BREAKING NEWS : NBA, SANs Demand Kanu’s Release; Say Buhari’s Action a National Embarrassment

PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari stirred the hornet nest during his first media chat when in his answer to one of the ques­tions posed to him on the continued deten­tion of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki and leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu in disregard to court or­ders, said his government could not afford to release them because the magnitude of the charges against them was too grievous. While Dasuki is facing multiple charges bordering on illegal possession of arms and corruption, alleged diversion of $2.1 billion meant for the procurement of arms, Mr. Kanu was charged for treasonable felony.


For instance, Dasuki is standing trial on a five-count charge of money laundering involving about N84.6m and illegal pos­session of firearms before Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja. He was granted bail by the court on self-recognizance.

The second case involving Dasuki is that in which he is being tried with an ex- Director of Finance and Administration in the office of the NSA, Shuaibu Salisu and former Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Aminu Baba-Kusa in a 19 count-charge bordering on criminal diversion of funds.

In this charge sheet, Dasuki, Salisu, Baba-Kusa and two companies – Acacia Holdings Limited and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited were charged with con­spiracy and criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code Act and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establish­ment) Act

The trial judge, Justice Baba-Yusuf ad­mitted each of them to bail in a ruling on December 18 at N250m with one surety and adjourned to January 21 for com­mencement of trial.

In the third case, Dasuki is being tried with former Minister of State for Finance, Bashir Yuguda, former Sokoto State gov­ernor, Attahiru Dalhatu Bafarawa, his son and firm – Sagir Attahiru and Dalhatu In­vestment Limited – and former Director of Finance and Administration in the office of the NSA, Shuaibu Salisu in a 22-count charge of alleged diversion of over 20bil­lion.

Justice Affen, on December 21 last year, granted bail to each of them at N250m with two sureties and fixed February 2 for com­mencement of trial.

In the case of Kanu, he was first arraigned before an Abuja Magistrate Court by the Federal Government before he was later charged before a Federal High Court on a six count criminal charge of treason, im­portation of illegal goods and possession of fire arms filed against him by the Depart­ment of State Services on the ground that he will not get fair trial.

This was after the case against him at the magistrate court was withdrawn.

On December 23, 2015, he was docked along with two others Benjamin Mad­ubugwu and David Nwawuisi but refused to take his plea on the grounds that he did not have confidence in the court.

Before the new charge was filed, Justice Adeniyi Ademola had ordered for his un­constitutional release from the custody of the Department of States Security Service (DSSS), but that order was not obeyed.

Of the cases, that of National Publicity Secretary, Olisa Metu seems more con­founding. According to reports the leader­ship of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) which has been detaining him said it is yet to articulate charges against him. Yet it is adamant that that the man must remain in its custody. Not surprisingly the issue has split the legal community.

Justifying the continued detention dur­ing the media chat, the President said, “If you see the atrocities these people com­mitted against this country, we can’t allow them to jump bail. What of the over two million people displaced, most of them or­phans whose fathers have been killed? We cannot allow that.”

On why Mr. Kanu was still being held, Mr Buhari said: “And the one you are call­ing Kanu, do you know he has two pass­ports – one Nigerian, one British – and he came into this country without any pass­port? Do you know he came into this coun­try with sophisticated equipment and was broadcasting for Radio Biafra?”

Ever since that media chat, mixed reac­tions have continued to trail the president’s statement with many Nigerians describing him as a tyrant and dictator, while others openly support his action.

Most lawyers and activists who spoke on the issue accused the president of over stepping his Executive powers by openly defying the judiciary on national television.
NBA insists Rule of law must be respected and Buhari must Obey the Court Orders

Speaking on the issue, President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Augus­tine Alegeh, SAN, said “government has a need to respect the rule of law. As a mat­ter of fact, there is need for government to be in the front burner in the respect for the rule of law. Whoever is unhappy, includ­ing government with a pronouncement of the court, has the opportunity of still going back to that court, for the court’s decision to be vacated or appeal to a higher court, but not to undertake to ignore it or carrying on as though nothing has happened or that the court’s order is not binding. That is an unacceptable principle in the rule of law”.

Alegeh maintained “an agenda for the respect of rule of law is a must for the gov­ernment. For specific cases in court, it’s not the business of the Nigerian Bar Associa­tion to make comments on them, because we have our members on both side and they can decide to speak on the matter, but on the general principle of rule of law, as an association, it is one area we are passionate about, which we feel is very essential.

So, both government and citizens must subscribe to the principles of rule of law and doing otherwise is not an option. You cannot pick and choose which court order to obey, if you try to do that, you are clearly undermining the principle of rule of law and the obvious consequence will not help the society in anyway.

We believe that from our interaction with the government of President Muhammadu Buhari, they do not have an option but to obey court orders. You must bear in mind that the courts are there to settle disputes between individuals as well as between government and individuals, so it is impor­tant that all parties respect the rule of law and judgments and decision of courts as that is one area we will not compromise”.

SANs fault Buhari

Some Senior lawyers who bare their minds on the issue equally disagreed with the President on the matter, saying the posi­tion he took was offensive to the tenets of constitutional democracy, rule of law and presumption of innocence of an accused person.

They advised the President to, in future, allow the Attorney General of the Federa­tion and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, to handle such topics on be­half of the government.

In his submission, Mahmud Magaji, SAN, stated, “going by provisions of our extant constitution, the presumption is that a person charged to court for whatever of­fence, is innocent until guilt is established. Unless I am told that the constitution was amended last night. That you level an ac­cusation on someone does not make the person guilty automatically. If it is so, why then are the courts there? What we are practicing is constitutional democracy. Anyway, I did not listen to the media chat and cannot therefore, speak much on the is­sue”.

Chief Joe Agi, SAN, said: “I really want to believe that the President did not mean what he said. I have a feeling that what he wanted to say was that though granted bail, if there are other cases against the accused persons, they could be re-arrested, notwithstanding the pend­ing case.

“It will be totally wrong to refuse to release some­one on bail in the absence of any pending allegation. Clearly, I am so sure that what the President meant to say was not what he said or what was understood. We should also appreciate the fact that he is not a lawyer.

“If I am to advise the President, I will say he should in future, leave such issues to the Attorney General of the Federation to clarify”.

Another SAN who did not want his name men­tioned because of his closeness to the present govern­ment, said: “I will say that the President’s statement is an infringement on the concept of separation of powers.

“No matter how strongly one feels about the culpa­bility of any accused person, once an order has been made, the Executive is bound to obey.

“Even if you have other crime allegation against an accused, you must first of all respect an order for bail, and maybe re-arrest the person later to answer to the fresh charge. However, for the President to say that the accused persons will not be released from deten­tion because of the gravity of charge against them is an affront on the hallowed principle of separation of powers.

“Such things were never supposed to be voiced out by any person under a democratic government, not to even say the President. It is unfortunate, though the Presidency has come out to clarify. As the President of Nigeria, one can hardly separate Buhari from the Presidency.

“Nevertheless, for them to come out to clarify the issue shows deference to public outcry”.

A constitutional lawyer, Mr. Festus Ogwuche, said: “The President got it wrong. No matter the number of allegations against an accused person, once the mat­ter has been charged before a competent court, that court assumes powers to determine whether or not the person deserves bail.

“Court orders are made to be obeyed, if not, it be­comes impunity. No matter the gravity of the offence, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Proper investigation ought to have been conducted and concluded before a person is charged. Re-arrest­ing someone immediately after the court has granted such person bail makes mockery of our democracy which is presumably anchored on the rule of law and separation of powers”, he added.

Describing the comment as a “national embar­assment”, human rights lawyer, Ebun Adegboruwa, said Mr. Buhari, a former head of a military junta, which ruled the country in the 1980s with an iron fist, proved by his open defiance of the judiciary that he remained a dictator at heart.

“We appreciate the President because he has spo­ken from his heart and gave us the correct impres­sion of who he is,” he said.

Ebun stressed “Under Section 287 of the 1999 constitution, all persons exercising judicial, execu­tive or legislative power must have respect for the order of the court. It is not proper for the president to choose which order to respect or to obey. Given that the president assumed office through the rule of law, it is totally uncharitable to be humiliating the judiciary openly in a presidential chat”.

He said the President’s comment was capable of undermining the judiciary and causing anarchy.

“The reason why this is very difficult is that once we resort to self-rule, once we resort to a situation where the leadership is breathing down lawlessness, then anarchy will come because if a president will not obey a court order, a business man will not obey it, policemen will not obey it.

“It would be promoting anarchy. I am sure in some quarters the SSS people are rejoicing. Overzealous security officials and rejoicing, and perhaps using the President’s comment as reason to put people in custody and breed impunity.”

While asking the President to apologise to Nigeria for making such a comment, Mr. Adegboruwa ad­vised judges not to be intimidated by Mr. Buhari’s comment and to carry on with their job without fear.

Similarly, Lanre Suraju, Chairman of the Civil So­ciety Network Against Corruption, (CSNAC), said the President’s comment was “unfortunate”, adding that his utterance was capable of undermining secu­rity agencies in their jobs.

“The utterance of the president only shows that there is a government agenda specifically and delib­erately skewed to perpetually keep the guy in deten­tion. And that is most unfortunate. That is also not only pitching the judiciary against the executive, it is also showing that there would be a measure of arbi­trariness on the part of the executive.

“The case of Nnamdi Kanu is also unfortunate. It is an extra-judicial action. Basically, if he is being charged for treason, there is also certain conditions that needs to be met before bail can be granted. If the lawyers of the government have failed to establish the magnitude of his offence, and the court in its own wisdom has grant­ed that bail, the SSS has no basis and no reason under the rule of law to perpetually keep him in detention,” he said.