Public Enlightenment Series - #4
QUESTIONS JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO AND THE CIVILIZED WORLD MUST
ASK REGARDING THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST MAZI NNAMDI KANU BY MUHAMMADU BUHARI
A: Questions related to the Plaintiff, who in this instance
is the regime of Major-General Muhammadu Buhari’s DSS
Q1) Is it legally permissible for the Plaintiff (Buhari’s
DSS) to use a name outside that prescribed by law setting it up?
Section-1 of CAP N74 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
1. Establishment
of National Security Agencies
There shall, for the effective conduct of national security,
be established the following National Security Agencies, that is to say-
(a) the
Defence Intelligence Agency;
(b) the
National Intelligence Agency; and
(c) The State Security Service.
It is obvious, going by the above provisions, that there is
no law setting up Department of State Security (DSS), which renders illegal
every document containing the name. To this effect, all processes filed before
Justice Binta Nyako by the said DSS is by statute null and void because the
name does not exist in law.
Q2) By the law setting up the Plaintiff, does it have the
power of prosecution?
Section-2(3) of CAP N74 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
(3) The State
Security Service shall be charged with responsibility for-
(a) The prevention and detection within
Nigeria of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria;
(b) The protection and preservation of all
non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria;
and
(c) Such
other responsibilities affecting internal security within Nigeria as the
National Assembly or the President, as the case may be, may deem necessary.
There is nothing in the law setting-up the State Security
Services (SSS) that gave it the power of prosecution. By protocol, the SSS is
supposed to hand all suspects over to the police for prosecution because the
police have the constitutional mandate for the prosecution of civilians.
Q3) Is the Plaintiff not usurping the duties of the Police?
Section-4 of CAP P19 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
4. General
duties of the police
The police shall be employed for the prevention and
detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and
order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws
and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such
military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or
under the authority of this or any other Act.
Section-23 of CAP P19 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
23. Conduct of
prosecutions
Subject to the provisions of sections 174 and 211 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (which relate to the power
of the Attorney-General of the Federation and of a State to institute and
undertake, take over and continue or discontinue criminal proceedings against
any person before any court of law in Nigeria), any police officer may conduct
in person all prosecutions before any court, whether or not the in- formation
or complaint is laid in his name.
Again, it is evident from available court records that
Buhari's DSS has been conducting the prosecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu instead of
the office of the Attorney General contrary to all known laws of Nigeria and
common sense. At the initial stages of the trial, from the Magistrate's Court
to the High Court, it was a certain Mr. Idakwo, a paid employee of DSS, that
appeared in court on behalf of the prosecution. The very corrupt Justice John
Tsoho allowed this travesty of justice to be recorded in his court. It wasn't
until Nnamdi Kanu's defence lawyers raised an objection in an open court did
this Mr. Idakwo stop sitting as a prosecutor.
B: Questions related to Charge #1
The charge reads as follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu and other unknown persons, now at
large, at London, United Kingdom, between 2014 and September, 2015 with
intention to levy war against Nigeria in order to force the President to change
his measures of being the President of the Federation, Head of State and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation as defined in Section
3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by
doing an act to wit: Broadcast on Radio Biafra your preparations for the states
in the South- East geo-political zone, South-South geo-political zone, the
Igala Community of Kogi State and the Idoma/Igede Community of Benue State to
secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria and form themselves into a Republic
of Biafra, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 41(C) of
the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.“
Q1) How can the Plaintiff be charging Nnamdi Kanu along with
“unknown persons“?
Q2) By using the term “unknown persons now at large“, is it
possible that these “unknown persons“ may include David Cameron, Muhammadu
Buhari, Justice Binta Nyako, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Rotimi Amaechi, Rochas
Okorocha, and even Mamman Daura?
Q3) By what means is Nnamdi Kanu with these “unknown
persons“ levying war against Nigeria as stated in Section-41(c) of CAP C38
L.F.N. 2004?
Q4) How reliable is this charge when there was no specific
day and month in 2014 when the commission of this act commenced and when
exactly in September of 2015 did it end?
Q5) Is the Plaintiff confirming that by broadcasting through
Radio Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu and these “unknown persons“ have levied war against
Nigeria?
Q6) How many people are among these “unknown persons“?
Q7) Is the referenced South-East and South-South
geo-political zones part of the Nigerian Constitution or recognized in any of
the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?
Q8) If the referenced geo-political zones are not legal and
if they are unconstitutional, should the charge still be valid or thrown out
because of lack of validity?
It is laughable that a so-called intelligence agency will
charge “unknown persons“ in a case as serious as a treasonable felony. By using
the term “unknown persons,“ the DSS is providing itself with an open cheque to
arrest, detain, and intimidate anybody because such a person cannot exclude
himself or herself from the group of “unknown persons.“ Secondly, the
accusation of the commission of a crime must have exactness in all the elements
including dates of the commission of the crime. Without this exactness, the
accusation is all mere propaganda and should be summarily dismissed to avoid
wasting the time of the court as well as tax-payers‘ money in funding the court
case. It is also important that the intelligence agency does not go outside the
law by using terminology such as “South-East geo-political zone“ and
“South-South geo-political zone“ which are not contained in the Constitution or
any extant law of Nigeria.
C: Questions related to Charge #2
The charge reads as follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu and others, now at large, between
2012 and September, 2015 at South-East geo-political zone and the South-South
geo-political zone of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this honourable court
manage an unlawful society with more than 10 members to wit: unregistered with
the Corporate Affairs Commission or any other registration authority to wit.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) thereby committed an offence which is
punishable under Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38, Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
Q1) Is the Plaintiff insinuating that by not registering
with the CAC or any other registration authority, IPOB is now an unlawful
society?
Q2) Is being unregistered part of the qualifying conditions
for an organization to be deemed unlawful society?
Q3) Is there anywhere in Section-62(2) of CAP C38 L.F.N.
2004 which states that not being registered with CAC or other registration
authority is a condition for an organization to be deemed unlawful society?
Q4) How did the Plaintiff know that IPOB has more than ten
members?
Q5) How did Nnamdi Kanu manage IPOB?
Q6) Which specific condition under Section-62(2) that makes
IPOB an unlawful society?
Q7) Who are these “others“ that are charged along with
Nnamdi Kanu?
Q8) By using the term “others now at large“ and from
“Southeast and South-South geo-political zone,“ is it possible that these
“others“ may include Willie Obiano, Rotimi Amaechi, Rochas Okorocha, Dr.
Ifeanyi Okowa, Nyesom Wike, Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, Joe Igbokwe, Orji Uzor Kalu, etc,
etc?
Q9) Is the referenced South-East and South-South
geo-political zones part of the Nigerian Constitution or recognized in any of
the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?
Q10) If the referenced geo-political zones are not legal and
if they are unconstitutional, should the charge still be valid or thrown out
because of lack of validity?
Q11) Is the Plaintiff stating that Nnamdi Kanu and these
“others“ are managing the unlawful society (IPOB) within the South-East and
South-South regions of Nigeria only (no other region was mentioned in the
charge sheet)?
Q12) How reliable is this charge when there is no specific
day and month in 2012 when the management of the unlawful society started and
when exactly in September of 2015 is the Plaintiff referring to?
A thorough review of Section-62(2) of CAP C38 which defines
an unlawful society did not show that being unregistered with the CAC or any
registration body is a condition for an organization to be regarded as
unlawful. But this charge stated clearly that because IPOB is unregistered with
the CAC or any other registration boy, it is, therefore, an unlawful society.
Therefore the premise upon which this charge is framed is unarguably false, and
the charge should be thrown out without further debate.
D: Questions related to Charge #3
The charge reads as follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu between the months of March and
April, 2015 imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulusiuzor town in Ihiala local
Government Area of Anambra State within the jurisdiction of this honourable
court, a radio transmitter known as TRAM 5OL concealed in a container which you
described as containing household items, which you so declared and that, you
thereby committed an offence punishable under section 47(2) (a) of the Customs
and Excise Management Act.”
Q1) What is the proof that the imported item was imported by
Nnamdi Kanu?
Q2) Is the Plaintiff providing any evidence that the item
was concealed in a container and that all documents related to this container
belong to Nnamdi Kanu?
Q3) Is the Plaintiff providing evidence that the said item
was imported within the time specified on the charge sheet?
Q4) And if this is not the case, should the charge be thrown
out for lacking validity regarding correctness of dates?
What the discerning public want to know is at what time will
the importer of items be free from the clutches of the corrupt government
officials? How come this charge was brought almost a year after the item was
cleared and approved by the same government officials? Is the referenced law
operated retroactively? If an item is cleared and approved, how then is it
legal for the same government that did the clearing and approval to reverse
itself after almost one year and claim that their clearance and approval
contravenes the law? In this charge, there was no mention of the officials that
cleared and approved the item. It is our understanding that government
officials do inspect items to make sure that they tally with what the documents
state before clearance and approval is given. So what happened in this case?
Analysis by:
Barrister Emma Nmezu
Dr. Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya
Spokespersons for IPOB
0 comments so far,add yours