Tag: Trial

  • Ryan Giggs to stand trial in January

    Ryan Giggs to stand trial in January

    Wales boss and ex-Manchester United player Ryan Giggs will go on trial in January accused of headbutting his ex-girlfriend and controlling her.

    Mr Giggs, 47, allegedly assaulted Kate Greville, 36, and caused her actual bodily harm at his home in Greater Manchester on 1 November last year.

    He is also accused of controlling and coercive behaviour between December 2017 and November 2020.

    He will face trial at Manchester Crown Court on 24 January.

    Mr Giggs appeared at the court on Friday during a short hearing where he confirmed his identity and the date was set. He was told the trial could last three weeks.

    He will also attend a plea and trial preparation hearing on 23 July.

    The court was told that the crown was yet to “particularise the indictment” in relation to the accusation of controlling and coercive behaviour.

    Mr Giggs, who is accused of using violence, isolation, belittling, humiliation, harassment, degradation and abuse, previously issued a statement saying he would “look forward to clearing my name”.

    He has also been charged with common assault by beating of Ms Greville’s younger sister, Emma Greville, in the alleged same incident, which he also denies.

    His honour judge Nicholas Dean QC, honorary recorder of Manchester, said there were three weeks available for the trial but added: “I very much hope that this case will not last that amount of time, but that’ll be discussed further on the next occasion this case is listed.”

    Mr Giggs was bailed until his court appearance in July.

    The Football Association of Wales (FAW) announced caretaker boss Robert Page will manage the country at this summer’s European Championship finals.

    BBC

  • Alleged sale of Kwara assets: Saraki kicks as panel recommends trial of ex-govs

    Alleged sale of Kwara assets: Saraki kicks as panel recommends trial of ex-govs

    A former Kwara State governor and immediate past President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki, has dismissed the report of a committee set up by Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq to investigate sales of Kwara State’s assets, which recommended the prosecution of Saraki and former governor Abdulfatah Ahmed, as well as other former government officials.

    The committee’s white paper accused the ex-governors and other government officials of economic sabotage against the state through sales of public assets to cronies at give-away prices.

    But Saraki has dismissed the panel’s recommendations, saying neither him nor his successor was invited by the panel to give evidence.

    Saraki, in a statement from his Media Office, which was signed by Press Officer on Local Matters, Mr. Abdulqadir Abdulganiyu said neither him, who left the office 10 years ago nor Ahmed, the immediate past governor got an invite to appear before any investigative and fact-finding panel set up by the Abdulrazaq’s administration.

    “Thus, it is clear that the so-called investigation being conducted is not about finding facts. It is about throwing mud and staining the predecessor of Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq in office,” he said.

    Saraki insisted that him and Ahmed would never be shy of giving account of how they managed the assets of Kwara State.

    The statement noted that both men took decisions concerning those assets in a manner that would enhance their value and stimulate economic activities in the state, which was hitherto referred to as a civil service state.

    Referring to the issue of Kwara Mall, the statement argued that based on the decision taken by the Saraki administration, the project has become the epicentre of economic activity in Ilorin, the state capital.

    “In fact, it’s importance is further underscored by the decision of the government to give the owners of businesses inside the mall a grant totaling about N1 billion to cushion the harsh effect of the ‘End SARS’ protest on their property. It is obvious that the mall today provides direct and indirect employment to hundreds of Kwarans and Dr. Saraki is proud that his administration initiated the idea where Ilorin became the first town outside Lagos to host a Shoprite in its mall.”

    On the issue of the Shonga Farms, the statement added that the farms demonstrated the cluelessness of the current governor of Kwara State and his advisers.

    “That is why on some occasions, key officials of the administration will hold the Shonga Farms as a glory of Kwara State and on some other occasions, like the case of the press statement under reference, it will seek to paint it in bad light.

    “We are surprised that other companies that this government facilitated their investment into Kwara State like Dangote Flour Mills were not being cited as examples of how the previous administrations ‘misapplied’ the resources of the state.”

    According to the statement, “this same Shonga Farms is not only a model how we need commercial farming to revolutionise agriculture in Nigeria but it is the second commercialism farm in the country. The farm today has an investment worth over $100 million and has in its service over 1, 000 Kwarans in the state. It is a project that went through the scrutiny of President Olusegun Obasanjo and the CBN.”

  • How FG frustrated Ibori’s trial in UK – Falana

    How FG frustrated Ibori’s trial in UK – Falana

    Popular human rights lawyer and activist, Femi Falana (SAN) on Sunday said the Federal Government earlier frustrated the trial of former Governor, James Ibori, in the United Kingdom.

    The rights advocate alleged that the Nigerian Government through its Attorney-General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa, challenged the investigation of Ibori in the United Kingdom in 2009.

    According to Falana’s statement titled ‘How FG Frustrated Ibori’s Trial in the UK’, the senior legal practitioner said a government that challenged the former governor’s investigation should not readily claim ownership of the funds recovered.

    Falana in his communique noted that Aondoakaa had said the UK’s decision to probe Ibori was an insult to Nigeria’s sovereignty.

    The SAN further wondered why President Muhammadu Buhari has continued to use General Sani Abacha’s loot to implement projects even though he (Buhari) has consistently said that the former Head of State never stole from the nation’s coffers.

    The rights advocate went on to argue that the Delta State Government could not be denied the billions recovered from its former Governor, James Ibori, just because the state government once said Ibori never stole.

    Below is the full communique as published by Mr Femi Falana, the Interim Chair, Alliance on Surviving Covid 19 and Beyond (ASCAB).

    In opposing my position on the legitimate right of the people of Delta State to the sun of £4.2 million confiscated and recovered from the Ibori loot some colleagues have argued that the fund should be forfeited to the Federal Government on the ground that the Uduagban regime had said that no money was missing from the coffers of the State Government. No doubt, the former Delta State Government had denied any loss of money during the proceedings of the Federal High Court for the confiscation of the $15 million bribe given to Mr. Nuhu Ribadu by Chief James Ibori. Hence, the presiding judge, Kolawole J. (now JCA) directed that the fund be paid into the Federation Account for distribution in line with the provisions of the Revenue Allocation Act. But the Delta State Government never said that the over £100 million confiscated from Chief Ibori in the London trial did not belong to the people of Delta State.

    However, it is on record that the Federal Government openly opposed the trial of Chief Ibori in the United Kingdom. In fact, in utter breach of the provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between Nigeria and the United Kingdom the then Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Michael Aondoakaa SAN rejected the request to make relevant documents available for the trial in the United Kingdom on the ground of sovereignty. In particular, Chief Aondoakaar refused to entertain the request of the UK Metropolitan Police and made under bilateral mutual assistance to Nigeria on the ground that the request was not made by the Home Office.

    The request was to question Chief Ibori about his involvement in corruption and money laundering that occurred in the United Kingdom. Aondoakaa said: “I think Nigeria, as a sovereign nation, deserves some respect. They [the Metropolitan Police] knew they were wrong, otherwise why did they now write through the Home Office requesting mutual assistance to quiz a prominent Nigerian. … I cannot compromise the sovereignty of this country, if they make incompetent requests I will turn them down 20 times. Any request from Metropolitan Police would be refused by this office, period.” [See Kolawole Olaniyan, Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa, Oxford: Hart, 2014, p 15]. Dr. Olaniyan criticised the use of “Sovereignty, technicalities, and ‘small details’” as justifications for refusing requests for mutual cooperation and assistance in cases of corruption involving high-ranking state officials.

    Similarly, African representatives who participated in the negotiation of the UNCAC insisted that any reference to protection of sovereignty should not be interpreted in a way that would undermine the efforts of countries seeking to recover illicit assets. Article 51 of UNCAC on asset-recovery explicitly states that the return of stolen assets is “a fundamental principle of the Convention.” The effectiveness of the asset recovery provisions of UNCAC depends to a large extent on the measures for mutual legal assistance. Thus, states are required to establish a legal framework to enable them to provide assistance to other states in the recovery of assets acquired through corrupt practices recognised under the convention. To ensure effective international cooperation in the fight against corruption and money laundering, the UNCAC in article 60 requires states “to consider” various potential methods to provide technical assistance to each other in their plans and programs to prevent and combat corruption.

    As far as international law is concerned the recovered fund belongs to the people of Delta State who are the victims of the corrupt practice of Chief Ibori. Having ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) both Nigeria and the United Kingdom are bound by Article 35 thereof which states that:”Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to obtain compensation.”

    The British Government is releasing the stolen money to Nigeria in strict compliance with international law and not out sheer generosity as erroneously argued by some lawyers. According to the travaux préparatoires to the UNCAC, “this article is intended to establish the principle that States Parties should ensure that they have mechanisms permitting persons or entities suffering damage to initiate legal proceedings, in appropriate circumstances, against those who commit acts of corruption.” Notably, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan aptly captured the growing international community’s concern with corruption and its negative impact on human rights during the 2003 adoption by the General Assembly of UNCAC when he said: “Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic services.”

    From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the huge success recorded in the prosecution of the case was anchored on the collaboration between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Metropolitan Police. To that extent, the Federal Government which had set out to frustrate the trial of Chief Ibori cannot turn round to lay claim to the fund confiscated on the orders of the British courts. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case the the Ibori loot belongs to the people of Delta State in toto under domestic and international law. After all, the Federal Government had handed over the fund stolen by two former governors, in similar circumstances, to the people of Bayelsa and Plateau States.

    It is common knowledge that Nigeria through the EFCC has consistently returned huge sums of money recovered from local criminal elements convicted by Nigerian courts for swindling foreigners including European and Americans. Sometime in November 2005, the EFCC returned US $17 million to a Brazilian bank – the first instalment of $242 million siphoned by a group of Nigerian scammers to William Richey, a lawyer representing the defunct Banco Noroeste of Sao Paolo, Brazil. On that occasion, Mr. Nuhu Ribadu said that “By making this restitution to the victim of the scam we also want to send a strong, unequivocal message that we will no longer harbour such fraudulently acquired funds no matter where the victim is.” The return of the huge fund was based on the orders of forfeiture made by Olubunmi Oyewole J. (now JCA). But out of sheer colonial mentality, some lawyers are asking the Nigerian people to clap for the British Government for returning £4.2 million out of Ibori loot of over £100 million warehoused illegally in the United Kingdom in defiance of the money laundering laws of that country. It is interesting to note that many Nigerian lawyers are not aware that banks and other financial institutions in the United Kingdom have recently been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as damages for aiding and abetting corrupt public officials and drug barons who live in foreign countries.

    Finally, no doubt, the former Delta State Government was irresponsible to have denied that Chief Ibori looted the treasury of the State at the material time. But such denial cannot be a justification for the confiscation of the Ibori loot of over £100 million that is expected to be repatriated to Nigeria by the British Government. After all, before his assumption of office as President in May 2015, General Mohammadu Buhari had repeatedly maintained that the late General Sani Abacha did not steal a dime from the account of the Federal Government. But the Federal Government under the President’s watch has continued to recover the remaining Abacha loot and no one has suggested that such recovered loot be paid to the account of the United Nations or African Union on moral grounds.

    Femi Falana SAN,
    Interim Chair,
    Alliance on Surviving Covid 19 and Beyond (ASCAB)

  • BREAKING: FG set to commence trial of 5,000 Boko Haram suspects

    BREAKING: FG set to commence trial of 5,000 Boko Haram suspects

    The Federal Government said it will soon commence the trial of 5,000 suspected Boko Haram members who are in various detention facilities across the country.

    The Director General of Legal Aid Council, Aliyu Abubakar, disclosed this during a courtesy visit to Borno Governor Babagana Zulum at the Government House, Maiduguri.

    Abubakar identified Giwa Barracks, Maiduguri, Kainji Correctional facilities, among the locations were the suspects are being detained over their alleged involvement in the activities of the Boko Haram sect.

    He said the trial would be conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, Office of the National Security Advisers in collaboration with the Theartre Command Operation Lafiya Dole, while the Legal Aid Council has been mandated to provide defence for the inmates.

    He explained that the legal aid team has so far interviewed 283 suspects as part of efforts to establish their involvement in terrorism and as well understand the nature of the crime they committed.

    “As their defence counsel, we have to interview them from time to time to enable us know their own part of the story. It so because regardless of the crimes they committed, it is possible that out of hundreds, you may find out that one or two persons are innocent.

    “It is necessary for them to be represented by this council to make sure that all the requirements of the law are fulfilled. All evidence must be presented against them before the court of the law so that those found guilty would be prosecuted. In as much as every body is aware of the nature of the crime they have committed, under our laws, they are innocent until proven guilty,” he said.

    Abubakar lauded the leadership of Operation Lafiya Dole for providing the legal team with access to its detention facility to meet the inmates and interact with them.

    He said the recent changes made in the military leadership would transform into progress in the quest to bring an end to insurgency and banditry in the country.

    Governor Zulum said the government is ready to partner with the federal government to enable it achieve its mandate.

    Represented by the Deputy Governor, Zulum lauded the council for providing legal support to the people of the state while assuring them of the government’s commitment to support the the council financially.

    He also urged the federal government and other stakeholders to adopt a sustainable plan in the Operation Safe Corridor program geared towards the rehabilitation of former insurgents.

    He said the lack of a proper exit sustainability plan in the program has hampered its success.

  • Court dismisses suit seeking arrest, trial of Ohanaeze Ndigbo leaders

    Court dismisses suit seeking arrest, trial of Ohanaeze Ndigbo leaders

    A Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo has dismissed a suit seeking the arrest, probe and prosecution of the President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Professor George Obiozor and other leaders of the group over alleged contempt.

    The Judge in a ruling held that the applicant -The Registered Trustees of Ohanaeze Ndigbo General Assembly, led by Barrister Onuorah Onyeachonam failed to show that Obiozor and others committed any offence known to law to warrant their arrest, investigation and prosecution.

    Justice Ekwo said, after a thorough evaluation of the processes filed by the applicant, he found that it failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.

    The Onyeachonam-led Ohanaeze Indigbo General Assembly had, in the suit claimed that Obiozor and other leaders of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, who emerged from the recently conducted election, were in contempt by allegedly running an illegal organisation.

    The applicant, in the suit which had the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as respondents, claimed that while it was duly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the group with a similar name, led by Obiozor and others was unregistered.

    It then filed an ex-parte application for leave to apply for the issuance of an order of mandamus, compelling the IGP and the AGF “to arrest, investigate and commence criminal proceedings” against Obiozor and others for allegedly running an illegal and/or unregistered association known as Ohanaeze Ndigbo.

    The applicant said its resort to the court was because of the failure of the respondents to act on its letters to them on January 15, 2021 for the arrest and prosecution of Obiozor and others.

    In the ruling, Justice Ekwo said: “The prayer here is for leave to compel the first and second respondents (IGP and AGF) to arrest, investigate and commence criminal proceedings against Prof. George Obiozor, Obi Nwali, Okey Egbuche, Beatrice Eze, Bartholomew Okeke and Ogbonna for running an illegal and/or unregistered association known as Ohanaeze Ndigbo similar to that of the Applicant which has been registered under Part C of the CAMA by the CAC.

    “In my opinion, where such prayer is sought, it must be demonstrated with concrete evidence that those sought to be arrested, investigated and prosecuted have committed criminal offence(s) known to law.

    “This is the because the power given to the Attorney-General of the Federation in Section 174 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and the power given to the Inspector General of the Police in Section 4 of the Police Act are to not intended to be used in vacuo or without a cause.

    “The onus is on the applicant to show that the statute underlying their allegation creates a criminal offence which the first and second respondents are obligated to enforce by the power of arrest, investigation and prosecution.

    “In the end, I am unable to see any justifiable cause in this application. I think this application, without more, is frivolous and I am unable to lend the judicial powers of this court to encourage such litigations.

    “I make an order dismissing this case for lacking in merit. This is the order of the court.”

  • Paternity Fraud: Justice Okorodas on ‘Trial’, By Michael West

    Paternity Fraud: Justice Okorodas on ‘Trial’, By Michael West

     

     

    By Michael West

     

     

    Rather than receive empathy and consolation for being cheated and betrayed, hard knocks, castigations and reprimands have become the lot of Justice Anthony Okorodas following the public declaration of his marital crisis that bothers on the paternity of his three grown-up children in his failed marriage.

     

    The narrative now is akin to a situation in which the cheated is being blamed, the guilty is defended and the victims being vindicated. In this wise, Justice Anthony Okorodas, who was allegedly cheated and betrayed by his former wife, Barister Celia J. Ototo, is now being vilified for being “selfish,” being economical with the truth and for damaging the public image of his innocent children for nothing but showmanship, grandstanding and self righteousness. The presumed “guilty” in this case, Celia Ototo, is being defended against what some people observe as “not giving her the privilege to state her own side of the story.” Nobody does anything without a reason. She must definitely has her reasons. By the contents of Okorodas’ statement, his estranged ex-wife deserves to be taken to the Golgotha for her alleged sacrilegious acts. The victims in this family messy situation are the children. They didn’t choose their parents, nativity, and when or where they were born but are now being subjected to public ridicule, a stigma that some, if not all of them, will carry as a cross for the rest of their lives.

     

    Critics took a swipe at Okorodas for being an attention seeker whose outburst is seen as unfair and disparagingly unfatherly to his children. The main question many are asking is that “Why must he make his family issue public?” Is he the only man with the painful burden of paternity fraud? Who is he that addressing a press conference over his DNA results should become a breaking news? There is suggestive notion that he wanted to disparage his ex-wife in order to earn public sympathy and to let the children know that he’s not their biological dad because of how he would share his estate in his will.

     

    The thought line of several readers since last weekend till now appears unanimous. The direction of people’s opinions signals that a robust evaluation of issues is necessary to avoid a kind of backlash Okorodas is getting now.

     

    A university don, Dr. Henry Hunjo of Lagos State University feels the judge’s reaction was to curry favour and sympathy with a tinge of emotional blackmail without hearing from the other side. He posits that such occurrences are not new in our society. He stated inter alia:

     

    “These experiences are not new. I’ve heard of these stories from my old folks as a growing child. I don’t underestimate the humiliating feelings that envelope one as soon as one discovers that a partner in a marriage violates the fidelity laws once or in multiple times. Be that as it may, we often hear one side of the story most of the times, sympathising with the victims but never patient enough to hear from other person, the woman. Even in the Judge’s Press Briefing, the offending woman has been reported to have walked away from the marriage. There’s no indication of her expressed reasons or conditions.

     

    “I know that objectivity becomes backgrounded so much that there will be no chance to hear the side of the story. My view, though a minority one, and may not be acceptable but promotes peace, is that a cheating woman has reasons she cannot explain. The same is true of a cheating man. Therefore, it’s really hard to hear the truth but it’s better to accept the children of the union and look elsewhere about paternity. When these children, minor human beings, grow, they’ll appreciate the caring parents. Let’s be careful with DNA notwithstanding that I vehemently oppose infidelity.”

     

    A special school proprietor in Lagos, Liz, descended heavily on Justice Okorodas for being unkind to his children. She couldn’t contain her displeasure about the whole scenario. “From time immemorial men have been fathering children outside their marriages and forcing, yes, forcing their legally married wives to accept them. Nobody hears of these cases. It’s not published in the dailies or on social media. But when a woman does same, it’s called sacrilegious, and all other big grammar that requires a dictionary. Do I approve of adultery? No. In both sexes, it’s a deal breaker for me.

     

    “But the man went on record to tell the world that three innocent children were illegitimate. These children have a life, they have friends and colleagues. He has tainted their future with a tarred brush. Mr. Judge’s action is condemnable. To hell with him and his support and training. If he dies today, those children will succeed.

     

    “It is unfortunate that people will forever see these children as ‘bastards.’ Social media lasts forever. Their own children will be born, grow up and read the story. The judge is a bad man and I pray he reaps the sour fruits of his deed so soon. Nonsense!

     

    “I guess he’s one of many men prancing around with premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction, which, I’m sure the judge has, hence the woman (ex-wife Barr. Celia Ototo) went outside to get her groove on. I’ve said my own.”

     

    In his reaction, Frank Tietie, a human rights lawyer and Executive Director, Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights (CASER), berated the judge by describing his action as grossly “irresponsible and selfish” for denouncing the paternity of his children publicly, adding that the action is highly selfish and seriously harmful to the dignity and general psyche of the children involved.

     

    The fiery lawyer further expressed his disapproval for the unfatherly action by describing it as utterly illegal. His statement reads further: “The public disclosure of the contents of such DNA test results to the public is most reprehensible. Why would any man subject a child or children born within wedlock to such psychologically debilitating encounter, foisting such traumatic experience that will permanently scar the self-esteem of such children, especially older ones, for life? It is utterly cruel and selfish!

     

    “It is plain wickedness that is vindictive and propelled by crude vengeance. It must be condemned. Let it be known that by our law, in Nigeria, particularly, Section 165 of the Evidence Act, provides that all children that are born during the continuance of a valid marriage between their mother and any man, or within 280 days after the dissolution of the marriage, so long as the mother remains unmarried, the law and the court shall presume that such children in question are the legitimate children of that man.”

     

    From the Mailbox

     

    Re: How to Manage DNA Trauma

     

    Your exposition on the success story of “strange blood” in some families is very true. My mother told me a story of someone like that in our family and that could be the only logical reason behind him. There was no DNA test confirmation but he has a different glory, positive character, etc. While such children may not actually be calculated efforts on the part of their ignorant mothers to end a lingering spiritual bondage in their family lineage, God in His divine mercy may use such human errors to bless an entire generation. King Solomon the Wise was also a product of an unplanned (or adulterous) relationship. It is very real, sir. God bless you. – Eric Adegbite, Ijebu Ode.

     

    Don’t you think that Barr. Celia J. Ototo might have been a victim of labour room antics you wrote about recently on how babies are being swapped? If not the whole three but one or two. The DNA test should be discouraged except a situation where the woman categorically say the husband is not the father of the child or children. – 07035961555.

     

  • The Trial of Bishop Kukah, By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    The Trial of Bishop Kukah, By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    By Sonnie Ekwowusi

     

    I had thought the media trial of Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Mathew Hassan Kukah over his 2020 Christmas Message had ended. But I was mistaken. The trial has not ended. The trial, for all you know, has just reached its crescendo. Last Wednesday the Buhari Presidency joined the hordes of accusers preferring charges against Bishop Kukah. Prompted by the increasing bloodletting and insecurity of lives and property and the general hopelessness in Nigeria, Bishop Kukah had in his 2020 Christmas Message regretted that the Buhari government was not living up to public expectation and therefore needed to re-invent itself in order to tackle the bloodletting ad existential challenges confronting the nation instead of foisting a Northern hegemony that is counterproductive and damaging to national interest.

     

    But unfortunately, the natural and ordinary meaning of the above has been misinterpreted and distorted by some individuals and interest groups to mean different things, which, according to Bishop Kukah, are outside his contemplation. For example, while some allege that Kukah was calling for a coup d’ tat, others such as the Muslim Solidarity Forum, Jama’atu Nastril Islam (JNI) and Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) allege that he had disparaged Islam and Muslims. In fact, the Muslim Solidarity Forum has given Bishop Kukah an ultimatum to either tender unqualified apology for allegedly disparaging Islam failure for which they would eject him from Sokoto State. As if this was not enough, last week, the Presidency teamed up with the aforesaid accusers in accusing Kukah. Hear the Presidency: “Father Kukah has greatly offended many with his controversial remarks against the government and the person of the President, with some even accusing him of voicing anti-Islamic rhetoric”

     

    In his defence, Bishop Kukah has challenged his accusers to adduce concrete evidence substantiating the charges slammed against him, and that if he is found guilty as charged he would not hesitate to adorn a sack cloth and go down in repentance as well as tender an unreserved apology. Without holding brief for Bishop Kukah, I have read and re-read the aforesaid Kukah’s 2020 Christmas Message, and, I must sincerely confess that I find nothing therein directly or indirectly willed or calculated or intended to fan the ember of a coup d’ tat or cast aspersion on Islam or disparage the integrity of Muslims or sway public opinion in a manner that is prejudicial to the cause of Islam or Muslims. It is trite law that he who asserts must prove. Mere allegation without supportive evidence to prove the allegation goes to nowhere and must be discountenanced. Therefore, if Kukah’s accusers are seriously alleging that he is guilty as charged the onus is on them to substantiate the charges with at least a scintilla of evidence otherwise their frivolous charges would fail. It is even surprising that the Presidency, which ought to know better, has joined the fray in bringing the same spurious and unsubstantiated charges against Kukah without adducing any concrete evidence to prove its allegation. No matter how grounded, sentiment, hatred or suspicion cannot secure a conviction. A mere conjecture or mere sentimental inference cannot secure a conviction either. The accusers should prove their accusations against the accused with concrete evidence otherwise their accusations would be discountenanced.

     

    And those alleging that Kukah’s Message is replete with malicious euphemisms and wounding innuendoes disparaging Islam and integrity of Muslims should in no unmistaken terms clearly spell out the innuendoes and euphemisms, and, how they have been used to disparage Islam and Muslims for all us to see. No innuendo or euphemism can alter the natural and ordinary meaning of a statement or supply a meaning completely different from the ordinary meaning of the statement unless the contrary is shown. Therefore the onus is on the accusers alleging innuendo or euphemism to show that beyond the natural and ordinary meaning of a statement, there are inferential, inherent or secondary meaning of the statement or meaning arising from facts extrinsic to the statement which will would lead a reasonable person to infer that the statement was understood in that meaning

     

    Having said this, let’s go to the fundamentals. Must the truth offend? The purpose of human intellect is to know the truth of things. This truth remains unchanged even in a culture or philosophical atmosphere that is saturated by the denial of the truth or political atmosphere in which a tyrant scuttles the truth. Is it not true that 90% of President Buhari’s political appointees are from the North? Is it not true that President Buhari has refused to alter this imbalance in conformity to the pluralistic and multi-ethnic nature of the Nigerian society and the Federal Character principle as enshrined in section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution?. Answers: yes. So, why is the Presidency angry that this truth is being voiced out? If the Presidency wants high public rating from the citizenry then it should start discharging its duties diligently and responsibly. After all, public approbation is earned not imposed. But what the Presidency cannot do is to try to gag or muzzle public speech. One of these basic rights which the citizens enjoy in constitutional democracy like ours is the right of the citizens to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the performance of their political leaders. Pursuant to this right, Bishop Kukah has a right to hold, for instance, the view that Presidential Buhari has failed as a President of Nigeria. Right to freedom of expression is an inalienable human right which the State or any tyrannical government cannot forcibly deny its citizens. After nearly 237 years, those words of Declaration of American independence continue to resonate. The Declaration reaffirms the inviolability of human life, freedom and pursuit of happiness. Every human being no matter his or her race, tribe or tongue is entitled to the enjoyment of his or her right to freedom of expression.

     

    In a country in which the killing of innocent human beings has become norm, a statement made in good faith by a responsible citizen denouncing the killing in line with public policy and in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution cannot, in my humble view, and, by any stretch of imagination, be misconstrued as fanning the ember of a coup d’état or a malicious attack Islam and Muslims. It is well settled that a citizen cannot be prevented from initiating a public discourse which may fairly be regarded as one of public interest by reason merely of the fact that the matter in question affects the President of the country or that that the person whose conduct is being publicly criticized happens to be the President of the country. It is the inalienable right of every citizen to make comments, even outspoken matters on matters of public interest.

     

    This is one of the tenets of presidential democracy, one of the pillars of individual liberty, and, above all, the bedrock upon which we lay claim to civilization. Monstrous tyrants who, enslaved by their gratified lusts and sheer fatuity, have refused to read the mene, mene, tekel, upharsin hand writing on the wall and turn a new leaf or quit power have always ended tragically.

  • #EndSARS: Lagos releases identities of 21 police officers facing trial

    #EndSARS: Lagos releases identities of 21 police officers facing trial

    The Lagos State Government has identified 21 police officers undergoing criminal trials for trampling on the fundamental human rights of residents.

    The policemen are facing prosecution in different courts for charges that ranged from murder to other minor offences.

    The list showed that ten policemen are facing murder and attempted murder in various courts, seven are facing charges of various degrees of manslaughter, three cases of armed robbery and conspiracy, one grievous bodily harm.

    The policemen facing charges include: Inspector Surulere Irede, Sgt Sunday Ogunyemi; Cpl Ezekiel Babatunde; Ogunyemi Olalekan; Sgt Gbanwuan Isaac; Aminu Joseph; Sgt Alechenu Benedict; Sgt Adebayo Abdullahi; Inspector A. Mohammed, and Mathew Ohansi.

    Others include Sgt Segun Okun; Capt Adekunle Oluwarotimi; Adamu Dare, Sgt Mark Argo, Cpl Pepple Boma, Inspector Emmanuel Akpobana, Emmanuel Uyankweke, Akanbi Lookman, Edokhe Omokhue, Afolabi Saka, Monday Gabriel, Yahya Adesina, and Aremu Museliu.

    According to Lagos State Attorney General, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), the state has always been committed to the prosecution of erring security officers.

    Onigbanjo enjoined the public to keep track of the cases as state lawyers diligently prosecute them in the interest of the public.

  • Fear of possible attacks by #EndSARS protesters stops prisons from taking Evans, others to court for trial

    Fear of possible attacks by #EndSARS protesters stops prisons from taking Evans, others to court for trial

    The Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS) on Wednesday did not take alleged kidnap kingpin, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, alias Evans, and his co-defendants, before the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja, where their trial was scheduled to continue before Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo because of a possible disruption by the #EndSARS protesters.

    Evans and his alleged accomplices are facing two separate charges of kidnapping and murder before Justice Taiwo.

    The two charges were listed as number 10 and 12 in the court’s cause list for Wednesday.

    But neither the prosecution nor the defence came to court.

    On enquiry from the court registrar, our correspondent was told that the two cases would not go on as the prisons had communicated to the court that they would not bring the defendants to court, citing the unrest in the city occasioned by the widespread #EndSARS protest.

    “They are afraid of hijack by protesters,” the court register noted.

    When contacted, the Lagos State Directorate of Public Prosecutions confirmed the development.

    Our correspondent observed that the Correctional Service brought no inmates at all to the court.

    The NCS Green Marias were nowhere to be found and the holding cells for keeping inmates on the court premises were empty.

    Officials at the holding cells said the NCS had not brought inmates to court since Monday.

    Attempt to get the NCS spokesman in Lagos, Rotimi Oladokun, to react failed as his mobile phone number was unavailable.

    In one of the two charges before Justice Taiwo, the Lagos DPP accused Evans and three others of killing two persons, in their failed attempt to kidnap the Chairman of Young Shall Grow Motors, Obianodo Vincent on August 27, 2013.

    According to the prosecution, the criminal operation took place at about 11pm on Third Avenue, Festac Town, Lagos.

    Those murdered in the botched kidnap operation were identified as Peter Nweke and Chijioke Ngozi.

    Evans was said to have carried out the operation in company with Joseph Emeka, Chiemeka Arinze and Udeme Upong.

    The seven counts against them border on attempted murder, murder, kidnapping and illegal firearms deal.

    In the second charge, Evans, one Victor Aduba and four others still at large were accused of conspiring among themselves to kidnap one Sylvanus Hafia at about 5.30pm on June 23, 2014 at Kara Street, Amuwo Odofin, Lagos.

    The prosecution alleged that they captured and detained Hafia and demanded a $2m ransom from his family.

    The defendants, whose trial started since 2017, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

  • The trial of El-Rufai, By  Sonnie Ekwowusi

    The trial of El-Rufai, By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Last week, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) dramatically withdrew the invitation it had earlier extended to Kaduna State Governor Mallam Nasir El-Rufai to speak at the 2020 Annual General Conference of the NBA slated to hold August 26-29 2020. The gravamen of the charges (emanating from different lawyers including some members of the public) preferred against Governor El-Rufai at the Court of Public Opinion last week, were, inter alia, that since 2015 to date El-Rufai has been fragrantly disobeying court orders; fragrantly disregarding and abusing the rule of law; adopting a laissez-faire or nonchalant attitude to the monumental carnage in Southern Kaduna; making inciting and hubristic comments that had led to the exacerbation of the Southern Kaduna crisis; threatening people whom he feels are opposed to him. For example, on February 5 2019, El-Rufai threatened the international observers covering the last general elections that if they dared interfered with the elections they would go home in “body bags”.

    As at last Friday, the www.change.org/p/nigerian-bar-association-help-stop-nasir-el-rufai-from-speaking-at-nba-agc had collected the signatures of not less than 4, 300 witnesses ready to testify in the charges preferred against El-Rufai. The testimonies of some of the witnesses published online are hereunder stated: “As a lawyer, I join my colleagues in condemning d decision to invite Gov.@elrufai of Kaduna State to address the viral conference of NBA. Kaduna has the record of the highest mass murder & extra-judicial killings in the country” (Nnamdi Asomugha Sr Esq.,). “Governor @elrufai has no business addressing lawyers at the @NigBarAssoc. Conference. As lawyers, it is our duty to uphold the rule of law. Courts have found that El-Rufai’s Government has illegally arrested & incarcerated people. I hereby withdraw my attendance from the Conference” (Lugard Tare-Otu Esq.,). “The nomination of Gov. El-Rufai to address lawyers at the NBA conference is a mockery of the NBA & lawyers in general. How can we sanitize the judiciary with such acts? A kingpin in the abuse & disregard of the rule of law to address lawyers? I will not be attending the NBA Conference” (Buka). “As at today, Southern Kaduna is the most active site of massacres and mass atrocities in Nigeria in Nigeria. Despite this Governor El-Rufai dismissed the atrocities going on in Southern Kaduna as “media hype” (Open Bar Initiative). “For fragrant disregard for the rule of law and disobedience to court orders and for saying that he would give money to the killers in Kaduna to stop their killing, El-Rufai lacks moral right to address lawyers” (Femi Falana SAN)

    In his defence, Governor El-Rufai, together with his witnesses, has lampooned the NBA for allegedly being parochial and bowing to pressure from anonymous crowd without giving him a fair-hearing. Citing section 3 (6) of the Nigerian Bar Association Constitution & Bye-Law in their testimony for El-Rufai, the NBA, (Bauchi Branch) faults the withdrawal of El-Rufai from speaking at the Conference. It calls on the NBA National Executive Committee (NEC) to rescind the withdrawal failure for which the NBA (Bauchi Branch) would boycott the 2020 NBA Conference. Also testifying in support of El-Rufai, the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) construes the NBA withdrawal of the invitation of El-Rufai as a “declaration of war”. It says that the NBA is “parochial, myopic and jejune”. It urges all lawyers from Northern Nigeria to boycott the 2020 NBA Conference. What a prescription for intolerance? It casts the Association in a most unflattering, illiberal hue, totally at odds with the image which we like to project of lawyers as a group that espouses the virtues of liberal democracy-particularly freedom of speech…” (Abubakar Sani Esq.,)

    Let me say this again and emphasize it leaving no room for ambiguity: The fundamental issue that calls for determination in this public trial is not the person of His Excellency Governor Mallam Nasir El-Rufai. Far from it. Neither has it got anything to do with tribe and religion. I agree with the out-going NBA President Paul Usoro (SAN) that the trial of El-Rufai has “no ethnic or religious colouration”. The fundamental issue at stake in this trial is the blood of our innocent children, brothers and sisters that is being shed in Southern Kaduna. Therefore any mudsling and rebellious impulses towards tarnishing the image and character of Governor El-Rufai are completely misconceived. El-Rufai, ontologically, is a good person. My closest physical encounter with El-Rufai dates back to his days on the Editorial Board of THISDAY Newspaper. At that time, he stood out for his exceptional brilliance in analyzing national issues. So, Governor El-Rufai is good. Having said this, I wish to reiterate my earlier comment that the main issue in this trial is the spilling of the blood of members of our human family who are in Southern Kaduna. Spilled human blood especially the spilled blood of innocent children inevitably seeks justice. This is why after 55 years the blood of over 1.5 million Jewish Children who were killed during the German Holocaust is still seeking justice today. This is why after 50 years Nigeria has not made any meaningful socio-political progress because the blood of almost two million Biafran civilians (three quarter of them small children) who died from starvation caused by the total blockade of the region by the Nigerian government is still demanding for justice today.. Now, Southern Kaduna is the field of gruesome death. This is a notorious fact requiring no proof. Imagine blindfolding an innocent 3-year old girl and slicing off her head with a machete in Southern Kaduna. In fact no day passes in Southern Kaduna without the shedding of human blood. On August 16 2020, Reverend Adalchi Usman of the Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA) Unguwan /Madaki, Maro Ward, in Kajuru Local Council was killed when a commercial vehicle in which he was riding was ambushed by armed assailants. On 17 August Mr. Bulus Joseph was gruesomely killed on his farm in Sabon Gida Idon, along the Kaduna-Kachia road, in Kajuru Local Council by Fulani militia. On 18 August, Malachy Bobai, farmer and a 16-year-old student Ms. Takama Paul were killed by Fulani militia. I can go on and on.

    Rather than remain sober, mournful, remorseful and regretful over the killings, El-Rufai is going about making some statements that suggest that he is playing politics with Southern Kaduna killings. For example, how can El-Rufai dismiss the atrocious killings in Southern Kaduna as “media hype”? Why does he threaten the opposition for expressing different views on the Southern Kaduna killings? The answers to these queries place a heavy moral burden on El-Rufai which he has to discharge. Agreed, El-Rufai is playing politics. But political strategy does not obviate the need to cultivate moral discipline. Contrary to Machiavellianism, the end does not justify the means. For example, a politician cannot commit murder like in Shakespeare’s Macbeth to satisfy his vaulting ambition and feels justified with the words of Lady Macbeth that “a little water cleanses us of this deed”. Pricked by his conscience every man makes amends for his evil deeds. Why? Because justice is not only something dispensed in a court of law: Justice is something profoundly personal. A guilty person might escape human justice in human law court; he might take flight from his guilt through ingenious rationalization, but he cannot escape from the ultimate justice in the recess of his conscience. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s bestseller novel, Crime and Punishment, Rashkolnikov tried to erase his crime from his heart by ingenious rationalization but upon discovering the inescapable basis for ultimate justice in his heart, he went and voluntarily served an eight year prison in Siberia to appease his guilty conscience.

    Governor El-Rufai, undoubtedly, is conscious of his place in history. He wants posterity to judge him well. He knows that the people’s judgment albeit not the judgment of the law court carries with it a moral opprobrium and social stigma capable of ruining the character and political career of a politician. This is why he should appease his conscience and amend his relationship with the people today.