IPOB PRESS STATEMENT
Date: 04/04/2017
With Justice Binta Nyako's determination on the mode of
trial for the leader of IPOB Mazi Nnamdi Kanu coming up on the 6th of April
2017 at the Federal High Court 4 in Abuja, we the members of IPOB would like to
place the judicial establishment of Nigeria on notice that the integrity of its
entire legal machinery hinges on the outcome of this ruling.
It is therefore prudent to remind Justice Nyako and the
entire Nigerian public and the world at large that there are existing legal
interpretations of the provisions of the constitution of Nigeria regarding the
mode of criminal trials in civil courts which cannot be departed from and we
quote:
“The provision dealing with fair hearing under section 36 of
the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria is for the protection of all the parties to a
case the plaintiffs and the defendants alike. It will be oppressive to
interpret the provision as conferring a protection on just one of the parties
to a case.”
Per Oguntade, J.S.C. in Banna v. Telepower Nigeria Ltd.
(2006) 7 SCNJ 182 2283
It is no longer news that on the 13th day of December, 2016,
the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Division, presided over by the
Honourable Justice Binta Nyako, delivered a ruling in an application brought by
the Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to section 232 of the Administration
of Criminal Justice Act and section 34 of Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment)
Act, 2013.
The Prosecutor’s application, in the main, sought for the
“protection” of the prosecutor’s witnesses who are said to be security
operatives. The security operatives (witnesses) are seeking this protection to
enable them testify in secret against no less a person than the Worldwide
Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his
co-defendants who were at the time facing various criminal charges verging
essentially on treasonable felony, conspiracy to commit treasonable felony and
only one person, the second defendant, answering to a minor terrorism charge.
It is sufficient to quickly state that at no time during the course of this
trial has Mazi Nnamdi Kanu ever been charged with terrorism. Needless to say that the prosecutor’s application was quickly
and unconstitutionally granted by
Justice Nyako.
WE ASK, WAS JUSTICE NYAKO RIGHT?
There has never been any contention or dispute as to the
sanctity of the imperishable right of an accused person to be tried in an open
court with the public in attendance under Nigeria’s criminal jurisprudence.
This uncontested right of a defendant in a criminal trial is indeed inviolate
and immutable and admits of no derogation.
There is no arguing the point that the amended 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the fountain and foundation
of Nigeria’s criminal justice administration. By its section 36, public /open
trial of persons accused of criminal charges is irrefragably ordained. Indeed,
it is the bedrock of the criminal justice system in Nigeria that all persons
are equal before the law and are therefore peremptorily entitled to the equal
protection of the law. The practice of Justice Binta Nyako eagerly seeking to
defend the stance of the prosecution especially regarding the masking of
witnesses, runs contrary to spirit and letter of the law.
True indeed, the Terrorism (prevention) (amendment) Act,
2013, by its section 34, provides for the protection of the witnesses in trials
of terrorism-related offences. Equally true is the fact that the second
defendant only had terrorism count in his charge sheet not Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and
the other two accused persons. This provided the springboard for the
prosecution to successfully apply for the Court to protect its witnesses. No
doubt, the ruling of Justice Binta Nyako granting the prosecutor’s application
was equally impelled by the terrorism charge preferred against Chidiebere
Onwudiwe and not the IPOB Leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and two other co-defendants.
It is instructive to note that Mazi
Nnamdi Kanu, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi never had any element of
terrorism in their charge sheets. The question becomes, why would Justice Binta
Nyako seek to impose a mode of trial reserved for terrorism cases on Mazi
Nnamdi Kanu who is NOT answering to any terrorism charge?
Interestingly, it is most sufficient to note that the IPOB
Leader, through his lead Counsel, robustly challenged the validity of the
charges preferred by the prosecutor against the Defendants. It is noteworthy
that on the 1st day of March, 2017, Hon. Justice Nyako saw reasons in the
forceful contention of the IPOB Leader and consequently quashed six out of the
eleven count charges against the IPOB Leader and others, affirming that there
is no prima facie evidence to sustain the spurious charges against the
defendants. Chief among the charges quashed by the court is that same terrorism
charge against the 2nd defendant Chidiebere Onwudiwe. Based on the prevailing
circumstances, the prosecutor amended the charge to reflect the severance of
the spurious counts rightly quashed by the court. Consequently, the defendants
were re-arraigned on the amended charge.
It therefore stands to reason that the same court which
ruled in favour of protecting the prosecutor’s witnesses based on the terrorism
charge brought against Chidiebere Onwudiwe only, would now make haste to vacate
the said ruling since the terrorism charge which impelled the prosecutor to
table the application before the court is now no more. Not vacating that earlier
ruling would definitely give the court away as a Kangaroo tribunal reminiscent
of the darkest days of military dictatorships.
We hasten to reiterate that the constitutional right of an
accused person to be tried in public is unquestionably unassailable and must
never, under any circumstances, be abridged or asphyxiated by Justice Binta
Nyako's court. We make bold to say that secret trial in whatever form or guise,
under the Nigerian criminal jurisprudence, has no constitutional foundation. It
is an anathema in every democracy worth its name. What Justice Nyako is
attempting to do is to cloth justice in darkness thereby turning her court into
a Kangaroo court. The Nigerian Supreme Court has severally warned against this
bizarre method.
Justice Nyako should be advised by the Chief Judge of the
Federal High Court to heed this:
“The moment a court ceases to do justice in accordance with
the law and procedure laid down for it, it ceases to be a regular court to
become a kangaroo court.
The reason for all this is that in the end where procedure
is ignored justice is usually at a loss; judiciary, in its image, is worsted in
the encounter; and the general public for whom the entire drama was meant to
serve ends up with a low opinion of the Judiciary. Experience and the test of
time have shown that justice has never profited from eccentric or bizarre
methods and that painstaking procedural mode have always satisfied the more,
the yearning desires of a just society.”
See: BAKARE v. APENA & ORS (1986) NWLR (PT.33) 1
In fact, the Supreme Court was more emphatic when it handed
down this warning which we hereby commend to Justice Nyako:
"A Judge will not adopt a method of adjudication, alien
to procedural rules of justice upon a plea that he is actuated by the noblest
and an impassioned zeal for justice, which propels him into bizarre methods of
arriving at that justice, holding as it were, as a justifying Machiavellian
principle, that the end justifies the means."
See equally: Alhaji Raimi Edun v. Odan Community (1980) 8-11
S.C. 103
Justice Nyako must draw very hard lessons from history to
avoid the pitfalls of the past especially that of prejudice and sentiments in
the handling of this extremely sensitive matter before her which has all the
potency of making or marring her judicial career.
In signing off this press release, we deem it exigent to
graciously put at the disposal of Justice Nyako the immortal and timely dictum
of OGUNTADE, J.S.C. in INAKOJU V. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (pt. 1025) 423 where
the erudite justice of the Supreme Court lucidly stated that;
“A Court…must not convey the impression that its judgment is
being directed by a desire to heed private or public sentiments. In Onyiah v.
Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.99) 514 at 532, this Court per Obaseki J.S.C. said that
sentiments have no place in the adjudication system. It is in my view that the
most unrewarding assignment a Judge could undertake if it tried to give
judgment as would please a section of the public. It is like a house built on
sand which soon disappears with the approach of the rain. It is argued that
even if a judgment is wrong, it is acceptable for as long as it is to public
good. That clearly is a fallacy. Public good lies in giving a judgment in
accordance with the Constitution of Nigeria and other relevant laws. Public
good is an ever- changing phenomenon.”
As 6th April, 2017 draws near for Justice Nyako to rule on
the application brought by the IPOB Leader for the court to vacate its earlier
ruling on the protection of witnesses, it is hoped that Justice Binta Nyako
would not “convey the impression that her ruling is being directed by a desire
to heed private or public sentiments”. That, surely, will not promote public
good. On the contrary, rather, it would promote anarchy. Public good lies in
giving a judgment in accordance with the Constitution of Nigeria which Justice
Nyako is under judicial oath to promote and defend without fear or favour,
affection or ill will.
Signed:
Dr. Ikenna Chinaka
Mrs Grace Ukpai
IPOB SPOKESPERSONS
Post A Comment:
0 comments: