I have followed with keen attention the various happenings of the past few weeks in the Nigerian Nation,first the secession agitation, the recent deployment of the Military to the South-East by the Federal Government and the subsequent ban by the Military on the IPOB group and of course i would want to in my usual fashion put certain things in proper perspective. This work' main focus is the the recent ban of the 'Independent People of Biafra' .
First,the TERRORISM (PREVENTION)ACT 2013, defines a terrorist as " a person who knowingly does ,attempts or threatens to do an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism........"(see Section 1)
It buttresses the "act of terrorism" , as an act which is deliberately done in malice ,afterthought and which may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organisation.
However, if we are to focus on the reasons given by the Defence Headquarters ,the most relevant subsection that justifies the Declaration of the Independence of the People of Biafra (IPOB) as a "terrorist organisation" are under Part 1, which defines acts of terrorism to include that which "(I) duly compel a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act(II) Seriously intimidating a population (III) Seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental ,political ,constitutional ,economic or social structure of a country or an international organisation;or (IV)Otherwise influence such government or International organisation by intimidation or coercion ."
Subsection(c) includes an act "that involves or causes ,as the case may be ,an attack upon a person's life which may cause serious bodily harm or death"
Such acts include (ii) kidnapping of a person; (iii)destruction of government or public facility... "
Under Subsection (3) ,they also include "An act which disrupts a service but is committed in pursuance of a protest..."
Now,having stated the law as it is ,I am well amused as to the various opinions in support of the ban on the Independent People of Biafra ,and i aver with utmost respect that under the anti -terrorism law ,the Military is not the appropriate body to declare the Independent People Of Biafra ,a "terrorist organisation"! The Law in Section 2 of the Terrorism Act provides thus;
"(1). Where two or more persons associate for the purpose of or where an organization engages
in—
(a) Participating or collaborating in an act of terrorism;
(b) promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism; or
(c) setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism, the judge in Chambers may on an application made by the Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police on the approval
of the President; declare any entity to be a proscribed organization and the notice should be published in official gazette.
(2). An order made under sub-section (1) of this section shall be published in the official gazette, in two National newspapers and at such other places as the judge in Chambers may determine.
(3). A publication made under sub-section (2) of this section shall contain such relevant particulars as the judge in Chambers may specify:
(i)a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organization commits an offence under this Act and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of 20 years;........."
The above section nullifies what ever "ban" was placed on the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) ,and the insistence by the federal government or South- Eastern Governors to further proscribe the IPOB is a desperate attempt to "demonize" the people of Biafra , as even the Federal Government can not on its own strength proscribe the IPOB!
Secondly the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) can not fall under the classification/definition in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act ,as they have over the past few years of agitation engaged in peaceful protest for secession. They have not acted in any manner or form as to constitute "act of terrorism."
The Role of the Courts.
- Lets me state very particularly that a Court Order declaring a group a terrorist organisation should be exercised with caution and same should be exercised judicially and judiciously . First,before a court can pronounce a body a "terrorist organisation",such body must have;
(a) Participating or collaborating in an act of terrorism;
(b) promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism; or
(c) setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism......, (see Section 2 of the Terrorism Act) .That body must also fit into the entirety Section 1 of the of the Terrorism Act.
The recent Federal High Court Order declaring the IPOB a terrorist organisation is laughable and smacks of bad faith and same should therefore be discountenanced forthwith! I would kindly advise the people of the IPOB to challenge same within the confines the law.
The Right of Secession of the IPOB.
-Section 2 of the Nigerian Constitution provides thus:
"Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of Federal Republic of Nigeria"
Under our laws the act of secession by a section of the country is not an offence and there are no criminal consequences for same,in fact there is no record of any country in the world were secession is criminalised. Having said that, it is pertinent to note that the recent charge against Mr Nnamdi Kanu is grossly incompetent! It can be rightly recalled that Mr Kanu was charged under Section 41 of the Criminal Code Act,the section when closely read doesn't criminalise secession in any manner or form,it only criminalizes attempts(plan or intention) to overthrow a government. With all due respect,the agitation of the IPOB leader is majorly centered on a particular section of Nigeria breaking away from the nation and its no way an attempt to overthrow a government!
Under International law,the right to self determination is recognised.
- Article 20 of the African Charter (The African Charter like other international instruments have been domesticated into our laws by virtue of Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution) ,provides more particularly for the secession of a marginalized and victimized ethnic group within a country to exist on its own and form its own government. This is called the right to remedial secession under the International law ,this played out in Eritrea which seceded Ethiopia, Kosovo from Serbia, South Sudan from Sudan and the list could go on. These countries however only seceded after many years of victimization and war from their parent countries .
The Failure of the Nigerian Leadership.
- The fact that we have a failed leadership in the Nigerian Nation is no more news , while the Igbos can not be singled out for persecution and human right abuses as this is also prevalent in other ethnic groups,however though,the constant years of leadership failure in Nigeria as led to the existence of many agitating groups like the bokoharam, Niger militants,Massob among others.
It is my candid view that the unity and co-existence of the Nigerian Nation should be brought to the front-burner and the Government should do more than just fight the "Biafra" agitators when they have continually failed woefully in governance. Failure in governance breeds discontent among its people and that is what a responsible government should focus on - good governance.
It could be rightly recalled that former NBA President ,Mr Olisa Agbakoba , a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and an Igbo filed a fundamental right class action against the federal government for himself and behalf of the people of Eastern Nigeria ,the basis of the said suit is majorly the reason the IPOB is agitating for secession .
RE : Deployment of Troops to Eastern Nigeria.
- The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by virtue of Section 215(3) vest exclusively in the police the powers to maintain and secure public safety and public order in the country. The deployment of troops to any region of the Nation are only on such grounds as provided in Section 217(2) of the1999 Constitution provides thus;
"The Federation shall,subject to an Act of the National
Assembly made in that behalf,equip and maintain the
armed forces as may be considered adequate and effe-
ctive for the purposes of,
(a) defending Nigeria from external aggression,
(b) maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its borders from violation on land,sea or air,
(c)suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when called upon to do so by the President,but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Act of the National Assembly."
In other words ,the deployment of troops to the eastern part of the nation was done without proper consultation with the National Assembly. Such powers CANNOT be exercised whimsically or "headlong" by Mr President ! The onslaught against the Igbo people is rather crude and Mr President's action is impeachable to say the least.
I advise the Federal Government to therefore take a civil approach to the IPOB agitation with the reasonable compassion to all concerned. The efforts of the Federal Government should be centered on providing satisfaction to the citizenry through good governance , justice and equal redistribution of the collective wealth of the nation.
*******to be continued.
Umoru Theophilus Iko-Ojo is a Lagos based Legal Practitioner .
No comments:
Post a Comment