QUESTIONS JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO AND THE CIVILIZED WORLD MUST ASK REGARDING THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST MAZI NNAMDI KANU BY MUHAMMADU BUHARI [INDEED A MUST READ]

kanu-vs-buhari
Public Enlightenment Series – #4 By IPOB
A: Questions related to the Plaintiff, who in this instance is the regime of Major-General Muhammadu Buhari’s DSS
Q1) Is it legally permissible for the Plaintiff (Buhari’s DSS) to use a name outside that prescribed by law setting it up?:

Section-1 of CAP N74 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
1.         Establishment of National Security Agencies
There shall, for the effective conduct of national security, be established the following National Security Agencies, that is to say-
(a)        the Defence Intelligence Agency;
(b)        the National Intelligence Agency; and
(c)        The State Security Service.
It is obvious, going by the above provisions, that there is no law setting up Department of State Security (DSS), which renders illegal every document containing the name. To this effect, all processes filed before Justice Binta Nyako by the said DSS is by statute null and void because the name does not exist in law.
 
Q2) By the law setting up the Plaintiff, does it have the power of prosecution?:
Section-2(3) of CAP N74 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
(3)        The State Security Service shall be charged with responsibility for-
(a)       The prevention and detection within Nigeria of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria;
(b)       The protection and preservation of all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria; and
(c)        Such other responsibilities affecting internal security within Nigeria as the National Assembly or the President, as the case may be, may deem necessary.
There is nothing in the law setting-up the State Security Services (SSS) that gave it the power of prosecution. By protocol, the SSS is supposed to hand all suspects over to the police for prosecution because the police have the constitutional mandate for the prosecution of civilians.
 
Q3) Is the Plaintiff not usurping the duties of the Police?:
Section-4 of CAP P19 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
4.         General duties of the police
The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other Act.
 
Section-23 of CAP P19 L.F.N. 2004 states as follows;
23.       Conduct of prosecutions
Subject to the provisions of sections 174 and 211 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (which relate to the power of the Attorney-General of the Federation and of a State to institute and undertake, take over and continue or discontinue criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria), any police officer may conduct in person all prosecutions before any court, whether or not the in- formation or complaint is laid in his name.
Again, it is evident from available court records that Buhari’s DSS has been conducting the prosecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu instead of the office of the Attorney General contrary to all known laws of Nigeria and common sense. At the initial stages of the trial, from the Magistrate’s Court to the High Court, it was a certain Mr. Idakwo, a paid employee of DSS, that appeared in court on behalf of the prosecution. The very corrupt Justice John Tsoho allowed this travesty of justice to be recorded in his court. It wasn’t until Nnamdi Kanu’s defence lawyers raised an objection in an open court did this Mr. Idakwo stop sitting as a prosecutor. 
 
 
B: Questions related to Charge #1
The charge reads as follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu and other unknown persons, now at large, at London, United Kingdom, between 2014 and September, 2015 with intention to levy war against Nigeria in order to force the President to change his measures of being the President of the Federation, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation as defined in Section 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by doing an act to wit: Broadcast on Radio Biafra your preparations for the states in the South- East geo-political zone, South-South geo-political zone, the Igala Community of Kogi State and the Idoma/Igede Community of Benue State to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria and form themselves into a Republic of Biafra, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.“
 
Q1) How can the Plaintiff be charging Nnamdi Kanu along with “unknown persons“?
Q2) By using the term “unknown persons now at large“, is it possible that these “unknown persons“ may include David Cameron, Muhammadu Buhari, Justice Binta Nyako, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Rotimi Amaechi, Rochas Okorocha, and even Mamman Daura?
Q3) By what means is Nnamdi Kanu with these “unknown persons“ levying war against Nigeria as stated in Section-41(c) of CAP C38 L.F.N. 2004?
Q4) How reliable is this charge when there was no specific day and month in 2014 when the commission of this act commenced and when exactly in September of 2015 did it end?
Q5) Is the Plaintiff confirming that by broadcasting through Radio Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu and these “unknown persons“ have levied war against Nigeria?
Q6) How many people are among these “unknown persons“?
Q7) Is the referenced South-East and South-South geo-political zones part of the Nigerian Constitution or recognized in any of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?
Q8) If the referenced geo-political zones are not legal and if they are unconstitutional, should the charge still be valid or thrown out because of lack of validity?
 
 It is laughable that a so-called intelligence agency will charge “unknown persons“ in a case as serious as a treasonable felony. By using the term “unknown persons,“ the DSS is providing itself with an open cheque to arrest, detain, and intimidate anybody because such a person cannot exclude himself or herself from the group of “unknown persons.“ Secondly, the accusation of the commission of a crime must have exactness in all the elements including dates of the commission of the crime. Without this exactness, the accusation is all mere propaganda and should be summarily dismissed to avoid wasting the time of the court as well as tax-payers‘ money in funding the court case. It is also important that the intelligence agency does not go outside the law by using terminology such as “South-East geo-political zone“ and “South-South geo-political zone“ which are not contained in the Constitution or any extant law of Nigeria.
 
 
C: Questions related to Charge #2
The charge reads as follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu and others, now at large, between 2012 and September, 2015 at South-East geo-political zone and the South-South geo-political zone of Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this honourable court manage an unlawful society with more than 10 members to wit: unregistered with the Corporate Affairs Commission or any other registration authority to wit. 
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) thereby committed an offence which is punishable under Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
Q1) Is the Plaintiff insinuating that by not registering with the CAC or any other registration authority, IPOB is now an unlawful society?
Q2) Is being unregistered part of the qualifying conditions for an organization to be deemed unlawful society?
Q3) Is there anywhere in Section-62(2) of CAP C38 L.F.N. 2004 which states that not being registered with CAC or other registration authority is a condition for an organization to be deemed unlawful society?
Q4) How did the Plaintiff know that IPOB has more than ten members?
Q5) How did Nnamdi Kanu manage IPOB?
Q6) Which specific condition under Section-62(2) that makes IPOB an unlawful society?
Q7) Who are these “others“ that are charged along with Nnamdi Kanu?
Q8) By using the term “others now at large“ and from “Southeast and South-South geo-political zone,“ is it possible that these “others“ may include Willie Obiano, Rotimi Amaechi, Rochas Okorocha, Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa, Nyesom Wike, Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, Joe Igbokwe, Orji Uzor Kalu, etc, etc?
Q9) Is the referenced South-East and South-South geo-political zones part of the Nigerian Constitution or recognized in any of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?
Q10) If the referenced geo-political zones are not legal and if they are unconstitutional, should the charge still be valid or thrown out because of lack of validity?
Q11) Is the Plaintiff stating that Nnamdi Kanu and these “others“ are managing the unlawful society (IPOB) within the South-East and South-South regions of Nigeria only (no other region was mentioned in the charge sheet)?
Q12) How reliable is this charge when there is no specific day and month in 2012 when the management of the unlawful society started and when exactly in September of 2015 is the Plaintiff referring to?
 
A thorough review of Section-62(2) of CAP C38 which defines an unlawful society did not show that being unregistered with the CAC or any registration body is a condition for an organization to be regarded as unlawful. But this charge stated clearly that because IPOB is unregistered with the CAC or any other registration boy, it is, therefore, an unlawful society. Therefore the premise upon which this charge is framed is unarguably false, and the charge should be thrown out without further debate.
 
 
D: Questions related to Charge #3
The charge reads as follows:
“That you, Nnamdi Kanu between the months of March and April, 2015 imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulusiuzor town in Ihiala local Government Area of Anambra State within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, a radio transmitter known as TRAM 5OL concealed in a container which you described as containing household items, which you so declared and that, you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 47(2) (a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act.”
Q1) What is the proof that the imported item was imported by Nnamdi Kanu?
Q2) Is the Plaintiff providing any evidence that the item was concealed in a container and that all documents related to this container belong to Nnamdi Kanu?
Q3) Is the Plaintiff providing evidence that the said item was imported within the time specified on the charge sheet?
Q4) And if this is not the case, should the charge be thrown out for lacking validity regarding correctness of dates?
 
What the discerning public want to know is at what time will the importer of items be free from the clutches of the corrupt government officials? How come this charge was brought almost a year after the item was cleared and approved by the same government officials? Is the referenced law operated retroactively?
If an item is cleared and approved, how then is it legal for the same government that did the clearing and approval to reverse itself after almost one year and claim that their clearance and approval contravenes the law? In this charge, there was no mention of the officials that cleared and approved the item. It is our understanding that government officials do inspect items to make sure that they tally with what the documents state before clearance and approval is given. So what happened in this case?
 
Analysis by:
Barrister Emma Nmezu        
Dr. Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya
Spokespersons for IPOB

Leave a Reply