NIGERIA SLIDING BACK TO DRACONINA COLONIAL RULE, SAYS FALANA
 |
| Protest in Nigeria. |
(Being
the paper presented by Femi Falana SAN at the annual public lecture of the
Public Interest Litigation Section of the Nigerian Bar Association held at Aba,
Abia State from November 7-9, 2019)
Introduction
Under
the British colonial regime in Nigeria, public meetings and rallies were
completely prohibited. The purpose of the ban was to prevent the Nigerian
people from rising up against the exploitation of the resources of the country
by the alien government. Thus, pursuant to the Public Order Ordinance and several
provisions of the Criminal Code any form of public meeting or public gathering
without official permission constituted a serious criminal offence. It was
under such obnoxious statutes that the Enugu miners’ protest and other workers
strikes and the revolt of Aba Market women’s revolt, the Egba women against
double taxation were violently attacked by the colonial police leading to the
cold murder of many unarmed protesters.
Even
though Nigeria became independent in 1960 the anti people’s laws and policies
of the alien regime were refurbished and retained by the indigenous ruling
class. Hence, successive regimes have engaged in the massive violations of
human rights including the right to protest against policies considered
inimical to the interests of the Nigerian people. Apart from authorising the
police and other security forces to brutalize peaceful protesters, the Buhari
administration has charged conveners and participants in public protests with
treasonable felony, terrorism and allied offences in the magistrate courts and
federal high court. Since the anti democratic cases are ongoing we may not be
able to comment on them.
In this
presentation, we shall argue, on the basis of a plethora of judicial
authorities, that the physical attacks unleashed on protesters by security
forces and the criminalisation of public protests constitute a crude
infringement of the fundamental rights of the Nigerian people to freedom of
expression and freedom of assembly including the right to participate in public
meetings, protests marches and peaceful rallies guaranteed by the Constitution
and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. While drawing the
attention of the the federal government to the law which requires the police to
provide protection during protests we shall call for the immediate amendment of
section 33 (2) © of the Constitution which permits the use of such force as is
reasonably necessary “for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or
mutiny”.
The
right of citizens to protest
The
fundamental right of citizens to freedom of expression and freedom of
association are guaranteed by Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter
on Human and Peoples Act (CAP A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. In
INEC v Balarabe Musa (2003) 10 WRN 1 the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental
right of the Nigerian people to freedom of association guaranteed by section 40
of the Constitution. According to Tobi JSC (of blessed memory) “ While the
section vests in the individual the right to associate, and assembly with other
political party, the proviso restricts the right, and the restriction is to the
effect that the provision will not derogate from the powers of INEC with
respect to political parties to which the Commission does not accord
recognition. In other words, section 40 applies only to political parties which
INEC accords recognition. In this respect, section 22 of the Constitution comes
into play as that section provides for conditions to be fulfilled or satisfied
before an association can function as a political party which INEC accords
recognition.”
It is
pertinent to note that the right of Nigerian workers to embark on industrial
action, picket or lock out is protected by the Trade Union Act. However, in
exercising the right trade unions are required to follow the procedure set out
by the Trade Dispute Act. In Adams Oshiomole V Federal Government of Nigeria
the Court of Appeal held that workers have no right under the Trade Union Act
to strike to protest against the N1. 50k per litre modulation policy of the
federal government on Petroleum Motor Spirit (PMS) and the Automobile Gas Oil
(AGO) or any other official policy not being within the purview of the Trade
Union Act Cap 437 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
However,
pursuant to section 1 of the Public Order Act, governors have been empowered to
direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings and processions on public roads
or places of public resort and prescribe the route by which and the times at
which any procession may pass. Under Section 2 of the Act any person who is
desirous of convening any assembly or meeting or forming any procession in any
public road or place of public resort, shall apply to the governor for a
licence not less than 48 hours thereto. If satisfied that the meeting will not
cause a breach of the peace the governor may authorize the issue of general a
licence by any superior police officer setting out the conditions under which
the assembly or procession may hold. Section 4 of the Act provides that the
governor may delegate his powers in relation to the whole state, to the
Commissioner of Police and in relation to a local government, to any superior
police officer acting as the district police officer. It is common knowledge
that governors have allowed the Inspector of police and state commissioners to
usurp the powers conferred on them by the Public Order Act to regulate pubic
gatherings in each state of the federation.
In
recent time, we had situations whereby the police suspended public meetings
without the knowledge or consent of governors while rallies attended by
governors have been disrupted by the Police and other security forces. In All
Nigeria Peoples Party v Inspector-General of Police the claimant held a
rally in Kano on September 22, 2003 to protest the alleged rigging of the 2003
general election. The rally which was attended by party leaders including
General Mohammadu Buhari and other leaders of the plaintiff was violently
disrupted by the police. To put an end to such crude violation of the freedom
of citizens to convene rallies without official harassment the ANPP and 10
other political parties instructed our law firm to challenge the disruption of
the Kano rally.
We
accepted the brief and filed a suit at the federal high court to challenge the
the constitutional validity of police permit as a precondition for exercising
the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly guaranteed by sections 39 and
40 of the Constitution and articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples Rights Act. In defending the action the defendant contended that by
failing to obtain police permit the conveners of the rally had violated the
provisions of the Public Order Act. The defence of the Police was rejected by
the trial judge, the Honourable Justice Chinyere who stated inter alia:
“The
gist of the provision in section 1 of the Act is that the Governor of each
State is empowered to direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings and
processions on public roads or places of public resort in the state and
prescribe the route by which and times at which the procession may pass.
Persons desirous of convening or collecting any assembly or meeting or of
forming a procession in any public resort must apply and obtain the license of
the Governor. The Governor can delegate his powers to the Commissioner of Police
of the State or to other police officers. Persons aggrieved by the decision of
the Commissioner of Police may appeal to the Governor and the decision of the
Governor shall be final and no further appeal shall lie therefrom.”
In
upholding the fundamental rights of Nigerians to freedom of expression and
assembly enshrined in sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution and Articles 10
and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act (Cap A9) Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the learned trial judge said:
“In my
view, the provision in section 40 of the Constitution is clear, direct and
unambiguous. It is formulated and designed to confer on every person the right
to assemble freely and associate with other persons. I am therefore persuaded
by the argument of Mr. Falana that by the combined effect of sections 39 and 40
of the 1999 Constitution as well as Article 11 of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights, the right to assemble freely cannot be violated without
violating the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and association. I agree
with Mr. Falana that violation can only be done by the procedure permitted by
law, under section 45 of the Constitution, in which case there must be a state
of emergency properly declared before theses rights can be violated.
I also
agree with Mr. Falana that the criminal law is there to take care if protesters
resort to violence in the course of demonstration and that once the rights are
exercised peacefully, they cannot be taken away. The Public Order Act so far as
it affects the right of citizens to assemble freely and associate with others,
the sum of which is the right to hold rallies or processions or demonstration
is an aberration to a democratic society. It is inconsistent with the provisions
of the 1999 Constitution. In particular, sections 1(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6), 2,
3 and 4 are inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions in the 1999
Constitution and to the extent of their inconsistency, they are void. I hereby
so declare.”
After
declaring the specific sections of the Public Order Act which require police
permit for public meetings and rallies illegal and unconstitutional the Federal
High Court proceeded to grant the following reliefs:
“1.A DECLARATION that the
requirement of police permit or other authority for the holding of rallies or processions in
Nigeria is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates section 40 of the 1999
Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,
1990.
2. A
DECLARATION that the provisions of the Public Order Act (Cap 382) Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which require police permit or any other authority
for the holding of rallies or processions in any part of Nigeria is illegal and
unconstitutional as they contravene section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and
Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
3. A
DECLARATION that the Defendant is not competent under the Public Order Act (Cap
382) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 or under any law whatever to issue
or grant permit for the holding of rallies or processions in any part of
Nigeria.
4. AN
ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant (the Inspector-General
of Police) whether by himself, his agents, privies and servants from further
preventing the Plaintiffs and other aggrieved citizens of Nigeria from
organizing or convening peaceful assemblies, meetings and rallies against
unpopular government measures and policies.”
Completely
dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court on the issuance of
police permit for public meetings the Inspector-General of Police appealed to
the Court of Appeal. Upon hearing the matter the Justices of the Court of
Appeal unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court. With
respect to the powers of governors to authorize the issuance of permit for
holding public meetings and rallies in each the state of the federation,
Olufunmilayo Adekeye JCA (as she then was) had this to say:
“On a
proper perusal of the provisions particularly section 1 subsection 1-6, and
sections 2-4 there is no where the name of the Inspector General is mentioned
in connection with the issuance of permit for the purpose of conducting
peaceful public assemblies.
Such
application is to be forwarded to the Governor within forty-eight hours of
holding such. The Governor may delegate his powers under the Act to the
Commissioner of Police of the State or any superior police officer of a rank
not below that of a Chief Superintendent of Police as applicable to this case
in hand.”
On the
fundamental right of Nigerian citizens to assemble freely and protest without
licence or permit issued by the police, Adekeye JCA proceeded to hold as
follows:
“The
power given to the Governor of a State to issue permit under Public Order Act
cannot be used to attain unconstitutional result of deprivation or right to
freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
The
right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern are
rights which are in the public interest and that which individuals must possess
and which they should exercise without impediment as long as no wrongful act is
done.
Public
Order Act should be promulgated to compliment sections 39 and 40 of the
Constitution in context and not to stifle or cripple it. A rally or placard
carrying demonstration has become a form of expression of views on current
issues affecting government and the governed in a sovereign state. It is a
tread recognized and deeply entrenched in the system of governance in civilized
countries – it will not only be primitive but also retrogressive if Nigeria
continues to require a pass to hold a rally. We must borrow a leaf from those
who have trekked the rugged path of democracy and are now reaping the dividend
of their experience.” (See Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples’
Party (2008) WRN 65).
On the
fear that a rally might lead to a breach of the peace, her ladyship said that
"our Criminal Code has made adequate provisions for sanctions against the
breakdown of law and order so that the requirement of permit as a
conditionality to holding meetings and rallies can no longer be justified in a
democratic society." The Justice was compelled to ask : "...how long
shall we continue with the present attitude of allowing our society to be
haunted by the memories of oppression and gagging meted out to us by our colonial
masters through the enforcement of issuance of permit to enforce our rights
under the Constitution?"
In
urging Nigeria to join other democratic societies in respecting the right of
citizens to protest peacefully against the policies and activities of the
government the learned Justice said:
"A
rally or placard carrying demonstration has become a form of expression of
views on current issues affecting government and the governed in a sovereign
state. It is a trend recognised and deeply entrenched in the system of
governance in civilized countries- it will not only be primitive but also
retrogressive if Nigeria continues to require a pass to hold a rally. We must
borrow a leaf from those who have trekked the rugged path of democracy and are
now reaping the dividend of their experience."
In his
brief contribution to the judgment of the Court of Appeal Muhammad JCA stated
that "In present day Nigeria, clearly police permit has outlived its
usefulness. Certainly, in a democracy, it is the right of citizens to conduct
peaceful processions, rallies or demonstrations without seeking and obtaining
permission from anybody. It is a right guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution and
any law that attempt to curtail such rights is null and void and of no consequence."
In consigning police permit to the dustbin of history where it rightly belonged
the Court of Appeal relied on the case of New Patriotic Party v.
Inspector-General of Police, Accra (1992-1995) GBR 58. In that case the Supreme
Court of Ghana had observed that, “Statutes requiring such permits for peaceful
demonstrations, processions and rallies are things of the past. Police permit
is the brain child of the colonial era and ought not to remain in our statute
books.”
It is
submitted that notwithstanding that the provisions of the Public Order Act
relating to the issuance of permit for holding public meetings and processions
have been struck down the Constitution has empowered governors to issued
directives to commissioners of police with respect to public order and security
in their respective states. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case
of Attorney-General of Anambra State v. Attorney-General of the Federation
(2005) 9 NWLR (PT 931) 572 at 616 where Uwais CJN (as he then was) held that
“The Constitution in section 215 subsection (1) clearly gives the Governor of
Anambra State the power to issue lawful directive to the Commissioner of
Police, Anambra State, in connection with securing public safety and order in
the State.“
Official
recognition of the right to protest
Based
on the judicial endorsement of the right of the Nigerian people to protest
without police permit the peaceful rallies convened by the Nigeria Labour
Congress and Trade Union Congress against incessant hike in the prices of
petroleum products in 2005 were not disrupted by the police. In acknowledging
the development the Court of Appeal had observed thus:
“Nigerian
society is ripe and ready to be liberated from our oppressive past. The
incident captured by the Guardian Newspaper edition of October 1st, 2005 where
the Federal Government had in the broadcast made by the immediate past
president of Nigeria General Olusegun Obasanjo publicly conceded the right of
Nigerians to hold public meetings or protest peacefully against the Government
or against the increase in the price of petroleum products. The honourable
President realized that democracy admits of dissent, protest, marches, rallies
demonstration. True democracy ensures that these are done responsibly and
peacefully without violence, destruction or even unduly disturbing any citizen
and with the guidance and control of law enforcement agencies. Peaceful rallies
are replacing strikes and violent demonstrations of the past.
If this
is the situation how long shall we continue with the present attitude of
allowing our society to be haunted by the memories of oppression and pagging
meted out to us by our colonial masters through the enforcement of issuance of
permit to enforce our rights under the Constitution.”
It is
interesting to note that the authorities of the Nigeria Police Force were
convinced that the decision of the Court of Appeal in IGP v ANPP (supra) could
not be faulted. Hence, instead of appealing against the judgment to the Supreme
Court the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr. M.D. Abubakar directed all
police officers to recognize the fundamental right of Nigerians to assemble
freely and protest without harassment. In particular, the Nigeria Police Code
of Conduct launched at Abuja on January 10, 2013 directed all police personnel
to “maintain a neutral position with regard to the merits of any labour
dispute, political protest, or other public demonstration while acting in an
official capacity; not make endorsement of political candidates, while on duty,
or in official uniform.”
In the
same vein, the Acting President Dr. Goodluck Jonathan ensured that the members
of the Save Nigeria Group when not harassed by the police when they held
rallies in Lagos and Abuja in 2010 to protest the seizure of power by a cabal
when the Late President Umaru Yaradua was indisposed in a hospital in Saudi
Arabia. It is also on record that the members of the APC led by General
Muhammadu Buhari held a rally in Abuja on November 18, 2014 to protest against
insecurity in the country.
Renewed
onslaught against public protests
In
total violation of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in IGP v ANPP (supra)
and the Police Code the police resorted to violence in disrupting the January
2012 protests against the removal of fuel subsidy organised by the labour
movement and civil society coalition. In fact, some demonstrators were shot
dead by trigger happy police officers in Lagos and Ilorin during the protests.
On the directive of President Jonathan the Nigerian Army aided the police in
the disruption of the protests. About a year later, the Federal Capital
Territory Police Command announced the suspension of all rallies in the Federal
Capital Territory in a desperate bid to stop the daily rally held in Abuja by
the Bring Back Our Girls (BBOG) members in Abuja to remind the State of its
responsibility to free the abducted Chibok girls.
However,
the suspension of rallies by the police was successfully challenged by the BBOG
at the Federal Capital Territory High Court through our law firm. In
upholding our submissions in the unreported case of Hadiza Bala Usman &Ors
v Commissioner of Police & Anor. (Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/1693/2014 of 30th
October 2014), the presiding judge, Aladetoyinbo J. held that "it is wrong
for the counsel to the Respondent (IGP) to insist that the Applicants must
obtain Police Permit before they can gather together for their peaceful
protests."
About a
year later, the Ekiti state chapter of the APC held a rally to kick against the
alleged planned rigging of the June 21, 2014 governorship election in the
state. The police disrupted the rally and arrested 11 people including the then
commissioner for local government, Honourable Niyi Afuye for taking part in the
protest. They were taken to Abuja where they were charged with terrorism at the
federal high court. But following the preliminary objection filed by us on
behalf of the defendants against the competence of the charge the case
was hurriedly discontinued and struck out while the defendants were discharged.
The
national assembly has reviewed the management of public protests in the country
in line with the terms of the judgment in IGP v ANPP (supra). In giving
statutory backing to the judicial recognition of the fundamental right of
Nigerians to convene and participate in rallies, protest marches and other
public meetings without harassment the federal legislators in both chambers of
the national assembly unanimously amended the Public Order Act and the Police
Act. Specifically, section 94 (4) of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2015 states
that “Notwithstanding any provision in the Police Act, the Public Order and any
regulation made thereunder or any other law to the contrary, the role of the
Nigeria Police Force in political rallies, processions and meetings shall be
limited to the provision of adequate security as provided in subsection 1 of
this section.”
Renewed
onslaught against public protests
Under
the current rickety political dispensation, the anti-democratic tendencies of
the neo-colonial State have been consistently challenged by the Nigerian
people. Incidentally, the All Progressive Congress (APC), as an opposition
political party was involved in the popular resistance against the encroachment
of the fundamental rights of citizens. But having successfully militarized and
manipulated the electoral process to keep itself in power the APC-led
administration is convinced that it has defeated the people. In recent time,
out of sheer arrogance of naked power, top officials of the regime have been celebrating
the emasculation of the opposition in the country.
Through
active involvement in the struggle to reclaim the country from the highly
corrupt forces of reaction in the past four decades, I can say, without any
fear of contradiction, that no autocratic regime has ever succeeded in cowing
the Nigerian people to submission. I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt,
that the current set of dictators will also be defeated by the Nigerian people
sooner than later. While I cannot vouch for the involvement of the elite and
professional bodies in waging the national democratic revolution I am happy to
disclose that a group of lawyers have resolved to defend all victims of
repression in the country pro bono publico. Convinced that a people united can
never be defeated such public interest litigators are also involved in
organising the Nigerian people in the herculean task of liberating the country
from the tiny grip of reactionary forces who are masquerading as converted
democrats.
Since
the Buhari regime has demonstrated its incompetence in addressing any of the
multifarious social and economic crises plaguing the country it has
decided to proscribe all alternative views. Civil rule under the Constitution
has given way to full blown dictatorship. Under the pretext of defending
national security orders of courts for the restoration of the civil liberties
of detained citizens have been treated with disdain. The Nigerian army has
directed all citizens to prove that they are not criminals by identifying themselves
with national identity cards, international passports, voters cards and driving
licences. Since majority of the Nigerian people have no any means of
identification our law firm has obtained an interim order for the suspension of
the illegal military operation.
In a
bid to prevent Nigerians from organising themselves against repressive rule the
Buhari regime has proscribed some organisations and banned all forms of public
protests. Because of the vital role of the press in exposing the incompetence,
corrupt practices and abuse of power the regime has charged some journalists
with terrorism and treasonable felony. For daring to admit one of the
journalists to bail the State Security Service has threatened to report a judge
to the National Judicial Council. Since then other judges trying the cases of
media personnel either refused bail or grant bail under suffocating conditions.
Even
when the suffocating bail conditions have been met the State Security Service
has refused to release the defendants from custody. By not releasing the
defendants the Buhari regime has dared the court to invoke its power of
contempt over the management of the State Security Service for operating above
the law of the realm. As far as the regime is concerned the trial judges erred
in law in granting any form of temporary reprieve for journalists who ought to
have been jailed, even without trial. It is hoped that judges will pluck up the
courage to commit indicted officials for contempt and suspend proceedings until
the government has purged itself of such brazen contempt of court.
For
agitating for the excision of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria the
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) was branded a terrorist organisation and
proscribed in 2017. The proscription has since then been invoked to justify the
brutal killing of members of the IPOB by the police and the army. For
organizing rallies to compel the federal government to comply with a court
order by releasing the Shia leader, Sheikh Ibraheem Elzakzaky and his wife from
the custody of the State Security Service the Islamic Movement of Nigeria
(IMN) was branded a terrorist body and proscribed in 2019. The police and the
army have also relied on the proscription of the IMN to kill scores of its
members.
In December
2015, the Nigerian Army killed 347 shiites during a religious gathering in
Zaria, Kaduna state. Hundreds of members of shiites were arraigned in court for
conspiracy and culpable homicide. But both the high court and the Magistrate
court in Kaduna state have discharged and acquitted not less than 300 members
of the IMN. Furthermore, in YUSUF MAGAJI ABDULLAHI & 4 ORS. V COP,
KANO SUIT NO: K/M582/2018 the Kabo State high court (per Hon. Justice Nasiru
Saminu) held that "The Applicants are entitled to peacefully practice
their religion either alone or in community with others in public or in
private." The court also granted an injunction
"restraining the Respondent either by himself or any other person or
persons acting under his instruction from any further harassment,
molestation and violating, attacking or arresting the Applicants during their
peaceful religious activities."
For
daring to convene protests against misrule by the Buhari administration Mr.
Omoyele Sowore was accused of engaging in terrorist activities. At the instance
of the State Security Service the federal high court ordered the detention of
his detention for 45 days under the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011 and the
Terrorism Amendment Act 2013. Even though no evidence of terrorism was
established against him the order of the federal high court for his bail was
treated with contempt by the State Security Service. As if that was not enough
the SSS had the temerity to threaten to report Justice Taiwo Taiwo for
admitting Mr, Sowore to bail.
Instead
of calling the SSS to order the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr.
Abubakar Malami has since charged Mr. Sowore and Mr. Bakare with treasonable
felony, insulting the President Buhari and money laundering. Other activists
who took part in the protests in Calabar, Cross River State, Osogbo, Osun
State, Abeokuta, Ogun State and Yaba, Lagos State have been charged with
unlawful assembly. The trial judge, Ifeoma Ojukwu J. admitted the defendants to
bail under stringent and suffocating conditions. A journalist, Mr. Agba Jalingo
has been charged with terrorism for accusing Governor Ben Ayade of Cross River
state of engaging in corrupt practices. In the body of the charge Mr Jalingo
has been described as “an associate of Mr. Omoyele Sowore”.
It is
interesting to note that a number of Nigerians including lawyers have condemned
Mr Sowore for calling for revolution in the country. The fact that General
Buhari called for the revolutionary transformation of Nigeria under the PDP is
of no moment. In fact, in a recent BBC interview, the Attorney-General, Mr.
Abubakar Malami SAN challenged Mr. Sowore for organising protests after he had
been defeated by President Buhari in the last presidential election. Mr. Malami
SAN might have forgotten that General Buhari held rallies in 2003 and 2007
after his defeat in presidential elections. But Mr. Malami SAN could not have
forgotten the fact that the December 1983 coup de tat which terminated the
second republic was led by General Buahri who was never charged with treason
upon the restoration of democratic rule.
The
statement credited to Mr. Malami SAN is a sad reminder of the jittery reaction
of the British Colonial invaders to series of lectures organised by the Zikists
Movement in 1948 which Comrade Edwin Madunagu has described as a major
intervention at a time that bourgeois politicians were dividing the country
along ethnic lines. For demanding revolution via public lectures the Zikists
were charged with sedition, tried, convicted and jailed. In proving the charge,
Osita Agwuna was alleged to have said that he was no longer bound by colonial
laws and that he had asked Nigerians to stop paying taxes to the British
colonial regime.
Comrade
Agwuna who delivered the first lecture in Lagos, Tony Enahoro who was the
chaired the lecture and Habib Abdallah who delivered the second lecture
together with Oged Macaulay were convicted and sentenced to prison terms
ranging from 6 months to 3 years. In Director of Public Prosecutions v Dr.
Chike Obi (1961) 1 NLR 186, the respondent was charged with sedition, tried and
convicted for distributing a pamphlet in which he had said, "Down with the
enemies of the people, the exploiters of the weak and oppressors of the
poor" directed at the federal government. However, in in the case of
Arthur Nwankwo v The State (1985) N.C.L.R. 228 the provisions of the Criminal
Code which provided for sedition and seditious publications were declared
illegal and unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal on the ground that they
constituted a violation of the fundamental right of Nigerian to freedom of
expression.
Like
the colonial regime the Ibrahim Bbangida junta charged civilians with
treasonable felony for organising public protests. For insatnce, in May 1992, I
was one of the five civilians charged with treasonable felony by the Ibrahim
Babangida junta for organizing protests demanding an end to military rule in
the country. The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN and I who represented ourselves
and the other defendants argued that street protests against military dictators
were not captured under section 41 of the Criminal Code. We also argued that it
was ironical that General Babangida and his fellow coup plotters who should be
standing trial for treason had turned round to charge us with a treasonable
felony for merely organising street protests and rallies to end a corrupt
military dictatorship in our country.
Embarrassed
by our submissions the Babangida junta abandoned the case and abandoned it. In
the circumstances, the charge was struck out for want of diligent prosecution
while we were discharged by the trial Chief Magistrate. However, the Sani
Abacha junta resorted to phantom coup to deal ruthlessly with its perceived
enemies. Some journalists and human rights activists were also implicated and
convicted for being accessories after the fact of treason in questionable
secret trials. But with the restoration of democratic rule in May 1999 the
Treason Offences Decree, No 29 of 1993 was repealed.
Conclusion
If this
trend of accusing every person of engaging in terrorist activities or
treasonable felony for criticising the Buhari administration continues the
Nigeria Police Force and the State Security Service will soon turn Nigeria into
a country of terrorists. To stop the dangerous trend it is high time the
federal government restrained the security agencies from further exposing
Nigeria to ridicule in the comity of civilized nations. Therefore, all criminal
cases pending against demonstrators and critics of the President Buhari and state
governors should be discontinued forthwith.
Having
regards to the authoritative pronouncement of the Court of Appeal on the
fundamental right of Nigerians to freedom of assembly and expression through
peaceful rallies and protests the Federal Government is legally obligated to
restrain the police and other security agencies from further harassing
protesters in the country. To avoid the reckless killing of protesters by the
police and other security agencies the federal government should equip the police
with non lethal weapons and water cannon for crowd control in the country.
Section 33 of the Constitution which permits the police to breach the
fundamental right of citizens to life during a riot should be expunged without
any delay.
Permit
me to conclude this paper by reminding our judges and lawyers that even under
the most brutal military dictatorship in Nigeria when the jurisdiction of the
courts was ousted for anything done or purported to have been done pursuant to
obnoxious decrees our judges did not hesitate to strike down detention orders
and dismissal letters that could not be justified in law. In the celebrated
case of the Military Governor of Lagos State v Chief Emeka Ojukwu (1986) 2 NWLR
(Pt 18) 621 the Supreme Court ordered the appellant to restore the respondent
to the disputed house since he was forcefully ejected therefrom when the case
was pending in court. Until the order of the apex court was fully complied with
the matter did not proceed.
Thank you for reading. Got comments? Kindly post them with your name on the Comment box below.
Post a Comment