their State Law while Boko Haram has established a Caliphate in the North in the exercise of their right to self-determination using violence as a method of self-determination. These are clear evidence that the indigenous peoples of the land did not accept and have not accepted the amalgamation of 1914.
23. In reply to Paragraph 23, Claimants aver that they seek to exercise their right to self-determination by the rule of law and therefore did not and would not commit any act in breach of the peace by disrupting or opposing the Defendants in their programme of celebrating their 100 years of amalgamation. In further reply thereto, Claimants aver that they did not celebrate with the Defendants for the 100 years of slavery called amalgamation.
24. In reply to Paragraph 24, Claimants aver that the fact that Nigeria has not disintegrated does not mean that it would not disintegrate if the ethnic nationalities who seek for independence are continuously held together against their will. In such a situation, the disintegration of Nigeria may be explosive just like the USSR disintegrated and all the peoples went back to their ancestral roots.
25. In reply to Paragraph 25, Claimants specifically plead the Ancient Maps of Africa 1662 and 1707 exhibited in these proceedings as Exhibits B1 and B1.1 respectively showing the ancient country of Biafra carved into Nigeria at the amalgamation. In further reply thereto, Claimants plead the Bight of Bonny Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, Exhibit B1.2, made by the Defendants to remove the name of Biafra from the Map. Furthermore, the Claimants aver that Biafra existed for more than 400 years before Nigeria was created by the British and that they are known as Biafrans by indigenous identity even though they have been forced to accept the Nigerian citizenship against their will.
26. In reply to Paragraph 26 of the Counter Affidavit by which the Defendants denied the facts in Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons on the ground that the facts did not relate to the matters under consideration, Claimants aver as follows:
(1) The Defendants have failed to rebut the confessions of Mr Harold Smith (the British Officer) in Exhibits B5 – B7 which can be viewed and listened to on the internet showing the fraudulent foundation of Nigeria;
(2) The Defendants have failed to rebut that the Nigerian Senate has revealed that 83% of the Oil Wells in Nigeria are owned by the Northerners as shown in Exhibits B9 and B9.1
(3) The facts stated in Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons are so weighty that the Defendants cannot wish them away;
(4) The weighty matters stated in Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons are evidence of fraud and discrimination committed by the Defendants which affected the Claimants adversely;
(5) Fraud vitiates every contract or agreement while discrimination against a people is an apartheid policy that forms the basis of struggle for self-determination. The fraud committed by the British to give power to the North upon attainment of independence of Nigeria in 1960 has vitiated every agreement (if any) by the Claimants to remain as One Nigeria. The Defendants have continued to falsify the census figures in Nigeria and to give the false impression that the North is more populated than the South, and that population increases towards the desert and decreases towards the sea in the Nigerian Human Geography! Therefore both incidents of fraud and discrimination committed by the Defendants are relevant to the matters under consideration for which the Claimants want to be free and independent from Nigeria as they no longer wish to be called the citizens of a fraudulent and discriminatory country.
7. The Customary Government is not funded by the State because no State Government in the East has passed the Customary Government Bill into law unlike their counterparts in the North who passed the Sharia Government Bill into Law. The Customary Government is funded by donations and customary levies which we call “utu-isi” in Igbo Language. For example, the Elders’ Council usually sends a Town Crier to go round the communities with a gong or drum announcing that a decision has been made that every adult male should pay N20 while adult female should pay N10 to carry out one project or the other. Some wealthy sons and daughters of the land can donate large sums of money to help in the execution of the projects. This is how the Customary Government is financed. Customary levies are compulsory while donations are based on free volitions.
8. I must give credit to the Defendants (The Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney-General) that they have not interfered with the Customary Government of the Claimants. It is rather the unruly children of the Claimants who are attacking themselves and attacking their Elders’ Council trying to show themselves ungovernable. I was informed that when the Claimants convened a Town Hall Meeting at Uyo in Akwa Ibom State at the instance of the Akwa Ibom brethren, some of the children of the Claimants who were struggling for leadership positions threatened to destroy the hotel venue of the Meeting and threatened the elderly host who therefore cancelled the Meeting. For this reason, the Claimants have moved the Town Hall Meetings back to their original venue in Anambra State. Honestly, the Biafrans cannot blame Nigeria if they fail to organize themselves as a people and speak with one voice.
9. I am aware that another group based abroad has attacked the Customary Government and asserted that it was not the Shadow Government which they had approved. My response to this issue is that my clients are not running a shadow government but a Customary Government. The Claimants are not a political party that can run a shadow government which is usually run in a parliamentarian system of government. My clients do not run a shadow government but a Customary Government.
10. The Customary Government is an institution that cannot be destroyed. It has been in existence from time immemorial. It is not a new thing. It is based on the Nigerian Legal System. What made it look new is that the Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra who created the new concept of struggling for self-determination by legal method resurrected the indigenous identity of the Biafrans and their indigenous governance which he wrote in his book, “Biafra or Nigerian Presidency- What the Ibos Want”, published in 2012. In the book, he defined the people as INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA showing the Ancient Map of Biafra in 1707 and described himself as the SOLICITOR FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA.
11. All the arguments and submissions made by the Nigerian Government and the Attorney-General of the Federation in the on-going case cannot help them. We have proved that Nigeria is divisible and that the right to self-determination is inalienable and unquestionable as provided by the Nigerian Law. This struggle for self-determination by legal method is what Professor Chukwuma Soludo described as the New Biafra Movement in his book review at Abuja on 29th Sept 2016. Let me quote him correctly:
“If Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu and Nnamdi Azikiwe who died as Nigerians were alive today, they would have towed the line of the new Biafra movement. Bakassi changed the map of Nigeria the day it was ceded to Cameroon and I wonder why Biafra too cannot change it.”
– Professor Chukwuma Soludo, Book Review on “The Politics of Biafra and the Future of Nigeria”, Abuja, 29 Sept 2016.
We have argued this issue in Court. In 1961, some parts of South Eastern Nigeria left and joined Cameroun despite the amalgamation and the so-called indivisibility of Nigeria. In 2002, the Bakassi Region of Nigeria was ceded to Cameroun by the judicial power of the International Court despite the amalgamation and indivisibility of Nigeria!
12. In concluding this message, I assert strongly that the Claimants have the right and power to govern themselves within Nigeria as a people under Customary Law. The Palestinians are governing themselves within Israel while seeking for their independence. Is it a crime for the Biafrans to gather themselves together under their Elders’ Council in accordance with their Customary Law? Why do these anarchists deceive the youths and preach disobedience and lawlessness? These anarchists have incited the youths into confrontations with the Nigerian Police and Nigerian Army who killed them in disguise of maintaining law and order! The Administrator and all the Officials of the Customary Government are hereby advised to continue with their works without allowing further distractions from the anarchists and establish customary governance at all levels in Biafraland. The Administrator and his Team of Officials are given the mandate to organize all the Claimants in the on-going case under the Supreme Council of Elders so that the people would not be like sheep without a shepherd. The Defendants are hereby put on notice. Therefore, I challenge all those opposing the Customary Government to assemble their lawyers and meet me in Court. I will say no more.
Staff of the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board, JAMB, were on Tuesday morning surprised when the senator representing Kaduna Central, Shehu Sani, stormed their office with anti-snake venom and snake charmers, after a staff claimed a missing N36 million was eaten by a snake.
JAMB Registrar, Ishaq Oloyede, went into rounds of laughter when the lawmaker presented him with two packs of anti-snake venom and offered the services of two snake charmers to fish out snakes that swallowed huge amount of money.
The exams board said it suspended the staff, Philomena Chieshe, at its Makurdi office following the bizarre claim.
In reaction to the development, the senator visited the JAMB headquarters to ascertain the truth of the matter and to lend his “assistance”.
“The reason for my presence here is in response to the story that a snake swallowed about N36 million. It is my concern that such a huge amount of money is reported to have been swallowed by a snake. I believe the contribution I can make is to bring snake charmers from my constituency to the JAMB office to help them fish out the snake or weed out snakes from their premises,” Mr. Sani said.
“If a snake can actually swallow N36 million one day we may wake up in this country to see that a snake has swallowed our foreign reserve or it has swallowed money that was gathered in the TSA.”
Mr. Oloyede continued his laughter and insisted on taking photograph with the unexpected gift.
“Lets take pictures with anti-snake,” he said.
One of the snake charmers, Tasiu Abdulrasheed, who claimed to have been a professional snake charmer for up to 20 years, said he has never encountered a money-swallowing reptile.
“I inherited the skill from my grandfather and I’ve been doing it for up to 20 years. I have dealt with different types of snakes, including pythons, cobra and others, but I have never captured a snake that swallowed money. My master has at different times captured snakes that swallowed various kinds of animals but he has never caught one that swallowed money,” he said.
JAMB spokesperson, Fabian Benjamin, said the board is dealing with more frivolous stories like Ms. Chieshe’s.
“There was even a case in Nasarawa when a staff claimed that on his way to come and submit the scratch card, he had an accident and the car got burnt with the scratch cards,” he said.
Shehu Sani with JAMB Registrar, Ishaq Oloyede Shehu Sani with JAMB Registrar, Ishaq Oloyede
“The cards have numbers and when we checked we found out that those cards were used. There was another staff that said his signature was forged. He agreed that it was his signature but he wasn’t the one that signed and did not collect the scratch cards. We have many issues like that but all of them have been queried, they appeared before the disciplinary committee, they were interrogated. A report has been written. Once that report has been approved, we will be commended for their dismissal and prosecution.”
He advised Nigerians against trivialising the issue.
“We are not ashamed of whatever because Nigerians are turning it into a joke. It’s not a joke. We should be surprised and we should weep for this country that people could be that mischievous. The effrontery of someone saying a snake could swallow money is something that should disturb us.”
He added that the accused staff is currently undergoing disciplinary procedures and would be handed over to security agencies after the minister’s approval.
President Jacob Zuma of South Africa has been recalled as the President of the Republic of South Africa by the African National Congress ANC his political party.
Jacob Zuma has refused to resign thereby defying his party’s decision.
However he is essentially no longer the President of the Republic of South Africa but he is not taken that into consideration whatsoever.
His open defiance of his party’s decision is indeed a ground for his party to haul him before a disciplinary committee and consequently expelled from the ANC.
An unprecedented political drama is unfolding.
If we hear anything else we shall let you know.
This is WhatsApp Instant News Network reporting from the comfort of my couch.
REQUEST FOR STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT WITH INEC ON THE ELECTORAL PROCESS
The OurMumuDonDo movement is a national reawakening movement; a conglomeration of dedicated change agents; a movement for the emancipation of the suffering Nigerian masses; a movement defiantly calling for good governance and accountability. The movement aims to reinvigorate the deadened spirit of nationalism and advocacy in the Nigerian people particularly the youths.
More importantly, the movement is vehemently determined to increase the participation of the Nigerian people especially the youths who dominate more than average of the entire population of our nation to get actively involved in the daily affairs of governance through the judicious and maximum use of their franchise.
Despite being the most populous nation in Africa, and as we are fondly called, the Giant of Africa, it is worrisome that we have been unable to convince millions of Nigerians to trust and participate in the processes of voting and electing visionary leaders to positions of power. The consequence of the pervasive distrust and apathy for the electoral process demonstrated by the Nigerian people is the deplorable emergence of half-baked, selfish, gerontocratic, and unpatriotic politicians in leadership positions.
In furtherance of the aforementioned, the OurMumuDonDo Movement, after series of meticulous observations of the electoral process, and interface with voters across the nation, deems it fit to engage the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC on what we have discovered so far.
While we commend INEC on some giant strides it has recorded since its formation, and the space it is giving to dialogue this period on how to improve our electoral process, the movement wishes to engage the commission on the following challenges encumbering mass participation of the Nigerian people in the electoral process:
i. The challenge of voters’ registration in different parts of the country, especially with regards to the unavailability of required registration centers in most of the states in Nigeria.
ii. The challenge of voters’ apathy and disenfranchisement as a result of the long-time practice of rigidity in the electoral process.
iii. The challenge of conspicuous deficiencies with regards to Electronic Voting, the compilation of results, and accurate documentation and reportage of the number of votes nationwide.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, we humbly request a strategic engagement with INEC to discuss the issues identified above and other likely developments obstructing the electoral process, and how we can equally be of significant help as stakeholders.
We sincerely hope that our request will be given a quick attention, treated with dispatch and a date of engagement will be communicated to the group soonest.
The OurMumuDonDo movement is deeply and genuinely concerned that if necessary actions are not taken to remedy deficiencies plaguing the electoral process, it will be difficult to eradicate voter-apathy and disenfranchisement, and even more difficult to sustain our democracy.
Whilst awaiting your crucial response, please accept the assurances of our highest regards.
SIGNED:
Charles Oputa
FOR: OurMumuDonDo
Deji Adeyanju
FOR: Concerned Nigerians
Ariyo Dare Atoye
For: Coalition in Defence Of Nigerian Democracy
A group of good governance advocates, under the aegis of “OurMumuDonDo” on Monday, staged a peaceful protest at the National Headquarters of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the perceived lapses in the on-going Continuous Voters’ Registration, CVR, exercise nationwide.
The group led by maverick entertainer, Charles Oputa, popularly known as Charly Boy, also condemned the active participation by underage voters in last Saturday Local Government elections in Kano and Katsina states. Speaking during the protest, Oputa said that after series of meticulous observations of the CVR exercise and interface with voters nationwide, the group felt the necessity for critical stakeholders to engage INEC on ways to remedy the deficiencies in the voters’ registration process.
He expressed the readiness of the group to partner with INEC in addressing the lapses in the on-going Continuous Voter’s Registration Exercise but warned that if the commission failed to address the issues raised in the group’s protest letter and reply within two weeks, the movement would begin its daily-sit-out at the front of INEC office in order to avert the unpleasant consequences of disenfranchising millions of Nigerians as a result of the current lapses in the registration process.
He said: “We commend INEC on some giant stride it has recorded since its formation, and space it is giving to dialogue this period on how to improve our electoral process, however, the movement wishes to engage the commission on the following challenges encumbering mass participation of the Nigerian people in the electoral process. “The challenge of voters’ registration in different parts of the country, especially with regards to the unavailability of required registration centres in most of the states in Nigeria. “The challenge of voters’ apathy and disenfranchisement as a result of the longtime practice of rigidity in the electoral process. “The challenge of conspicuous deficiencies with regards to electronic voting, the compilation of results, and accurate documentation and reportage of the number of voters nationwide.
Other speakers were Conveners of Concerned Nigerians, Deji Adeyanju; OurMumuDonDo, Raphael Adebayo; Coalition in Defence of Nigerian Democracy, Ariyo Dare Atoye; as well as Campaign for Democracy; Bako Abdul Usman and MAD Connect, Moses Paul. Adeyanju, while speaking, lampooned INEC for allowing, supervising, and accepting votes by those citizens who are yet to reach the legal age of 18 at the just concluded Local Government election in Kano State. They were received by a senior police officer, Paul Odama and Acting-Director, Security Directorate of INEC, Muse Sekpe, both of who led their representatives into the premises to personally submit the protest letter.
He was in love with the military and, indeed, had a promising career in the Nigerian Army after being granted a Direct Short Service Commission in the rank of Second Lieutenant on October 4, 1989. Later, he converted to Direct Regular Commission and was deployed to the Nigerian Army Finance Corps (NAFC).
For several years, Lt. Col Paul Awusa successfully navigated and had a smooth sail through the murky waters of military politics until June 26, 2006, when he was nominated Deputy Defence Adviser (DDA) Finance, London, at the Nigerian High Commission, United Kingdom. He was selected among three army officers nominated by Major General Paul Toun (retd), then a Brigadier General and Director of Army Finance and Administration (DAFA), for approval by the Chief of Army Staff.
Can of worms
Eight years after, an obviously aggrieved Awusa who has been forced out of the Army is down and out. He did not mince words when he narrated to Saturday Sun how the Nigerian Defence Mission in UK has been turned into a money laundering mission. He admitted being used by military chiefs to launder over five million pounds of defence fund domiciled in London back to Nigeria for sharing. The money when converted at its current open market exchange rate of N500 to a pound sterling comes to about N2.5 billion. He said his nomination for the post of Deputy Defence Adviser, Finance, London, by General Paul Toun, and approval by General Andrew Azazi, who was then the Chief of Army Staff, and later, Chief of Defence Staff, availed him access to the inner workings of the cabal, which like a wounded lion, battled to yank him off the system for fear of expose of their sleazy deals.
In an exclusive interview with Saturday Sun, Awusa alleged that the Defence Intelligence Agency was a centre of corruption, from where defence funds meant for mission areas were laundered back to the country and shared among members of the cabal. He revealed that he had on several occasions, been asked to illegally repatriate such funds up to 5million Pounds in one instance, in 2008. Among the beneficiaries of the laundered funds, he said, were key military officers, government functionaries and some top flight traditional rulers.
Awusa, who alleged that he was marked for elimination but narrowly escaped with the death of President Umaru Yar’Adua, said he was accused of leaking vital documents concerning the illicit funds to General Azazi, who he described as his brother, while he held sway as the Chief of Defence Staff. He pointed fingers at the cabal for the sudden demise of Azazi, who died when a military helicopter conveying him from a funeral ceremony crashed midway to its destination. Aboard, was the governor of Kaduna State, Patrick Yakowa, who also perished.
His words: “My case has two dimensions. There is the political undertone, the issue of godfather. In this case, the godfathers who were at play were General Sarki Muktar, as NSA coordinating all the groups. General Agwai was there as CDS, and General Yusuf, who was Chief of Army Staff after General Azazi. General Azazi as Chief of Army Staff nominated and approved my movement to the UK. But since these people had problem with him at that point in time, they felt I was a boy to him. When those powers were at play and they saw me as General Azazi’s boy, they wanted to eliminate me at all cost.
“They accused me of revealing official secret to General Azazi from the UK. And what was it? It was because of monies they released for renovation of mission areas when President Olusegun Obasanjo was leaving office. As the Deputy Defence Adviser Finance, in London, I was like Director of Finance in charge of defence at the mission, and UK was the most sensitive of all the missions, more sensitive than the one in Washington. Funds were not used for the purposes they were meant for, it was just laundering business. We were just cashing the money and returning back home, while peanuts were just used for the purposes they were meant for.
“Some of the funds were meant to buy houses, but the houses would not be bought; some for renovation, but the houses were not renovated. They could say they want to buy machinery for the mission area, but the money would be cashed and sent back home for them to share. I was asked to do several of such laundering of illicit funds and I have my documents in the UK. At a point, the DA at that time, General Aminu, raided my house and took some of those documents. But once I lay hands on those things, peoples’ handwritings are there; the documents are there, there is no hiding place for anybody. It’s quite large sums of money, but it comes piecemeal; sometimes 2.5million Pounds, or more. The ones that passed through me, it was not more than 5million Pounds at that time, but it was a very short period.
“When President Umaru Yar’Adua came in, there were a lot of funds that were coming in for different kind of things and then the money was laundered back to the country. Because they were not comfortable with me and wanted me out, they sent one Roland Ochei, then a Lt. Col but by far my junior, to take over from me with a Visiting Passport, and it was an illegal thing they were doing. You cannot function in a mission area as a diplomat with a Visiting Passport; it is after they have approved your diplomatic passport, when the mission has accepted you as a diplomat that you can function as a diplomat. I was the signatory to the defence account, but they forced me to handover to Ochei. Again, I had applied for a UK driver’s licence with my diplomatic passport, and once you apply with a diplomatic passport, instead of them to return it to you directly, they will return it to the mission area, that is, the Nigeria House. From there, they will call whosoever is concerned to collect his or her passport. Instead of them to give me my passport, they went and hid it just to frustrate me. So, I was stranded there, with no money. And back home, they said I had deserted. When I applied for a standard Nigerian passport to enable me come home, they also refused me. They were doing all these because they didn’t want anything from me to filter to General Azazi. And it all has to do with the mission area funds which were coming through me at that time.
“Some of us have been lucky to be alive up to this moment; it was because of the same factors that General Azazi was killed. But God has been giving us coverage; they’ve not seen any form of threat from anywhere that will force them to take those actions, and since then, I’ve been lying low. When I was arrested and detained, the intention was to eliminate me, but when President Yar’Adua died, that was the saving grace because the NSA was removed at that time. So, the idea of eliminating me quietly wasn’t possible, that was why I was sent to a court martial. And since then, I had not been talking; that was the fear they expressed about General Azazi. That he was talking, and releasing official documents. That is what they told him; that was one of the threats, the accusations, even as NSA. I was with him once over my issue and he asked, Paul, what can I do for you? You know they are also after my life. I have been very silent; this is eight years since I came back from London. Because I was not talking, and I know some of those things, now that I am talking, they can go the extra mile to eliminate me. I have never talked like this before. Now that I am talking, they will come after me”.
His many troubles
Signs that he was headed for a rough path emerged even before he jetted out of the country to London to take his new position. While he was to resume duties September 2006 when the tenure of his predecessor expired, according to a memo addressed to the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) dated July 14, 2006 and signed by General Toun, Awusa did not receive handover notes until January 9, 2007, even though he had reported more than four months earlier. But he was not shocked by the development, as some forces were said to have worked to scuttle his nomination for the foreign mission.
Notwithstanding, Awusa was optimistic that the thick cloud of uncertainty on his tour of duty abroad would evaporate in no distant time, more so, with a confirmation letter issued him by the Office of the Defence Adviser, Nigeria High Commission, London, soliciting cooperation and assistance of relevant organizations including schools, for registration of his children to enable them continue their education, having relocated his family to UK as required of diplomats. The letter dated December 1, 2006, was signed by MA Oladeji, then a Colonel, for the Defence Adviser.
Barely six months after assuming duties for a tour of duty which lasts between two and three years, it was, therefore, a shocker when Awusa got an urgent memo at about 8pm on August 1, 2007, from the Office of Defence Adviser, Nigeria High Commission, London, releasing him to report same day for a course at the Armed Forces Command and Staff College, AFCSC, Jaji, Nigeria.
The two paragraph memo dated 1 August, 2007, ref: NHC. DA 01/G reads: “Reference A. DIA/153/1/G dated30 Jul 07. Further to Reference A, I am directed to inform you that you are hereby released to report to the AFCSC, Jaji immediately”. It was signed by VO Adedipe, then a Navy Captain, for the Defence Adviser. Awusa’s diplomatic mission had been abruptly truncated by the Nigerian Army headquarters, with his nomination for Senior Staff Course 30 via a memo dated July 26, 2007 and signed by DJM Igah, a Brigadier General for the Chief of Army Staff. The letter ref: NA230/102/TRG, threatened severe disciplinary action against him if he failed to attend the course.
It reads: “The above-named officer who is currently the DDA London is nominated to attend the above-stated course assembling 1 Aug 07 at the AFCSC, Jaji. Consequently, I am directed to request you to please inform the officer to return to Nigeria and attend the course accordingly. Additionally, the officer is to note that failure to attend the course will attract severe disciplinary action”.
Interestingly, Awusa was No. 1 on the list of 52 officers nominated for the course, and was the only officer of the rank of Lt. Col, while the rest were all Majors. He contended that the course is meant mainly for officers of the rank of Majors of Regular Combatants and not Direct Regular Officer to which he belonged. Besides, he was already a Lt. Col and did not require such course for his promotion or professional advancement.
Amazed at the turn of events, Awusa contacted Brigadier General Lartey, who was the Director, Army Finance and Administration (DAFA), and the Defence Adviser (DA), Nigeria High Commission, London, Major General Mohammed Said, for advice. “When I received the course nomination with warning letters from the DAOPs and DIA to report immediately, I phoned the DA since he was not around and told him of the development; I also informed the DAFA accordingly. The DAFA congratulated me on the nomination and told me to proceed for the course immediately. I informed the DA of this development but he advised that I should obey the DAFA and consult him on what to do with the office accounts. When I consulted DAFA, he said I should hand-over to anybody in the office and report for the course”, Awusa narrated.
Unwilling to face the dare consequences, he left London for Nigeria on August 8, 2007 and eventually reported at the Armed Forces Command and Staff College on September 14, 2007, seven weeks after the course had commenced. But the authorities of the institution rejected him for late-coming vide a letter to the Army Headquarters dated September 20, 2007, with ref: AFCSC/75/G, signed by GO Akpolo, a Rear Admiral, for the Commandant.
Part of the letter reads: “Further to Reference A, I am directed to inform you that the above-named officer reported to the College for the Senior Course 30 on 14 Sep 07. The officer however reported 7 weeks behind the assembly date of the course. He cited the need for him to properly handover the affairs of his former office in the United Kingdom to his successor as the reason for his lateness. In line with the College Standing Operating Procedure, the officer cannot be admitted to join the course due to his prolonged absence, which made him to miss several lectures and assessed exercises. Consequently, I am directed to return the officer to unit. AHQ may wish to nominate the officer for the next Senior Course”.
Curiously, the Army Headquarters discarded the Commandant’s advice. Rather than allowing him to continue with his diplomatic assignment in the UK and perhaps, nominate him for the next Senior Course as suggested by the authorities at the AFCSC, the Chief of Army Staff, late Lt. General Yusuf, insisted that Awusa be allowed to continue with the course.
“While the NA appreciates the reasons adduced by AFCSC for returning the officer, especially as it relates to the rules and regulations of the College, the NA however made adequate provisions to cushion the officer’s late attendance for the course. More so, the officer cannot be accommodated on the list of Senior Course 31, as suggested, in view of the large number of NA officers envisaged for the course in 2008. Consequently, it is please requested that the officer be allowed to continue the course and subsequently be assessed on the packages he would be involved”, General Yusuf stated in the letter signed on his behalf by SN Chikwe, a Major General.
With Yusuf’s insistence on Awusa’s participation, the AFCSC succumbed to his request via a letter dated October 18, 2007, ref: AFCSC/75/G. Part of the letter signed by OE Uwadiae, a Navy Captain, for the Commandant, reads: “Reference NA/230/102/TRG dated 28 Sep 07. I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of Reference A regarding the above named officer and to convey the reinstatement of the officer to continue the course. AHQ is therefore kindly requested to direct the officer to rejoin the course without further delay”.
Expectedly, the Headquarters, Nigeria Army Finance Corps promptly complied with the directive in a memo dated November 8, 2007, ref: NA/FIN/37/G/VOL.8/32, releasing Awusa for the course. By this time, he had returned to his duty post in London, but returned to Nigeria and reported at the AFCSC the second time on January 7, 2008, during which he officially appealed for a deferment of his nomination for the course till the end of his diplomatic assignment. In a letter to the Commandant, AFCSC, through the Director, Department of Land Warfare dated January 9, 2008, Awusa made a passionate appeal for deferment of his nomination for the course, citing several reasons.
Part of it reads: “I was delighted at my nomination for Senior Course 30 of AFCSC because it will make me a better career officer. However, I wish to appeal for deferment of the course nomination until the end of my foreign diplomatic assignment in London. I took over as the DDA Fin on 9 January 2007 and my family joined me on 2 February, 2007. The nature of the office work coupled with the cost of labour in London does not allow me to leave my family members stranded at any point of my stay there.
When I returned from Nigeria on 10 August, 2007, the DA wrote several memos informing me that I should handover my office to Lt. Col RN Ochei with a visiting visa on or before 17 August, 2007, but I replied by saying he should appeal to ASA for the deferment of the course. However, he replied by saying it is beyond him and that I should meet the DAFA and the College if I want any other thing.
My six children were already schooling in London; two of them in secondary school while the remaining four are in primary school. Now, even if I encourage myself to come back to Nigeria as a soldier, how about the emotional effects on my family who had made up their minds to stay in the UK for the next three years for their studies… Already, each of these children had lost at least one year due to change from the Nigerian school system to the UK. Now, they have to lose another one year to come back because of this issue. What reason will I give for making them to lose two or more years? The moral burden is unquantifiable and this means disaster for me and my family”.
After expressing his dilemma, Awusa had expected a favourable response, more so, with the prompt referral of his appeal for deferment by AFCSC via a letter dated January 21, 2008, to the Army headquarters for consideration. His hope dimmed shortly thereafter. The army authorities were adamant, and directed that he should be deployed within the Finance Corps when he had not completed his tour of duty in London.
Saturday Sun findings indicated that he was eventually deployed to the Nigerian Army School of Finance and Administration (NASFA), a move that was closely followed with several other disciplinary measures which saw him being declared Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL), and eventually a deserter, in line with the recommendations of a Board of Inquiry set up to investigate him in absentia even though the authorities were aware he was in London.
The Army Headquarters claimed Awusa had been repatriated. In a letter to the Defence Intelligence Agency dated December 29, 2008, ref: AHQ/GI/300/201. It reads: “The above named officer Lt Col PY Awusa served as DDA Finance in the UK. He was repatriated following his indictment by the British Police for offences in relation to drunk driving. On return, the officer was nominated to attend Senior Course 30 at the AFCSC Jaji, while on course, he could not cope with the pace of work and was eventually withdrawn and RTU. The officer was thereafter posted and deployed to NASFA but failed to report. He was declared AWOL and subsequently a deserter in line with the recommendations of a BOI that investigated the case. Consequently, the COAS vide reference A approved the declaration of the officer as a deserter. In view of the above, the DIA is requested to liaise with the DA London to retrieve all military accoutrement and government property in the possession of the officer. This is in addition to ejecting him from any official quarters he is currently occupying”. The letter was signed by AS Mustapha, a Colonel, for the Chief of Army Staff.
A few weeks before the directive, the Nigerian High Commission, UK, had contracted a law firm, Sharpfields and Co Solicitors to issue Awusa and members of his family a notice to quit his official residence on 30 Hendon Avenue, Finchley, London, N3 IEU. In a letter dated November 19, 2008, the law firm claimed Awusa’s tour of duty ended August 1, 2007, and that the diplomatic status granted him and that of his family had been terminated with effect from September 6, 2007.
In the same vein, Brigadier General HG Aminu who took over from General Sa’id as Defence Adviser in London had, prior to the quit notice, discreetly seized Awusa’s diplomatic passport. The distraught officer had applied for a UK Driver’s License at the DVLA, London. Following claims by the agency that his diplomatic passport had been procedurally returned to the Nigerian High Commission via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Awusa requested for release of the passport to him, but the authorities told him it was not in their possession. They also refused issuing him a Standard Nigerian Passport to enable him travel home, despite a directive by the Nigerian Government dated October 13, 2009, to all Nigeria missions to give requisite consular assistance to any Nigerian in need.
Thrown on the street
On January 26, 2010, General Aminu invited Awusa for a meeting at the Nigeria High Commission, London. At the meeting, which preceded a series of others, Awusa was persuaded to visit the DIA headquarters in Nigeria for payment of arrears of allowances owed him. He was told there was lack of funds in London to offset his dues, which included FSA allowances for his period of stay; FSA arrears paid in 2007, outstanding balance for repair of his official residence in 2007, benefits for account holding, among others.
Unknown to Awusa, it was a ploy to lure him to Nigeria and get him arrested. While the meeting was still on, operatives of a private security firm allegedly contracted by the Defence Adviser invaded his official residence in London to seal it up. The operatives, who thought nobody was at the residence when they visited, were shocked to meet his wife, Debora, at home. In order not to create a scene, they told her, her daughter had a problem at school and her attention was needed. As soon as she hurried out of the residence, they sealed it up after throwing the family’s property on the streets. By the time he returned home after the meeting, Awusa met his wife and seven children standing helplessly with arms akimbo, weeping profusely.
Shocked and confused, Awusa tried to put himself together, picked up the littered items and headed to the home of a man he simply identified as Mr. Ben, a Ghanaian forest officer in London. He went along with his wife and children. They needed a temporary roof over their heads, which Ben, whose wife attended same church with Debora, offered them for some time.
After evicting him from his official residence, Awusa said the Defence Adviser played the Good Samaritan by offering his wife 200 Pounds Sterling for their upkeep with a promise of one week hotel accommodation for his family while he rushed down to Nigeria to receive payment of arrears of the allowances owed him at the DIA. With that, he was told he could return to London and secure another home for his family. He was advised to apply for an Emergency Travel Certificate, ETC, which was speedily granted to enable him embark on the trip.
Another tortuous journey
One week after, precisely on February 2, 2010, Awusa arrived at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, aboard a British Airways aircraft in company with an army officer simply identified as Major Magaji, who at that time, was Deputy Defence Adviser, Library, at the Nigeria High Commission in UK. The duo were handed a consignment of medical items for treatment of the then ailing President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and Awusa was expecting to be received at the arrival lounge by officials of the DIA and State House Clinic for delivery of the medical items.
But as soon as he alighted from the aircraft, he was jolted to a realization that he had unwittingly walked into a trap when AHB Jibril, then a Major and Officer-in-Charge Provost of the Guards Brigade accosted him at about 5.30 am and declared that he was under arrest. Jibril had led 10 military police officers to the airport in wait for Awusa on the orders on the army provost marshal.
After some other officers took away the medical items in his custody, the military policemen whisked him away to the officers’ mess at the Lungi Barracks in Asokoro, Abuja, where he commenced a journey in detention for over six months. A General Court Marshal convened by Lt. General Abdulrahaman Dambazau, then the Chief of Army Staff to try him on a one count charge of desertion, found him guilty and dismissed him from the Nigerian Army on August 9, 2010, after a trial that lasted over three months.
Evidently, Awusa had resigned himself to fate and wasn’t hopeful of a favourable response from the authorities. But he agonizes over the plight of his family in the UK, where they battle to survive and have no place they could call a home. For eight years, his 44-year-old wife, Debora, has engaged in casual jobs to put food on the table for her six children, all cramped in a room. The children, three male and three female, aged between 21 and 13 years, are yet to come to terms with why they were forcibly evicted from their home and abandoned on the streets of a foreign land by the Nigerian Army, an organization their father, aged 54, had served meritoriously for 32 years. They have been separated from their father, and left stranded in London.
Military reacts
Is the DIA a centre of sleaze where defence funds for mission are laundered back to the country as alleged by Awusa? Saturday Sun asked John Agim, a Brigadier General and Director, Defence Information (DDI), on telephone. His response: “I am not conversant with that case; you will just give me an opportunity to find out from Finance Corps headquarters about him and if I am not satisfied with what I get there, then I can go to DIA, before I can be able to speak with you based on what they say. But based on what you’ve said, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Azazi, was a man in charge of defence at the time he (Awusa) was in London, and General Toun was in charge of finance. So, he had two powerful people that would have protected him. If they allowed him to be tried, then it means that he actually committed an offence”. Agim, however, promised to get back to our reporter after consultations with the DIA and Nigerian Army Finance Corps. He had yet to send any official response at the time of filing this report.
source :Sun
Chairman of Innoson Group, Chief Dr innocent Chukwuma OFR popularly known as Innoson has stated that as a law abiding citizen, he is not afraid of arraignment in the court but he must be arraigned through the due process of law. Innoson stated this today why receiving the news of issuance of bench warrant against him today by State High Court Ikeja.
In a ruling by Justice Mojisola Dada, the court ordered that Innoson should be arrested and kept in custody a day before the next adjournment and be produced on the adjourned date, March 14, 2018 for probable arraignment over alleged forgery.
In a related development, the spokesperson of Innoson Group, Cornel Osigwe reacting to the issuance of bench warrant against Innoson stated that the decision of Justice Mojisola Dada was done in bad faith because the judge did not grant the counsel to Innoson, Prof J.N Mbadugha Esg a fair hearing.
During the court proceedings of today Prof Mbadugha invited the attention of the court to the motions pending in the matter, viz:
• that the charge is an abuse of process because a similar charge on the same subject matter is pending at the federal high court Lagos division between the same parties in charge no FHC/l/565c/2015;
• a motion pending at the court of appeal to stay commencement of proceedings and execution of the court’s order of 17th January 2018;
• a motion that the court recuse or disqualify itself from further conduct of the proceedings; and a motion that EFCC cannot be heard in any application until it withdraws the charge given a pending motion against it praying that it be restrained from filing any charge in respect of the same subject matter of the charge that was struck out until the determination of the appeal against the court’s order striking out the previous charge- Charge No. ID/197c/2013.
Prof Mbadugha also informed the court that the 3rd defendant has not been served and as such the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
All the submissions of Prof Mbadugha to the judge were not granted, however the judge granted the plea of the counsel to EFCC who prayed the court to issue a bench warrant against Innoson. The issuance of bench warrant led to a wild jubilation by some staff of GTB and their lawyers who were fully seated in the court.
It must be stated that based on the submission of Prof Mbadugha, counsel to Innoson, the judge erred in law by making an order to issue a bench warrant against Innoson.
The court is bound by law to listen and decide the applications submitted rather than making an order to arraign Innoson in a charge that is an abuse of process.
Osigwe have previously maintained that the EFCC charge which is being instigated by GTB is a gross abuse of process. First, an earlier charge which GTB induced the EFCC to file against Innoson was struck out. Innoson appealed against the order striking the charge out on the ground that it ought to be a dismissal and not striking out. The appeal, with Appeal No: CA/L/1328CM/2017 is, till date, still pending when EFCC filed or re-filed, in December 2017, the same charge that was struck out. Secondly, the charge is on the same subject matter and the same party as Charge No: FHC/L/565C/2015 that is pending at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in Appeal No: CA/E/249C/2016.
Both charges are smear campaign by GTB and EFCC to destroy Innoson.
Biafran suit in America: US rejects Nigeria’s defence of immunity
– From Duncan Odey –
In a counter Motion filed on February 6, 2018, the US-based lawyers for the Biafran plaintiffs who brought suit against some Nigerian officials have strongly urged a United States federal court to proceed to trial on the merits, stressing the damning fact the the US State Department has rejected a request from the Buhari-led Nigerian government for the State Department to intervene and stop the suit based on the sovereign immunity defense.
At Page 4 of the 35-page Motion obtained by this reporter, Plaintiffs lawyers stated that “Despite an overture by the Government of Nigeria, the United States Department of State has refrained from suggesting any Defendant is immune from Plaintiffs’ TVPA claims under federal common law or otherwise. Neither has the State Department suggested that any Defendant is a head of state in Nigeria”.
The counter Motion was necessitated by a motion filed by defence lawyers to dismiss the suit based on grounds that included the act of state doctrine, lack of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. Dr Bruce Fein and associates, lawyers to the Biafran Plaintiffs argued in-opposite that such defenses are not allowed under the Statutes upon which the suit was brought.
Plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that defence Motions are questionable because the defense lawyers are, before the court, fighting amongst themselves as to who should be recognized to represent the defendants.
The case is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against sixteen Nigerian officials for their direct or indirect complicity in the extrajudicial killings of IPOB members/Biafrans who had launched peaceful protests in the wake of arrest and detention of their leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
The officials are: Tukur Yusuf Buratai; Lawal Musa Daura; Ibrahim Attahiru; M.I. Ibrahim; Kasim Umar Sidi; Issah Maigari Abdullahi; Solomon Arase; Ibrahim Kpotun Idris; Okezie Ikpeazu; Willie Obiano; Habila Hosea; Peter Nwagbara; James Oshim Nwafor; Hosea Karma; Bassey Abang; and Johnson Babatunde Kokomo.
In the counter motion, counsel to Plaintiffs argued, amongst others, that jurisdiction has vested through service of the summons and complaint by certified international courier on all defendants.
The Suit is grounded on two muscular United States’ statutes – the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA or ATS – the Alien Tort Statute); and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Both laws have extraterritorial reach, meaning that they allow US federal courts to assert long-arm jurisdiction that extends beyond the borders of United States.
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) provides that ‘the district courts shall have original jurisdiction on any civil action by an alien (foreigner) for a civil wrong committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States’. Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in US courts for human rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.
Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 is a statute that permits civil suits in the United States against foreign individuals who – acting in an official capacity for any foreign nation – committed torture and/or extrajudicial killings.
In the suit, Plaintiffs lawyers argued that ‘The factual case against the Defendants is convincing. The world already knows of the widespread beatings and slaughter of protesting Igbos/IPOB by elements of Nigerian security forces at various locations after Nnamdi Kanu was arrested.
Amnesty International and other credible foreign sources have confirmed those killings and torture’. Those reports were filed in Court. Beyond the latest processes, and at the ensuing trial, Defendants will be required to personally appear before the US court to testify under oath and probing cross-examination that will dwell on the details of the IPOB killings and the complicity of other unnamed Nigerian officials.
