Connect with us

Opinion

ABBA KYARI AND THE TALE OF TWO CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONS

Published

on

Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Let us today deal with SuperCop, Abba Kyari and the tale of two jurisdictions conundrum. This is a serious constitutional, legal and political quandary matter.

BACKGROUND TO US’s APPLICATION FOR THE SURRENDER OF ABBA KYARI

The Diplomatic Representative of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja had made a request for the surrender of 46 year old Abba Alhaji Kyari, over the pending charges against Abba Kyari in the US. This request is allegedly based on the relationship of Kyari with Ramon Olorunwa Abbas, a 37 year old self-confessed international fraudster, popularly known as Hushpuppi. Hushpuppi had alleged that he bribed Abba Kyari to arrest and jail Kelly Chibuzor Vincent, one of his rivals in Nigeria, following a dispute over a $1.1 million scam on a Qatari business man. Kyari had denied any wrongdoing.

THEN NDLEA APPEARED ON THE SCENE
While on suspension over his role in the Hushpuppi’s case, Abba Kyari was arrested by the NDLEA in an alleged 17.5kg cocaine deal and allegedly tampering with 25kg worth of cocaine. As investigation into the said NDLEA case was ongoing, Kyari applied for his bail on health grounds. The NDLEA then secured a court order for further detention of Kyari and 6 others for 14 days. Indeed, immediately the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, okayed Kyari’s extradition, NDLEA suddenly slapped an eight count charge on him before the Federal High Court, Abuja. Was this a mere coincidence? Are some top level persons working hard to stall Kyari’s extradition for fear he may be squeezed and made to squeal when he gets to the US? Can the ongoing investigation, subsisting court remand order and fresh charge stall the extradition of Abba Kyari to the United States of America? This is the kernel of our discourse today and next week.

WHAT IS EXTRADITION?

Extradition is a process by which a person accused or convicted of a crime is officially transferred to the State where the person is either wanted for trial or required to serve a sentence after being duly convicted by a court of law.

NIGERIA HAS EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE USA

Nigeria has an extradition agreement with the USA by virtue of an Extradition Treaty signed between the UK and the US, dated the 22nd December, 1931. The Treaty came into force on 24th June, 1935. By virtue of Article 16 of the Treaty, it was made applicable to all British protectorates of which Nigeria was one. Article 16 of the Treaty provides:

“This Treaty shall apply in the same manner as if they were Possessions of His Britannic Majesty to the following British Protectorates, that is to say, the Bechuanaland Protectorate, Gambia Protectorate, Kenya Protectorate, Nigeria Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia, Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Nyasaland, Sierra Leone Protectorate, Solomon Islands Protectorate, Somaliland Protectorate, Swaziland, Uganda Protectorate and Zanzibar, and to the following territories in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, that is to say, Cameroons under British mandate, Togoland under British mandate, and the Tanganyika Territory.”

By Article 1 of the treaty, the contracting parties agreed to deliver up to each other (under certain circumstances and conditions), persons who, being accused or convicted of any of the crimes or offences enumerated in Article 3, committed within the jurisdiction of the one Party, are found within the territory of the other Party. There are 27 offences enumerated in Article 3. The crimes which touch on the substance of this article are the 18th and the 22nd: Obtaining money by false pretences; receiving any money, valuable security, or other property, knowing the same to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained and the offering, giving or receiving of bribes respectively. Some elements of the offence for which Abba Kyari was declared wanted in the United States of America include obtaining money/assets through fraudulent means.

By Article 4 of the treaty, extradition shall not take place if the subject has already been tried and discharged or punished for the offences over which he or she is wanted.

Article 5 states that extradition shall not take place if, after the commission of the offence or filing of criminal charges or conviction, exemption from prosecution was acquired by lapse of time according to the laws of the two countries involved.

By Article 6 of the Treaty, a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered for extradition if the offence for which his extradition is sought is of a political nature, or if the subject could prove that the demand for the extradition was made in order to punish him for an offence of a political nature.

Article 9 of the treaty states that extradition shall only take place if the evidence is found to be sufficient according to the laws of the contracting party applied to, to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial, in case the crime or offence had been committed in the territory of such High Contracting Party. In the case of ANUEBUNWA v. A.G., it was held that:

“The whole essence of an extradition proceeding … is for the Applicant to establish by credible evidence, that is by producing to the judge in the case of a fugitive criminal accused of an offence claimed to be an extradition offence, a warrant issued outside Nigeria authorizing the arrest of the fugitive.”

Two doctrines come into play when the extradition of a person is sought. There is the first- the doctrine of ‘Specialty’ or ‘Specialty Doctrine’. This doctrine requires that a person whose extradition is sought can only be tried for the crime for which his extradition was requested, and none other. Upon surrender of a fugitive, by a state where he sought refuge, the requesting state must only prosecute and convict such a person simply for the very crime for which his extradition was requested and for none other offence committed before the surrender of such fugitive. In the US case of States V. Raucher (119 U.S. 407, 7S.Ct. 234, 30 L.Ed. 425(1886)), the court held that an accused shall not be arrested or tried for any other offence other than that for which he was charged in the extradition proceedings. In a situation where a state prosecutes a fugitive for an offence other than that which the fugitive was extradited, it will be tantamount to an abuse of the principles of extradition.

The second doctrine is the doctrine of ‘Double Criminality’. It states that before a person can be extradited for an offence, such extradition offence or the offence for which a person’s extradition is sought, must constitute an offence or crime in both jurisdictions. In the case of Collins V. Loisel (259 U.S. 309, 42 S.Ct. 49, 66L.Ed.956 (1922)), the American Supreme Court held that the name by which the crime is described in the two countries need not be the same; nor must the punishment be the same. The requirement of double criminality is simply met if the particular act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES

NIGERIA’S EXTRADITION ACT

The Extradition Act, Cap E. 25, LFN, 2004, is the Act regulating the extradition of fugitive offenders/criminals in Nigeria. A “fugitive criminal” is defined in Section 21 of the Extradition Act as:
a. “Any person accused of an extradition offence committed within the jurisdiction of a country other than Nigeria; or

b. Any person, who, having been convicted of an extradition offence in a country other than Nigeria, is unlawfully at large before the expiration of a sentence imposed on him for that offence, being in either case a person who is, or is suspected of being, in Nigeria.”

Where an extradition request has been received by the Attorney General, he is obliged to decide (on available information), if the surrender is precluded by any of the provisions of section 3(1) to (7) of the Act. If the surrender of a fugitive criminal is not so precluded, he is to inform a magistrate that an extradition request has been received by him and thus require the magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, where the extradition of a fugitive criminal is so precluded by Section 3(1) to (7), then he need not inform the magistrate of the receipt of any such request (Section 6 (2)).

In the case of George Udeozor V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) LPELR-CA/L/376/05, the court held:

“Nothing in the Act gives the court the powers to question the discretion of the Hon. Attorney General in those matters, as the Hon. Attorney General exercises his constitutional duty under section 174 of the 1999 constitution.”

However, the Attorney General may, under section 8 (3), if he thinks fit, order the warrant cancelled and the fugitive released, if already arrested. Where a fugitive has been arrested, he shall, under section 8 (5) be brought before a magistrate as soon as is feasible and the magistrate shall either remand him in custody or grant him bail, depending on the receipt of an order from the Attorney-General. This order shall notify the Magistrate that a request for the fugitive’s surrender has been received; or give an order for the cancellation of the warrant and the release of the fugitive.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE NIGERIA-US TREATY AGREEMENT

Nigeria and the US have an existing Extradition Agreement for the surrender of persons wanted for prosecution or punishment. Section 3 of the Extradition Act stipulates instances where a person will not be surrendered for prosecution or punishment, notwithstanding the application for surrender by a foreign country. According to Section 3 of the said Act, a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence in respect of which his surrender is sought is an offence of a political character; or that the request for his surrender, although purporting to be made in respect of an extradition Crime, was in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race; religion, nationality or political opinions or was otherwise not made in good faith or in the interests of justice; or that, if surrendered, he is likely to be prejudiced at his trial, or to be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty, by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.

A fugitive criminal shall also not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence is of a trivial nature; or that due to the passage of time since the commission, of the offence, it would, be unjust or oppressive, or be too severe a punishment, to surrender the offender.

A fugitive criminal shall also not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, such fugitive has been convicted of the offence for which his surrender is sought; or has been acquitted thereof, and that, he is not unlawfully at large.

Similarly, a fugitive criminal shall also not be surrendered if criminal proceedings are pending against him in Nigeria for the offence for which his surrender is sought.

In the same vein, by virtue section 3(6) of the Act, a fugitive who has been charged with an offence under the laws of Nigeria or any part thereof, not being the offence for which his surrender is sought, or who is serving a sentence imposed in respect of any such offence by a court in Nigeria, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged whether by acquittal: or on the expiration of his sentence or otherwise.
The last two scenarios pointed above are apposite in Abba Kyari’s case. He is now standing trial under the NDLEA criminal charge. The extradition request must therefore await the outcome of this trial by the Federal High Court, Abuja.

A fugitive criminal shall also not be Surrendered to any country unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that provision is made by the law of that country, or that special arrangements have been made, such that, so long as the fugitive has not had a reasonable opportunity of returning to Nigeria, he will not be detained or tried in that country for any offence committed before his surrender other than any extradition offence which may be proved by the facts on which his surrender is granted. Has Abubakar Malami ensured this? Let him tell Nigerians if the US may not try Abba Kyari for another offence different from his alleged offence with Hushpuppi.

THE EXTRADITION HEARING

If at the end of thirty days from the day of the arrest, no
order was received from the Attorney General, the fugitive offender must be released. There must be a hearing in order to determine if the fugitive ought to be extradited or otherwise. The magistrate is free to receive evidence that proves that the offence for which the fugitive is wanted is not an extradition offence; or any evidence that proves that his extradition is prohibited either under the act or under any relevant extradition agreement. The Court in Udeozor V. FRN, (supra), in stating the purpose of a hearing in extradition proceedings held thus:

“The purpose of a hearing which is in fact purely at the discretion of the Attorney General is not to ask the fugitive criminal if he desires to be extradited. That will be ridiculous. The purpose is to determine whether the requisition made shows sufficient cause to warrant extradition… to hold otherwise will be ridiculous…… “The purpose of the hearing in a trial court upon the application Hon. Attorney General is not for the trial of the fugitive criminal. Rather, it is to invoke the exercise of the judicial powers of the court over the fugitive accused as the court would over an accused person standing trial before it. In the circumstance, those powers are preliminary to the eventual trial of the fugitive accused, such as the power to remand or to release on bail pending the completion of investigation. It is not a criminal trial but a preliminary to such trial which shall take place where the offences are alleged to have been committed.”

HOW EXTRADITION REQUEST IS MADE

By virtue of Section 6(1) of the Extradition Act of Nigeria, a request for the surrender of a fugitive criminal in Nigeria must be made in writing to the Attorney General of the federation by a diplomatic representative of the requesting state and this should be accompanied by a duly authenticated warrant of arrest in the case of a fugitive criminal accused of an extraditable offence; and where the fugitive has been convicted of an extraditable offence, the written request must be accompanied by certificate of conviction issued in the requesting country. It should be noted that the essence of attaching a warrant of arrest or a certificate of conviction is to prevent frivolous requests that have no basis supporting the request. It is also important as it helps to prove that there exist sufficient facts necessitating the request for extradition. Where an extradition request has been received by the Attorney General, it is required that on the basis of the information available to him, he is obliged to decide if the surrender is precluded by any of the provisions of Section 3(1) to (8) for the refusal of extradition request. The Magistrate, under section 8 has powers to remand the fugitive, or grant him bail; or cancel a warrant and release a fugitive; as if he was trying the fugitive for an offence committed within his jurisdiction.

Consequently, if the surrender of a fugitive criminal is not precluded by the provisions of that section, he is to inform a magistrate that an extradition request has been received by him and thus require the magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, where the extradition of a fugitive criminal is precluded by the provisions of section 3(1) to (7), then he need not inform the magistrate of the receipt of any such request.

From the above provisions, it is fundamental to note that the authority conferred on the Attorney General to determine if an application is competent in relation to section 3 cannot be contested. It is only when the request has been transferred to the magistrate that the judicial process of inquiring into the case and the competence of the request can be begin. However, where the Attorney General decides that the request is precluded by section 3, then nothing can be done about it. It must be reiterated that in the process of extradition, the powers of the Attorney General are wide; but limited once he approaches a Magistrate, who thereby become dominus litis.

THE PENDING NDLEA CHARGE AND ABBA KYARI: THE NEXUS

Abba Kyari NDLEA’s pending charge before the Federal High Court has definitely put the whole extradition process on hold if the court decides to remand him pending the determination of the suit against him.
It is also important to emphasis that while the matter is pending in court, Abba Kyari is pressumed innocent until proven guilty as contained in Section 36 (5) provides that:”every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”.

This is also sanctioned by Article 1(1) of the UDHR, 1948; Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; and Article 7(b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Cap A9, LFN, 2004. Presumption of innocence is the golden thread that runs through our criminal justice system. See the case of The King v. Richardson & Anor (1985) Leach 387; Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC- 462; Ali v. State (2012) 190 NWLR (Pt 1309) 642;

Even if the Federal High Court were to give its judgment against Abba Kyari, he is still entitled to appeal such a judgment at the Court of Appeal, and even further to the Supreme Court.

Section 3(6) of the Extradition Act makes it clear that a fugitive criminal who has been charged with an offence under the law of Nigeria or any part thereof, not being the offence for which his surrender is sought, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged whether by acquittal or on the expiration of his sentence or otherwise. As stated above, the NDLEA has filed an eight count charge against Abba Kyari and six others for their alleged involvement in drug trafficking, barely 24 hours after the Attorney-General filed an application for the extradition of Kyari. It is important to note that Abubakar Malami, SAN, the Attorney-General of the Federation, is also the Minister of Justice. By virtue of Section 2(1) (f) of the NDLEA ACT, the Federal Ministry of Justice, headed by Abubakar Malami, SAN, has a representative in the Board/composition of the NDLEA. So, now that he is aware of the NDLEA charge, can the Chief Law Officer of the Federation consent to the prosecution of someone whose application for extradition is pending? What is the legal implication of this?

The case of A.G FED v. JONES (2017) LPELR-43551(CA), is worth considering. Though, the case was decided under Section 3(5) of the Extradition Act, some key observations made by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal are worth noting. The Appellant (A.G. Fed) had filed an application before the trial court seeking to extradite the Respondent on a diplomatic request from the United States of America on indictment, in Case No.11-CR0299, filed on the 28th day of April, 2011, for the offences of conspiracy to commit wired fraud and conspiracy to commit identity theft all in violation of US Laws. The Application was duly supported by an affidavit and exhibits, which inter alia, included a certified true copy of the indictment issued against the Respondents; certified true copy of the warrant of arrest issued by the US District Court for the arrest of the Respondent; and a photograph of the Respondent. The Respondent contested the proceedings, contending that the application was incompetent because as at the time of the application, there was an existing charge at the Akure High Court on charges similar to those he was being sought to be extradited to face in the United States of America. The Appellant contended that as at the time the application for extradition was ripe for hearing, the existing charge had already been withdrawn. The trial Court disagreed and found against the Appellant and discharged the Respondent.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was emphatic that the main thrust of the appeal failed. It was consequently dismissed. Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, concurring with the lead judgment, held at page 26, that:

“… The provision of Section 3(5) of the Extradition Act is clear and unambiguous. It states: “A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if criminal proceedings are pending against him in Nigeria for the offence for which his surrender is sought.” It is obvious from the above provision that no extradition proceedings shall be brought against a fugitive criminal when there is a pending criminal proceedings against him. In the instant appeal, it is evident that the Appellant failed and/or neglected to comply with the mandatory provision of the statute.”

Regarding the uncoordinated role the Attorney-General played with the EFCC, Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, J.C.A. (delivering the Lead judgment) held that:
“The issue is not the timely withdrawal of the pending charges because the statutory requirement is that no proceedings should be pending when the application for extradition is made. The point of filing the application a decision was taken by the Attorney General to want to surrender the fugitive. The Appellant is wrong to think that it is only at the point of surrender that Section 3 (5) comes into play. It is activated on the filing of an application for extradition. The Attorney General would have decided on extraditing a fugitive before filing the application. The section applies in this case. The simple expectation is that the prosecuting authorities should work in a coordinated fashion complimenting themselves and not to be at cross purposes. The EFCC was already prosecuting the Respondent on charges similar to those he was being sought to be extradited to face in the United States of America and the simple thing would have been some sort of coordination by the EFCC and the office of the Attorney General of the Federation so that whatever was pending should be withdrawn before the filing of the application or the office of the Attorney to ensure that no proceedings were pending before filing the application. This was not done.”

As is provided in Section 3(6) of the Extradition Act and in line with the above judgment, a person such as Abba Kyari, who is charged with any offence not being the offence for which his surrender is sought, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or on the expiration of his sentence or otherwise. The statutory requirement is that no extradition proceedings for Kyari’s surrender should be going on until such time as he has either been discharged acquitted or convicted. By his actions, the Attorney-General of the Federation appears to be stalling, tacitly, the extradition of Abba Kyari, by allowing or consenting to the prosecution of Kyari for his alleged involvement in drug trafficking simultaneously as the pendency of an application for his extradition by the same Attorney-General. Since the court will assume jurisdiction on the criminal matter the moment Kyari is arraigned and his plea taken, the Attorney-General of the Federation still has the time to quietly back-off before the criminal court assumes jurisdiction and await the court’s decision. It is more honourable to do so.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

The Hypocrisy of Power Game Between The North and South: The Time To Talk Is Now

Published

on

By

The leadership of the Yoruba Council Worldwide (Igbimo Apapo Yoruba Lagbaye); the apex umbrella body for all Yoruba indigenous people globally is highly concerned about the recent devastating effects of the Northern quests and aggressive desperation for power ahead of 2027 or through any other irrational means before the ripe of time.

We are seriously concerned to witness all manners of unprecedented barrage of fireworks of incendiary rhetoric issued from different Northern elites as emanated from Prof Ango Abdullahi of the Northern Elders Forum seeking to call for an end of Nigeria based on the 100 years expiration of 1914 treaty after 10 years which lapsed in 2014.

To Alhaji Rabiu Musa Kwankanso’s crudity, unverified lies and tale of discords against the South: “Lagos colonising the North”, was his biased statements!

Hence, we must expressly express our dismay and disappointed on such insensitive rhetoric and by that laconically detest such an unflattering statement from chieftain of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, for intentionally misinforming and misleading Nigerians about President Tinubu’s Tax Reform Bills before the National Assembly.

Sadly enough, Alhaji Kwankwaso’s comments while addressing students of Skyline University during their convocation in Kano recently, demonstrated either a lack of understanding of the tax reforms or a deliberate attempt to politicize President Tinubu’s positive visionary and Renewed Hope initiative.

It is evident that Senator Kwankwaso is still grappling with the fallout from his abysmal performance in the 2023 presidential elections. This lingering disappointment seems to have influenced his repeated reliance on divisive rhetoric and unfounded accusations against the administration of President Tinubu.

While the 19 Northern States Emirs and Governors provokingly demanded their Senators and Reps to reject, end and fight the present Administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s tax reforms bill to a halt, in which one of the arrowheads: Senator Ali Ndume said the “TAX REFORM Bill is Dead on Arrival.”

Rather than engaging in constructive national dialogue or offering meaningful contributions to national development, Kwankwaso, Ali Ndume and other co-travellers appears to have chosen a path aimed at inciting division between the North and the South, and casting aspersions on initiatives being painstakingly designed to benefit all Nigerians.

Such actions are not only unhelpful but also risk undermining the unity and progress of the country at a critical time when inclusive leadership and national cohesion are paramount to stability, progress and prosperity of our dear nation.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s tax reforms are a necessary steps toward addressing the economic challenges facing the country and ensuring equitable development for all Nigerians, including those in the north especially the President’s initiative to tackle the disproportionate distribution of revenues from the Value Added Tax to all 36 states of the Federation and the FCT.

In strongest term we are not oblivion of the ongoing despicable threats bothering on excessive interference and high powered conspiracies to disrupt and hijack power from the South with the systemic and surreptitious renewed onslaught recruitment of the former President Olusegun Obasanjo as one of centrifugal forces being radically committed through his offensive and disparaging statements being deliberately orchid in running the current Administration down by all means possible.

Moreso, as reflective of his self styled selfish act and hatred for Constituted authority, his megalomaniac inclination and inordinate ambitions against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu led government, especially having lost power through his proxy kid Peter Obi via the ballot in 2023 Presidential election.

We hereby warn former President Olusegun Obasanjo to refrain from making statements that is capable of undermining Nigeria’s unity, peace and progress.

While we reiterate and assert our absolute confidence, that the country is functioning effectively under President Bola Tinubu led Federal Government, though with some surmountable challenges, still as they postulated, peace is what matters and not a all manner of provocative statements within the polity, because there will be light at the end of the tunnel, God’s willing.

To set the record straight, hence, it is necessary to respond and react appropriately to Chief Obasanjo’s recent keynote address at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in Connecticut, USA.

Wherein in his address, Baba Obasanjo criticised Nigeria’s leadership, describing the country as being a failed state of “state capture” and urging Nigerians to prioritise credible leadership for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to ensure electoral integrity.

Regrettably, former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s language of the war on peace time is a disaster and unpatriotic move in calling for anarchy, which is quite an anathema to the status of an elder statesman in his referential eldership.

The vituperation of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s lecture or better defined as tantrums Talk show, as the Chief harbinger of our worsening state of hunger and hardship was full of energy to condemn the current Administration with utter hatred of his avowed “do or die” mentality that has been infamously reputed to be offensive disappointing and disgusting as the only salvo that can be fired from a despotic and totalitarian personality only found to be hypocritically and deceitfully projected himself as a true democrat.

It was in record how he levelled the land of Odi with deadly precision and mortality even without any Justice till date, he removed Dariye and Fayose through illegitimate means of declaration of state of emergency all because he lacked the receptive mind for criticism and tolerance.

Now we must reiterate and state emphatically in admonishing the Northern elites to think twice on their incendiary staments and spiral bombardment of attacks through sponsored protests, media adverts or careless statements as well as the links such as: the #EndBadGovernance which started by some Northern youths, that was latter aggravated further and taken over by the #DayofRage led by thier proxies.

Unfortunately, this furtive and clandestine motivated underwater currents are largely engendered and orchestrated towards a obvious suspected Northern quest and desperation for power by all means ahead of 2027 Presidential elections.

How do we rate a situation wherein throughout the 8 years tenure of the former President Muhammadu Buhari, the entire Northern elites do not consider ending Nigeria treaty of 1914 only to wake up at the 99th hour of a Southwest Presidency to rage all manners of brimstone?

Hence, we warn in strongest term that this premeditated plan and well marshalled evil agendas to cause disunity, mayhem and strive among the citizens must be stopped once and for all for the betterment of our dear nation.

We vehemently frowned at the spurious and unverified lies, especially devastating propaganda actions targeted at the minds of their Northern kinsmen and women to hate and wish the President dead, this we unequivocally resist and condemned in its entirety.

This hypocrisy must stop now, wherein we lost lots of our brave minds to unbearable brazing manipulations and desperation in the past; Chief Obafemi Awolowo and MKO Abiola are proven records of similar antecedents of Northern hypocrisy and Power mongering.

It is hightime we talk truth to ourselves at a National Confab after each regional dialogue on the way forward, for if the North continuously hold the cliché of the “North are born to rule” ideology at the expense of the South, that means the rest of us are meant to be treated as their “slaves”, that are not safe in this country.

Have we for ones queried why the Northern Nigeria has more political advantages compared to their Southern counterparts: More state Governors and State House of Assembly members and Speakers, local government Chairmen and counsellors, Senators and House of Representatives members and more Federal institutions and employment opportunities and placements to mention a few.

This was why the Northern elites are eager to shut the tax reform bill down through their Northern Senators if the bill is brought for deliberation without having a concise dialogue with the rest of us.

If the Southern tax regime money is good to construct good roads and railway line to Maradi Republic of Niger, why now that the tax reform which is the best for the country is being campaigned against brutally, using legitimate means to commit illegality.

It is high time we are all captured into the ongoing comprehensive tax system, wherein both the citizens in the Northern and Southern parts are taxed eqaully , while the need to undermine this great efforts of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is highly condemned.

We are bold to say that the need and quests for power must be done with absolute decorum and human face.

2027 election should not end in Ethnic wars and civil strives, we can discuss No Holdbar on all issues of our Nationality without hurting ourselves.

In conclusion, we would not tolerate any capture of Power through coup or any other means of manipulations, or whatsoever in causing instability.

We use this medium to commiserate with the families of the late Chief of Army Staff, Lt. General Taoreed Lagbaja, while as a matter of necessity we call for a detailed investigation into his cause of death and other surrounding circumstances, which calls for concern having witnessed recent threats of coup.

We implore President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to remain steadfastly committed and focused on ensuring good governance to the greatest benefits of greatest numbers.

We have emphatically and unapologetically spoken!

Signed:

Prince Isaac Aderemi Ajibola,National Publicity Secretary, Yoruba Council Worldwide.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Day Mamman Vatsa welcomed Ken Saro-Wiwa to his Abuja Village

Published

on

By

Tunde Olusunle

By Tunde Olusunle

He reincarnated in the form of a cream coloured, two-storey building in the bosom of the boulder-braided, writers’ commune, in the rocky delight of Abuja’s Mpape district. His happy host, like him an erstwhile member of the tribe of wordmongers was despatched over a phantom putsch one decade before him. But he rolled out a carpet of dry laterite with the steady onset of northerly harmattan, to receive his new guest and kindred spirit. The air was sedate, the biosphere alluring and serene as his name echoed from the signage hoisted in front of the structure. This, henceforth, will be the haven of scribblers from across the globe desiring genuine solitude to commune with their muses in the very intricate venture of creative expression. Not too many of the young writers who enthusiastically witnessed the recent commissioning of the *Ken Saro-Wiwa International Writers Residency* in Abuja, however, knew enough about the martyr who was so canonised, nor the nexus between Ken Saro-Wiwa and his figurative “host,” Mamman Jiya Vatsa.

As part of the activities commemorating the 43rd International Convention of the Association of Nigerian Authors, (ANA), which held between Thursday October 31 and Saturday November 2, 2024, a newly built edifice christened after Saro-Wiwa, was scheduled for inauguration. Ken Saro-Wiwa remains one of Nigeria’s most multitasking and most productive writers of all time. He lived for only 54 years but left behind an authorial legacy which continues to challenge the prolificity of successor writers. Saro-Wiwa was a compelling novelist, an engaging essayist, a consummate poet, an arresting dramatist, and a fearless public scholar.

Regarded as Africa’s very first purpose-built writers village, the expansive hilltop project in Mpape, Abuja, was named after Vatsa, an army General who was a Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, (FCT), under the regime of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. Less than seven months into the Babangida milieu in March 5, 1986, Vatsa was executed by firing squad for alleged “treason associated with an abortive coup.” He was 45 at the time. I had the privilege of meeting Vatsa’s only surviving biological child, Aisha, at the “World Poetry Day 2024,” hosted in honour of her father in March 2024, at the same writers’ village. Vatsa was a writer who reportedly published about 20 anthologies of poetry. These include: *Verses for Nigerian State Capitals,* (1972); *Back Again at Wargate,* (1982); *Reach for the Skies,* (1984), and *Tori for Geti Bow leg and other Pidgin Poems,* (1985).

The renowned literary scholar, critic, polemicist and Emeritus Professor, Biodun Jeyifo, was perhaps the first notable intellectual to engage authoritatively with Vatsa’s works in the primordial *Guardian Literary Series, (GLS),* published by *The Guardian* newspapers of old, in the 1980s. The essay is published in *Perspectives on Nigerian Literature, (Volume 2, 1988),* edited by Yemi Ogunbiyi. Vatsa as FCT helmsman, it was, who allocated the generous swathes of hitherto pristine land with scenic views upon which the writers village is sited today. The complex is deservedly named after him in eternal gratitude by the writers fraternity.

Ken Saro-Wiwa was the fourth President of ANA. He succeeded the renowned dramatist and Emeritus Professor of theatre arts, Femi Osofisan, in 1990, and was a very energetic personality, famous for the tobacco pipe which was permanently seated on his lip, drawing parity with that of Ousmane Sembene, the famous Senegalese frontline African novelist and filmmaker. Saro-Wiwa had a multitasking career which saw him as a university lecturer in his earlier years; an administrator and public servant, and an environmental activist, at various times. He was leader of the *Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People,* (MOSOP), which prosecuted a nonviolent campaign for the protection of Ogoni land and water resources from devastation by oil multinationals.

He backed up this enterprise with regular interventions in the public space as a writer and columnist for a number of authoritative newspapers. He consistently drew attention to the despoliation of the natural resources of his people and wrote regularly for *Vanguard* and *Sunday Times,* among other publications. He was a regular, long-staying guest of the gulags of successive military governments, through the administrations of Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha. In 1994, he was arrested and charged with instigating the murders of four Ogoni leaders, May 4, 1994, on a day he was indeed barred from accessing Ogoniland. Saro-Wiwa and his eight “accomplices” were executed by hanging at the Port Harcourt prison where they were held and convicted, on November 10, 1995, exactly one month after his 54th birthday on October 10, 1995.

By some uncanny calendrical coincidence, the *Ken Saro-Wiwa International Writers Residency,* was inaugurated early November 2024, the very same month he was despatched 29 years ago in 1995. Global outrage trailed the killing of Saro-Wiwa and his compatriots, with the Commonwealth suspending Nigeria for three years, among other sanctions. The death of Sani Abacha in June 1998, the subsequent acceleration of processes which returned Nigeria to civilian rule by Abacha’s successor, Abdulsalami Abubakar, and the enthronement of the Fourth Republic in 1999, gradually tempered the world’s coldness towards Nigeria.

At least three dozen book titles are credited to Ken Saro-Wiwa’s name. These include novels, novellas, anthologies of poetry, plays for radio and television, memoirs and diaries, and so on. His works have received some international attention and have been translated into German, Dutch and French. His authorial oeuvre includes: *Tambari,* (a novel, 1973); *Tambari in Dukana,* (a sequel to *Tambari,* 1986); *A Bride for Mr B,* (a novella, 1983), and *Songs in a Time of War,* (poetry, 1985). Ken Saro-Wiwa also wrote *Sozaboy: A Novel in Rotten English,* (1985); *A Forest of Flowers,* (1986, short stories); *Prisoners of Jebs,* (a novel, 1988) and *Pita Dumbrok’s Prison,* (1991), which like the former is very biting political satire.

*On a Darkling Plain: An Account of the Nigerian Civil War,* (memoirs, 1989), a war which he witnessed firsthand, is also one of his very gripping works of prose. Saro-Wiwa’s public engagements are aggregated in several volumes of essays notably *Nigeria: The Brink of Disaster,* (1991); *Similia: Essays on Anomic Nigeria,* (1991) and *Genocide in Nigeria: The Ogoni Tragedy,* (1992). Even in his final days, weeks and months of his sojourn on this side of the divide, Saro-Wiwa “remained incredibly productive.” Posthumously, his family, foreign concerns and nongovernmental organisations continued to call-up manuscripts from his personal library to publish new works by him. A personal diary he kept while he was in incarceration before his eventual annihilation was published with the title *A Month and a Day: A Detention Diary,* in 1995. Over 20 years after his demise, some of his essays were assembled as *Silence would be Treason: Last Writings of Ken Saro-Wiwa,* and published by Daraja Press in Ottawa, Canada, in 2018.

The *Ken Saro-Wiwa International Writers Residency* is one of the first major physical projects delivered by the leadership of Usman Oladipo Akanbi. Fortuitously, Akanbi’s deputy, Obari Gomba, winner of the 2023 *NLNG Prize for Drama,* is from Saro-Wiwa’s Ogoni country. He must have felt gratified by the honour done his *countryman,* whose trajectory he followed as a much younger writer. The eventual breaking of the ice, the decisive commencement of the physical development of the hitherto forlorn and controversial expansive hectarage of ANA property was consummated under the leadership of Denja Abdullahi in 2017. Obi Asika, Director-General of the National Council for Arts and Culture, (NCAC), commissioned the *Ken Saro-Wiwa International Writers Residency.*

The ceremony was witnessed by an impressive array of writers, headlined by Emeritus Professors Osofisan and Olu Obafemi, both former Presidents of ANA, as well as Nuhu Yaqub, OFR. Yaqub holds the distinction of being the only Nigerian scholar thus far to have served as Vice Chancellor in two federal universities, those of Abuja and Sokoto. Other literary greats at the event and the main Convention included: Professors Shamshudeen Amali, OFR, former Vice Chancellor, University of Ilorin; Akachi Adimora-Ezeigbo; May Ifeoma Nwoye and Sunnie Ododo, all Fellows of the Nigerian Academy of Letters, (FNAL) and the Association of Nigerian Authors, (FANA).

There were also Professors Joe Ushie, a Member of ANA Board of Trustees; Emeka Aniagolu; Udenta Udenta; Maria Ajima; Al Bishak; Mabel Evwierhoma; Razinat Mohammed; Vicky Sylvester Molemodile and Mahfouz Adedimeji. Immediate past ANA President, Camillus Ukah, Emeritus diplomat and writer Ambassador Albert Omotayo, featured at the Convention. Canada-based writer, scholar and Professor, Nduka Otiono who served as General Secretary of the association under the leadership of Olu Obafemi, was admitted into the College of Fellows of the body. Chairman of the *Abuja Chapter of ANA,* Arc Chukwudi Eze, was the resident host with compelling responsibility to stay through all events.

Tunde Olusunle, PhD, Fellow of Association of Nigerian Authors, (FANA), teaches Creative Writing at the University of Abuja

Continue Reading

Opinion

That ‘fake’ Sanwo-Olu vs EFCC suit: Whodunit? Who sponsored it?

Published

on

By

By Ehichioya Ezomon

Strange things happen in Nigeria, one of the latest being a suit purportedly filed by Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, to prevent the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating, arresting, detaining or prosecuting him or his aides after his eight-year tenure of office in 2027.
However, the Lagos Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro (SAN), has debunked the widely-publicised suit, saying Sanwo-Olu neither sued nor authorised any legal practitioner to file a suit on his behalf concerning the matter, adding that the EFCC isn’t investigating the governor and hasn’t invited him or threatened to arrest any of his staff, domestic or otherwise.
The odder and curiouser angle to the alleged pre-emptive writ at the Federal High Court in Abuja is that it’s filed in June 2024, almost three years ahead of Sanwo-Olu’s terminal governance of Nigeria’s commercial capital, the richest State in the Federation, and the fifth largest economy in Africa as of 2022 GDP figures, which Sanwo-Olu’s pledged to advance further by 2027.
Thus, the suit is a new one on Nigerians, as the proverbial bridge is way too far off – 36 months to Sanwo-Olu’s end of tenure – to attempt to cross before getting there! Snapets from EFCC’s moves against outgoing governors are telegraphed a few months or weeks before they bow out of office, so giving them the jitters. They either begin to express being squeaky clean, alleging political witch-hunt or daring the EFCC to carry out its threat to make them account for their stewardship.
Since democracy returned in Nigeria in 1999, a few ex-governors have escaped overseas and were forced to return to Nigeria to face prosecution; many have remained in the country to face the EFFC and years of legal ordeal; a couple of them, such as former Ekiti State Governors Ayo Fayose and Kayode Fayemi, have presented themselves to the commission for interrogation and/or prosecution.
Some former governors have engaged in a hide-and-seek, for instance, Yahaya Bello of Kogi State, who’d gone underground for months only to unexpectedly show up at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja in October 2024, and yet wasn’t booked, interrogated, or detained having been on the wanted list of the EFCC and the courts; two have been tried, jailed and served their sentences; one was tried and jailed but his sentence overturned on appeal and was released from prison; while one was tried overseas and served his sentence before returning to the country.
Lately, the EFCC threat to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute former governors has become mostly academic, and the norm rather than the exception. It appears some ex-governors now relish being dragged by the EFCC, at least, as a way to keeping themselves in the news after missing the years of free spotlighting. 
  But even as Sanwo-Olu’s reported  counsel, Darlington Ozurumba, sues the EFCC as sole defendant over the said threat to arrest, detain and prosecute the governor after his tenure, the EFCC has denied knowledge, contemplation or plans by the commission or any of its officers to harass, intimidate, arrest or prosecute Sanwo-Olu after May 29, 2027, 
As reported by The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), when the matter was called for mention on October 29, Ozurumba informed the court that he’d withdrawn the earlier originating summons, and that the EFCC had been duly served with the latest court documents, which the commission’s counsel, Hadiza Afegbua, said she’s yet to sight, even as the proof of service of the processes wasn’t in the court file, and Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter to November 26 for further mention.
In an originating summons, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/773/2024, dated and filed on June 6, Sanwo-Olu, reportedly raising seven questions and seeking 11 reliefs, prays for a declaration that, under and by virtue of the provisions of Section 37 of the amended 1999 Constitution, “the plaintiff, as a citizen of Nigeria, is entitled to right to private and family life as a minimum guarantee encapsulated under the Constitution, before, during and after occupation of public office created by the Constitution.”
Besides craving a declaration that, upon community reading of the provisions of Sections 35(1) & (4) and 41(1) of the Constitution, the threat of his investigation, arrest and detention by the EFCC during his tenure of office as governor is illegal, Sanwo-Olu allegedly prays the court to declare that the incessant harassment, threat of arrest and detention against him upon the EFCC’s instigation by his political adversaries based on false and politically-motivated allegation of corruption, is a misuse of executive powers and abuse of public office.
Hence, he purportedly seeks, among others, an order restraining the EFCC from harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining, or prosecuting him in connection with his tenure as the governor of Lagos State.
However, the EFCC, describing as speculative and a conjecture the alleged Sanwo-Olu’s claims and reliefs in his fundamental right enforcement suit, has denied it threatened, invited or took any step at all to encroach on the governor’s right to freedom of movement or violated his right to private and family life and personal liberty.
Countering the originating summons Ozurumba purportedly filed on behalf of Sanwo-Olu, the EFCC, in an affidavit filed on October 31 by its lawyer, Hadiza Afegbua, the deponent, Ufuoma Ezire, told Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the plaintiff’s depositions in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and even 8 are unfounded, untrue and unknown to the defendant, and calculated to mislead the court, and are hereby denied.
Noting that the EFCC isn’t investigating Sanwo-Olu, and has never invited him or threatened to arrest any member of his staff, domestic or otherwise, Ezire states that the EFCC invites members of the public for interview, interrogation or any engagement vide a written invitation, phone calls or text messages by any of its officers, who shall introduce themselves by name, rank, designation, and section to enable the invitee trace the officer easily.
Ezire says the EFCC is unaware of any threat to arrest Sanwo-Olu’s “aides, accusation of maladministration or diversion of Lagos State’s funds nor is it aware of any likelihood of a breach of the applicant’s right to liberty or right to own movable and immovable properties in this case.”
Stressing that there’s no petition or any intel gathered before the EFCC to warrant its officers to invite, or threaten to arrest the plaintiff at the moment, Ezire asserts that the entirety of the alleged Sanwo-Olu’s dispositions isn’t true, as the application is “misconceived and brought in bad faith to mislead this honourable court,” adding that, “it will be in the interest of justice to refuse the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.”
Similarly, Mr Pedro, the Lagos Attorney General, in a statement on October 29 rebutting “the news circulating in a section of the media, titled: ‘Sanwo-Olu sues EFCC over alleged plan to arrest, prosecute him after tenure,’” clarified as follows:
“Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu, at no time, sued or briefed any legal practitioner to file a suit on his behalf concerning the above subject matter. Moreover, it is implausible for the Governor, who enjoys immunity as conferred by the Constitution, and has almost three years remaining in office, to engage any lawyer on this matter.
“To the best of my knowledge, my inquiry confirmed that the EFCC is not investigating the governor and has never invited him or threatened the arrest of any member of his staff, domestic or otherwise. We are currently investigating how the case came to be without our knowledge.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu has demonstrated exemplary service delivery and prudent, judicious management of public resources. Therefore, Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu, who is tirelessly working to improve the living conditions of all Lagosians, has no cause for concern when he eventually leaves office at the end of his tenure in May 2027.
“We, therefore, urge media organisations to be cautious about the reports they publish on their esteemed platforms to avoid misleading the public.”
Needless to ask: Whodunit? Who sponsored it? Without a doubt, the so-called Sanwo-Olu’s suit, filed by an “unauthorised legal practitioner,” against the EFCC is the handiwork of his political adversaries trying to induce, instigate or coerce the anti-graft agency to embark on a fishing expedition it’s no reasonable grounds for, either from a petition(s) or intel that points to a likelihood of (mis)appropriation of funds and resources of Lagos by the governor or his aides.
That said, many will defend Governor Sanwo-Olu for perceptively seen as deploying the resources at his disposal to upgrade and develop existing and new infrastructural and human capital needs to match the Lagos motto of “The State Of Excellence” and its Mega City status that’s attracted unprecedented public and private investments.
These include the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA-) managed ground-breaking Blue and Red Rail Lines, the Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) system, the proposed Fourth Mainland Bridge, the Atlantic City project, the fully-automated Imota Rice Mill, and the Lekki Free Trade Zone that houses the multibillion dollar 650,000bpd-capacity Dangote Petroleum Refinery – the largest single-train refinery in the world at full capacity – which’s Nigeria’s window to self-sufficiency in production and supply of petroleum products.
Other areas in the Lagos socio-economic sphere: Education, ICT, innovation and technology, healthcare, commerce, agribusiness, small-scale industries, entertainment, showbusiness, tourism, and youth and sports development are receiving adequate attention, and have become a source of pride to Lagosians, and emulation by other States in Nigeria.
Lagos, a hub of international engagements all-year-round, has moved up the ladder as one of the most preferred destinations on the continent of Africa, and is up-scaling on the global leisure spots, thanks to Governor Sanwo-Olu and his vastly young, professional, dynamic and dedicated team, who’ve deployed their expertise in various fields to achieve a shared dream of Lagos leading or being among the best in all human endeavours.
Sanwo-Olu isn’t just a workaholic delivering on the promises of his administration, but he’s the epitome of the alias, “Mr Project,” in the true sense of the lingo in our clime. So, why should he be worried about the EFFC when he’s deploying the resources of Lagos to develop the state to an enviable standard! The “amiable” governor should free his mind and continue “to finish strong” with the good works he’s been doing, for which he’s received umblemished praises, accolades and awards within and outside Nigeria.

Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 National Update