NNAMDI KANU: FG APPEALS JUDGMENT, SEEKS STAY OF EXECUTION

The Federal Government has appealed the judgment of the Appeal Court freeing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

The government, in a motion for a stay of execution filed on Wednesday at the apex court, is asking the court to stay execution of the Appeal Court judgment of October 13. The Appeal Court had acquitted the IPOB leader and barred any lower court from entertaining further charges against him.

In a seven-ground Notice of Appeal filed by the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Federal Government faulted the lower court’s decision and prayed that it should be set aside.

The Federal Government argued that the Court of Appeal erred when it faulted the manner by which Kanu was brought back to face trial after he allegedly jumped bail and fled the country.

It contended that the Court of Appeal also erred when it struck out the pending charges against Kanu on the ground that the trial court no longer possessed the requisite jurisdiction to continue the trial because of the manner by which Kanu was returned to the country after allegedly jumping bail.

CITY LAWYER recalls that a three-man panel of Appeal Court Justices led by Oludotun Adefope-Okojie had on Thursday, October 13, while delivering judgment in Kanu’s appeal on his extraordinary rendition, declared it as unlawful.

The court also quashed the charges bordering on terrorism and treasonable felony preferred against him by the Federal Government.

The Appeal Court held that the Federal Government breached all known local and international laws in the forceful rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, thereby making the terrorism charge against him incompetent and unlawful.

The judgment was marked CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022 and filed by Kanu’s lawyers against an earlier ruling by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Justice Adefope-Okojie while delivering judgment declared Kanu’s abduction from Kenya and his subsequent return to Nigeria as illegal and unlawful. The court proceeded to quash the seven counts left of the initial 15 counts filed by the Federal Government.

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court had in an earlier ruling quashed eight out of the 15 counts, leaving seven for determination.

But the Appeal Court in its ruling held that the Federal Government violated all laws in the forceful rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, thus invalidating the charges.

“By the illegal abduction and extra-ordinary rendition of the appellant, there was a clear violation, by the respondent (Federal Government) of international treaties, conventions, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights,” the court held.

The court added that having flagrantly breached Kanu’s fundamental rights, the Federal Government lost the legal right to put him on trial, adding the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to try the appellant on the retained counts of the charge. “No court can try him going by the circumstances of the extraordinary rendition,” the court held.

Justice Adefope-Okojie declared that “having resolved issue one in favour of the appellant, which deals with jurisdiction, the appeal succeeds.

“The order of Justice Binta Nyako which ordered the appellant to answer to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 is set aside, terminated and dismissed. Appellant is accordingly discharged.”

The apex court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the motion for stay of execution.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

‘OWO KILLINGS A TERROR ATTACK ON YORUBA,’ SAYS EGBE AMOFIN O’ODUA

OWO KILLINGS : A TERRORIST ATTACK ON YORUBA LAND’- Egbe Amofin Oodua (The Yoruba Lawyers Forum)

Egbe Amofin Ooodua ( The Yoruba Lawyers Forum) condemns in strong terms the gruesome attack and murder of worshippers at St. Francis Catholic Church, Owa-luwa Street, Owo, Ondo State of Nigeria which occurred today the 5th day of June 2022 by yet to be identified gun men. This was indeed a terrorist attack on Yoruba land.

We commiserate with the Olowo of Owo, HRH. Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III, the people of Owo Land, families of the victims, the Catholic Church of Nigeria as well as the Governor of Ondo State, Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu SAN for this tragic event.

We urge the Federal Government of Nigeria, government of Ondo State and Security services to ensure that the perpetrators of this dastardly act are urgently apprehended and made to face the wrath of the Law.

We pray that God Almighty shall forgive the shortcomings of the deceased, comfort their families and grant them the fortitude to bear this irreparable loss.

DATED 5th June 2022.

Aare Isiaka Abiola Olagunju SAN
Chairman, Governing Council

Olayinka Sokoya Esq
Publicity Secretary
Egbe Amofin Oodua (The Yoruba Lawyers Forum)

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

‘BRING OWO MASSACRE CULPRITS TO JUSTICE,’ ADESINA ADEGBITE URGES FG

OWO MASSACRE : ADESINA ADEGBITE CONDEMNS KILLINGS, CONDOLES WITH THE VICTIMS AND STATE GOVERNMENT, SAYS IT’S TIME FOR VIGILANCE AND SERIOUS ACTION

It was with extreme shock and disbelief that I read the sad news of the horrific attack and murder of worshippers at St. Francis Catholic Church, Owa-luwa Street, Owo, Ondo State of Nigeria which occurred earlier today Sunday, 5th of June, 2022, by those that have been bandied unknown gunmen.

That such a dastardly act could happen at all is a confirmation that wickedness and barbarism have become the order of day in our country; and that it happened in the ancient and peaceful Owo Town, the hometown of the Governor of Ondo State is indeed a signal that anywhere in the South West is susceptible to being a target of this heinous criminality.

It is with a seriously traumatized heart that I commiserate with the families of the victims, the Catholic Church of Nigeria, the Governor of Ondo State, Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu SAN and the grieving people of Ondo State, the South West and Nigeria in general over this unimaginable tragedy.

I’m in agreement with an earlier statement issued by the leadership of Egbe Amofin Oodua urging the Federal Government of Nigeria, the Government of Ondo State and Security Services to ensure that the perpetrators of the dastardly act are urgently apprehended and made to face the wrath of the Law.

However, the Government at all levels and all security agencies must now be very vigilant more than ever and take the protection of lives and properties of the citizens more seriously.

Enough of this kind of senseless wanton killings.

May the Almighty God bless the souls of the deceased and comfort their families, and bring speedy healings to the surviving victims.

Adesina Adegbite Esq. (AA)

‘WE WANT REPORT ON TORTURE, SARS,’ SAY UN

The United Nations has called on the Federal Government to provide, by 3 December 2022, information on its follow-up to the Committee’s recommendations in its latest report on torture in Nigeria.

According to the global body, the information should dwell on “allegations of torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and excessive use of force, in particular by SARS.”

In its latest report on Torture in Nigeria, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) also sought information on pretrial detention and overcrowding; the national preventive mechanism; and gender-based violence. “In the same context, the State party is invited to inform the Committee about its plans for implementing within the coming reporting period, some or all of the remaining recommendations in the concluding observations,” said the Torture Committee.”

Turning to “Redress, including compensation and rehabilitation,” the UN Committee against Torture welcomed sections 6 and 9 of Nigeria’s Anti-Torture Act that stipulate access to legal assistance and right to claim compensation for torture and ill-treatment, “and the part 32 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 that provides for costs, compensation, damages and restitution for victims of crime.”

It however “regrets the lack of information on the actual application of those provisions, including the data on victims of torture and ill-treatment who have obtained redress thus far. The Committee also regrets the lack of information whether victims of torture had received medical or psychosocial rehabilitation, in addition to compensation, and whether specific rehabilitation programmes have been established for them (arts. 2 and 14).”

The Committee urged the Federal Government to “Ensure that an explicit provision in the Anti-Torture Act allows victims of torture and ill-treatment to obtain redress, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible, as set out in its general comment No. 3 (2012),” and

“Establish rehabilitation programmes for victims of torture and ill-treatment, in cooperation with specialized civil society organizations, for example through mandating judicial panels operating across the country, and allocate resources to implement such programmes.”

Speaking on the follow-up procedure, the Committee “invites the State party to consider making the declarations under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention and to ratify any core United Nations human rights treaties to which it is not yet party.”

It also urged the Federal Government to “disseminate widely the report submitted to the Committee and the present concluding observations, in appropriate languages, through official websites, the media and non-governmental organizations and to inform the Committee about these activities.”

On the continued default by Nigeria on its reporting obligations to the Torture Committee, the CAT urged Nigeria “to comply with its reporting obligations under article 19 of the Convention and to submit its report, which will be considered its second, by 3 December 2025. To that end, the Committee invites the State party to accept, by 3 December 2022, to prepare its report under the simplified reporting procedure, whereby the Committee will transmit to the State party a list of issues prior to reporting. The State party’s response to that list of issues will constitute its second periodic report under article 19 of the Convention.”

The Committee against Torture is a United Nations body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by its State parties. The Committee against Torture is composed of 10 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights. The Committee is currently chaired by Mr. Claude Heller.

CAT_C_NGA

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

TWITTER BAN, CENSORSHIP AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (1)

IGE ASEMUDARA is a rights activist and Notary Public for Nigeria. In this article, the senior lawyer notes that free speech has become a dominant issue due to the suspension of TWITTER operations in Nigeria, adding that while there are permissible online censorships, the law frowns against suppression of public information through censorship

At the moment, free speech and censorship has taken the centre stage of political and legal discussions in Nigeria largely due to the “squabble” between Twitter Incorporated and Nigeria’s President, General Muhammadu Buhari on the question of censorship. In order to put the issues thrown up by their controversy in perspective, this article shall briefly examine the nature and essence of freedom of expression and the implication of online censorship.

Freedom of expression is basically the fundamental right of a person to hold, articulate, share or disseminate his views and opinions or even receive information on an issue in a polity. There are some claims that freedom of expression (also sometimes called freedom of speech) originated from the ancient Greece appearing in Greek literature around 5th Century BC as “parrhesia” meaning “free speech”. It has since undergone several historical metamorphoses including political expansion, legislative recognition, international affirmation and judicial pronouncements. The English Bill of Rights 1689 recognised freedom of speech as essential whilst the French Declaration of the Rights of Man 1789 broadened its scope to cover free communication of ideas and opinions as well as freedom to speak, write and print. On its own part, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America adopted on the 15th of December, 1791 expressly forbade congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Thus, the right to freedom of expression continued to gain prominence to the extent that in the early years of the 2nd World War, American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered an address in January, 1941 where he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people everywhere in the world must enjoy namely; freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Incidentally, freedom of speech topped the list of the four fundamental freedoms. So, it was not an accident that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which convincingly shut the barrels of gun used at the 2nd World War contains in its Article 19 the following provisions “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966 also provide for free speech in Article 19 of the treaty that came into force in March, 1976. In the same vein, our regional human rights instrument, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights in its Article 9 specifically provide for the right to receive and disseminate information, and to express opinions within the law.

In Nigeria, the much vilified 1999 Constitution provides for freedom of expression and the press in Section 39 as follows: “(1) every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”. “(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions: Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person ort body authorized by the president on the fulfillment of the conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for any purpose or whatsoever”. “(3) Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society; (a) For the purpose of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephone, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or (b) imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or member of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law”.

With the emergence of the wonders of the internet, this fundamental freedom has expanded to cover the right to receive, store, share or disseminate information, views, opinions and ideas on the internet just as freedom of the press now covers online media including the social media. Today, social media online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram etc have taken a huge space in information gathering and dissemination including airing political views and opinions and thus, sensitive information can be disseminated across the globe at a pace faster than the speed of light. So, governments and private authorities also put measures in place to control the dissemination of information or the spreading of views and ideas that may impact on them. This is called censorship.

Censorship is a restriction that has travelled with the freedom of expression through the ages. It is a deliberate suppression of free speech, opinions, public communication and a restriction on information dissemination by public or private body usually on the ground of it being harmful, offensive, objectionable, not convenient or just unacceptable. Censorship may come in different forms. It may be by legislation and this accounts for the qualification in most legislative provisions on freedom of speech. It may also be by rules set up by organizations or private individuals. For instance, all the social media operators have their rules of engagement governing the kind of information or images to be shared through them. For example, Twitter recently pulled down a particular statement tweeted by Nigeria’s President, General Muhammadu Buhari on the basis of its offending Twitter rules on permissible posts. In response, the General banned the use of Twitter in Nigeria virtual space by blocking the social media company. He went on to ban Nigerians from using Twitter handles as the company’s mission in Nigeria is said to be suspect. Now, both of them are involved in censorship of some sorts. While Twitter’s censorship is directed at a particular tweet, General Buhari’s censorship is quite sweeping as same is directed on all posts and activities undertaken by Nigerians on Twitter or by Twitter in Nigeria. This is nothing but an annihilation of free speech.

One terrible implication of such attempt at online censorship of freedom of expression is that same portends evil for other freedoms. For example, the freedom to propagate your religion, to disseminate religious information and to practice one’s faith is intricately connected to the freedom of expression as it had become clear since the days of R. v. Penn and Mead (1670) 6 St Tr 951 when William Penn was obviously persecuted (not prosecuted) for preaching in Gracechurch street, London to a gathering of more than five persons contrary to the Conventicle Act. In the same vein, it is a total violation of the right to religion guaranteed by Section 38 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and other human rights instruments to merely conceive the idea, air it or even take any step to bully the General Overseers of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, the Deeper Life Bible Church or any religious body at all with threat of prosecution because they insist on continuing to use their Twitter handles to continue to propagate their faith and religious beliefs.

As already mentioned, freedom of speech has grown through the ages. Today, we now have what is termed commercial freedom of expression. This includes the rights to advertise your products etc and this also extends online. For example, virtually all the news media in Nigeria have Twitter handles with which they advance press freedoms and enhance their commercial viability. In the same vein, individual businesses do advertise their enterprise online including on Twitter, Facebook, Insagram, Linkedn. In fact, market has moved to the virtual space. So, when a President bans the entirety of his citizens both corporate and natural from the social media space or an online platform that has up to 40 million of its population, he has not just denied them their commercial freedom of expression, he has killed their rights to earn a living!

Yes, the law allows for moderate and legitimate censorship of free speech following the philosophical foundation laid by John Stuart Mills, in his On Liberty, where he propounded the harm to others test. Joel Feinberg also recently introduced the “offensive principle” as the harm to others test is generally seen as too tall a measure. The reasonable parameter of measuring the essence of censorship is to see whether the expression sought to be censored causes harm to others or is offensive to others. Thus, the law now intervenes in online expressions through legislations. The United States was the first to intervene with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). Since that time, several legislations have been passed in order to ensure that sanity reigns in online expressions and dissemination of information. In Nigeria, Cyber Crime (Prohibition, Prevention Etc) Act 2015 is a reaction to unbridled liberty on the net which caused harm to others or became offensive to members of the public.

Whilst there are permissible online censorships, it is also the policy of the law that public information is not unduly suppressed through censorship. Thus, the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 was passed to give the public some level of access to public information in order to enhance the quality of citizens’ opinion on the policies and programmes of government. By and large, censorship either in suppressing free speech or withholding needed information from the public must not cross the clear lines drawn by the Constitution and other human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory as that is the way to be right with this right!

Ige Asemudara is the convener of the Mission Against Injustice in Nigeria (MAIN).

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.