news

Judiciary

Followers

Showing posts with label Judiciary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judiciary. Show all posts

JUSTICE SET BACK ON ITS HEELS: WHY JUDGES WILL SURVIVE ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE THEM

JUSTICE SET BACK ON ITS HEELS: WHY JUDGES WILL SURVIVE ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE THEM

By Ajiroba Yemi Kotun 


“My courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me.” – Jane Austin


INTIMIDATION is an animal thing. Ethical people do not intimidate. Unlike English novelist Jane Austin (1775-1817), the author of “Pride and Prejudice”, 279 pages, a brilliant novel published anonymously in 1813, which Austin herself called “my own darling child”, and who is celebrated mainly for her six novels that tacitly interpret, review, and comment upon the British propertied aristocracy at the close of the 18th century, Nigeria’s stubborn losers in the February 25, 2023 presidential election that are now angrily, ignorantly, and cowardly trying to knock the stuffing out of the judiciary, take its breath away, make the judges’ hair stand on end, or scare the daylights out of them with their so-called “All eyes on the judiciary” covert threat, do not know that there is a stubbornness about the institution that “never can bear to be frightened at the will of others” <Refers to the 2014 paperback, “All Eyes On Me”, 234 pages, Barnes & Noble, by bestselling author Linsey Lanier>. 



Probably, the judges, too, who before now know that intimidators use fear and bullying as their foremost big sticks, are keen as mustard on their own to reply these ignorant and angry ‘tricksters’ inaudibly that: “Bring it on! We are falling for your hurricane eyes, but you do not know us yet because our real eyes will expose your real lies one by one in the Court's own good time <Refers to 1 Peter 3:14 - "...do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled">. Really, as you make your bed, so you must lie on it. Suitably, Hilary Clinton, 75, the 67th U.S. Secretary of State (2009-2013) and author of “State of Terror” (2022), 512 pages, Simon & Schuster, a novel of unrivaled kicks and unmatched insider knowledge, wrote “Extremism thrives amid ignorance and anger, intimidation and cowardice” <Refers to the 2016 Nollywood movie, "Intimidation", starring Mike Ezuruonye, Ini Edo, Koffi Adjorlolo, Tonto Dikeh, and Pat Asore>. Barking dogs seldom bite just as bullies are cowards. 


And since democracy will not compromise any of its salient elements, these coercing ‘democrats’ should learn a thing or two from Mo Ibrahim, 77, a Sudanese-British billionaire businessman and the founder of “Celtel”, who said frankly that “Intimidation, harassment, and violence have no place in a democracy.” They should also read less of such refined “intimidation” defenders as British-American media executive Anna Wintour, 73, Vogue’s Editor-in-Chief since 1988 and the author of the 2021 book, “Wonderland”, 439 pages, Amazon, who tried to justify her “interest in getting things done” by saying “I think I’m decisive, and I like to get things done quickly. So if that comes across as intimidation, I’m sorry to hear it.” However, a worried blunt, hard-boiled, and galvanic Sandra Day O’Connor, 93, Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeal (1979-1981), the first female associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1981-2006), and the author of the 2004 hardcover, “The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice”, 352 pages, hit the bull’s eye when she wrote thus “The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy. The problem comes when healthy criticism is replaced with more destructive intimidation and sanctions.” 


Democratic or autocratic, all governments dislike those who ride roughshod over others. This is akin to how Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013), the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-1990) who was pleased when a Russian newspaper nicknamed her “the Iron Lady” as many had doubted whether a woman would be strong enough to lead any big European or American country in this modern age, disliked British left-wing zealots whom she accused of having “often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it.”Just like these ones, the defeated former contenders of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, 71, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, too, think the ends always seem to justify the means and that intimidating the judiciary, keeping it at bay, or just riding roughshod over it with their indirect blackmails, subtle threats, or furtive pressure can yield them their hearts’ desires, turn the tables on the declared winner of the election, and deny him the sweat of his brow. 


That to control the judges, they just have to instill fear in them or make them feel afraid. But, instead of making such enemies for themselves and looking like the bad guys or not really good at being the bad guys (like American professional wrestler Ric Flair, 74), since the hustings towards the last general elections began and ended and up till now, they should be thinking of winning more friends and attracting and swaying people to their goals, whatever those are. In the 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, 288 pages, American writer and lecturer Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), whose enduring principles are helping many people to achieve their maximum potential in the difficult and competitive modern age, wrote “We ride roughshod over the feelings of others, getting our own way, finding fault, issuing threats, criticizing… without even considering the hurt to the other person’s pride.” Carnegie’s above book teaches “the six ways to make people like you, the twelve ways to win people to your way of thinking, and the nine ways to change people without arousing resentment.”


Many people thank their lucky stars that they see everything in front of their eyes. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. Therefore, Nigerians are silently thanking their lucky stars for not having these kinds as their elected leaders who will rule by intimidation, possibly, because they have nothing else to bring to the table or contribute freshly. 


American attorney Michelle Obama, 59, who served as the first African-American First Lady of the United States (2009-2017) and the author of the 2009 hardcover, “Believe in the Possibility: The Words of Michelle Obama”, 128 pages, Goodreads, wrote aptly, confirming the foregoing thus “Leaders who demonize and dehumanize entire groups of people often do so because they have nothing else to offer.” We have on our hands disappointed people, who want to steal the presidency of ‘their country’ by using “lies, arrogance, and intimidation”, variegated with so much hate and rage. As Dr. Leslyn Lewis, 52 a Canadian lawyer and politician who has served as the member of Parliament for Haldimand – Norfolk since 2021, would easily recommend, after letting the dust of all this braggadocio settle, maybe part of what Nigeria will be needing going forward is a sweeping and truthful talk around the culture of rudeness, disrespect, disrepute, and intimidation that we have permitted to aggravate concerning the judiciary, our senior citizens, and other Nigerians at risk of holding poles apart views. Definitely, intimidation is one tool that decent people do not take in hand as a means to attain victory or success in any endeavor. 


We must tell ourselves the plain truth that a political culture of intimidation, bullying, pressure, coercion, fear, threats, or blackmails is no way to build a nation and no way a nation is governed. “Frightening other Nigerians” or intimidating and insulting them will not get any political party, group, tribe, or religion anywhere. According to Evangelist  Ugochukwu-Uko of the Igbo Youths Movement (IYM), "Nobody ever acquired political power by reining insults on those with opposing political views." Intimidation against people who hold different views from our own views has no justification whatsoever. It is headstrong and totally indefensible.


Nightcaps: 


1. Canadian politician Stockwell Day, 73, the Leader of Opposition (2000-2001) and Minister of Public Safety (2006-2008), also agreed that “Judges must be free from political intervention or intimidation.”


2. It is easy to be wise after the event. People who devise wild skills to embarrass their fellow humans inevitably blunder their own feelings <Denotes to the failed plot to humiliate the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwo-ola, 69, in March 2003 over the grossly fake, misleading and malicious story that he  disguised to meet then President-elect Bola Tinubu in London>.


3. Intimidation is a tradition. It first gets its own natural life before growing into a disorder.


4. Will history repeat itself again, why not?

By Ajiroba Yemi Kotun 


“My courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me.” – Jane Austin


INTIMIDATION is an animal thing. Ethical people do not intimidate. Unlike English novelist Jane Austin (1775-1817), the author of “Pride and Prejudice”, 279 pages, a brilliant novel published anonymously in 1813, which Austin herself called “my own darling child”, and who is celebrated mainly for her six novels that tacitly interpret, review, and comment upon the British propertied aristocracy at the close of the 18th century, Nigeria’s stubborn losers in the February 25, 2023 presidential election that are now angrily, ignorantly, and cowardly trying to knock the stuffing out of the judiciary, take its breath away, make the judges’ hair stand on end, or scare the daylights out of them with their so-called “All eyes on the judiciary” covert threat, do not know that there is a stubbornness about the institution that “never can bear to be frightened at the will of others” <Refers to the 2014 paperback, “All Eyes On Me”, 234 pages, Barnes & Noble, by bestselling author Linsey Lanier>. 



Probably, the judges, too, who before now know that intimidators use fear and bullying as their foremost big sticks, are keen as mustard on their own to reply these ignorant and angry ‘tricksters’ inaudibly that: “Bring it on! We are falling for your hurricane eyes, but you do not know us yet because our real eyes will expose your real lies one by one in the Court's own good time <Refers to 1 Peter 3:14 - "...do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled">. Really, as you make your bed, so you must lie on it. Suitably, Hilary Clinton, 75, the 67th U.S. Secretary of State (2009-2013) and author of “State of Terror” (2022), 512 pages, Simon & Schuster, a novel of unrivaled kicks and unmatched insider knowledge, wrote “Extremism thrives amid ignorance and anger, intimidation and cowardice” <Refers to the 2016 Nollywood movie, "Intimidation", starring Mike Ezuruonye, Ini Edo, Koffi Adjorlolo, Tonto Dikeh, and Pat Asore>. Barking dogs seldom bite just as bullies are cowards. 


And since democracy will not compromise any of its salient elements, these coercing ‘democrats’ should learn a thing or two from Mo Ibrahim, 77, a Sudanese-British billionaire businessman and the founder of “Celtel”, who said frankly that “Intimidation, harassment, and violence have no place in a democracy.” They should also read less of such refined “intimidation” defenders as British-American media executive Anna Wintour, 73, Vogue’s Editor-in-Chief since 1988 and the author of the 2021 book, “Wonderland”, 439 pages, Amazon, who tried to justify her “interest in getting things done” by saying “I think I’m decisive, and I like to get things done quickly. So if that comes across as intimidation, I’m sorry to hear it.” However, a worried blunt, hard-boiled, and galvanic Sandra Day O’Connor, 93, Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeal (1979-1981), the first female associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1981-2006), and the author of the 2004 hardcover, “The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice”, 352 pages, hit the bull’s eye when she wrote thus “The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy. The problem comes when healthy criticism is replaced with more destructive intimidation and sanctions.” 


Democratic or autocratic, all governments dislike those who ride roughshod over others. This is akin to how Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013), the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-1990) who was pleased when a Russian newspaper nicknamed her “the Iron Lady” as many had doubted whether a woman would be strong enough to lead any big European or American country in this modern age, disliked British left-wing zealots whom she accused of having “often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it.”Just like these ones, the defeated former contenders of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, 71, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, too, think the ends always seem to justify the means and that intimidating the judiciary, keeping it at bay, or just riding roughshod over it with their indirect blackmails, subtle threats, or furtive pressure can yield them their hearts’ desires, turn the tables on the declared winner of the election, and deny him the sweat of his brow. 


That to control the judges, they just have to instill fear in them or make them feel afraid. But, instead of making such enemies for themselves and looking like the bad guys or not really good at being the bad guys (like American professional wrestler Ric Flair, 74), since the hustings towards the last general elections began and ended and up till now, they should be thinking of winning more friends and attracting and swaying people to their goals, whatever those are. In the 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, 288 pages, American writer and lecturer Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), whose enduring principles are helping many people to achieve their maximum potential in the difficult and competitive modern age, wrote “We ride roughshod over the feelings of others, getting our own way, finding fault, issuing threats, criticizing… without even considering the hurt to the other person’s pride.” Carnegie’s above book teaches “the six ways to make people like you, the twelve ways to win people to your way of thinking, and the nine ways to change people without arousing resentment.”


Many people thank their lucky stars that they see everything in front of their eyes. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. Therefore, Nigerians are silently thanking their lucky stars for not having these kinds as their elected leaders who will rule by intimidation, possibly, because they have nothing else to bring to the table or contribute freshly. 


American attorney Michelle Obama, 59, who served as the first African-American First Lady of the United States (2009-2017) and the author of the 2009 hardcover, “Believe in the Possibility: The Words of Michelle Obama”, 128 pages, Goodreads, wrote aptly, confirming the foregoing thus “Leaders who demonize and dehumanize entire groups of people often do so because they have nothing else to offer.” We have on our hands disappointed people, who want to steal the presidency of ‘their country’ by using “lies, arrogance, and intimidation”, variegated with so much hate and rage. As Dr. Leslyn Lewis, 52 a Canadian lawyer and politician who has served as the member of Parliament for Haldimand – Norfolk since 2021, would easily recommend, after letting the dust of all this braggadocio settle, maybe part of what Nigeria will be needing going forward is a sweeping and truthful talk around the culture of rudeness, disrespect, disrepute, and intimidation that we have permitted to aggravate concerning the judiciary, our senior citizens, and other Nigerians at risk of holding poles apart views. Definitely, intimidation is one tool that decent people do not take in hand as a means to attain victory or success in any endeavor. 


We must tell ourselves the plain truth that a political culture of intimidation, bullying, pressure, coercion, fear, threats, or blackmails is no way to build a nation and no way a nation is governed. “Frightening other Nigerians” or intimidating and insulting them will not get any political party, group, tribe, or religion anywhere. According to Evangelist  Ugochukwu-Uko of the Igbo Youths Movement (IYM), "Nobody ever acquired political power by reining insults on those with opposing political views." Intimidation against people who hold different views from our own views has no justification whatsoever. It is headstrong and totally indefensible.


Nightcaps: 


1. Canadian politician Stockwell Day, 73, the Leader of Opposition (2000-2001) and Minister of Public Safety (2006-2008), also agreed that “Judges must be free from political intervention or intimidation.”


2. It is easy to be wise after the event. People who devise wild skills to embarrass their fellow humans inevitably blunder their own feelings <Denotes to the failed plot to humiliate the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwo-ola, 69, in March 2003 over the grossly fake, misleading and malicious story that he  disguised to meet then President-elect Bola Tinubu in London>.


3. Intimidation is a tradition. It first gets its own natural life before growing into a disorder.


4. Will history repeat itself again, why not?

COMMUNIQUE: Afenifere calls on judiciary to ensure that all petitions of the Presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the Buhari administration

COMMUNIQUE: Afenifere calls on judiciary to ensure that all petitions of the Presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the Buhari administration

 *BEING THE COMMUNIQUE AT THE END OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY GENERAL MEETING OF THE AFENIFERE HELD AT THE RESIDENCE OF OUR LEADER CHIEF AYO ADEBANJO AT ISANYA OGBO OGUN STATE ON TUESDAY 25TH APRIL 2023.*


1. 000 PREAMBLE.

Afenifere held its Regular monthly General Meeting today, the 25th day of April 2023, at the residence of our Leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo at Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State, which Meeting had in attendance delegates from the member states and presided over by our Leader aforesaid; and after exhaustive deliberations on the state of the Nigerian Federation, Observed and Resolved as follow:


1.0 ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

 


Afenifere reiterates our position that the emergence of a President of Southern and specifically South Eastern origin will guarantee equity, fairness and peaceful corporate existence of the Nigerian federation and for which we continue to support the victory of Peter Obi of the Labour Party in the 25th February Presidential election and all his endeavours in its realisation.


2.0 THE JUDICIARY AND THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.


 Afenifere strongly calls on the judiciary to ensure that all petitions in respect of the Presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the tenure of the Buhari administration as the only way the confidence of Nigerians in its intervention may be earned. Precedents in this regard have been laid even by less endowed countries in Africa. 


3.0 BUHARI’S MESSAGE OF FORGIVENESS TO NIGERIANS. 


3.1 Afenifere considers the request of President Buhari for pardon “by those he might have hurt along the line of his services to the country” as rather short in statesmanship which demands that such apologies be extended to all Nigerians who have been traumatised especially by the pervasive insecurity and marooned in economic quagmire which in the last 8 years have rendered life most uninspiring, nasty, brutish and short. 


3.2 That it is rather shameful and painful that the President would celebrate, as achievement, the purported containment of insecurity in Abuja where the sovereignty of the nation has been wantonly challenged by terrorists routinely routing the Presidential convoy, Correctional Centres attacked and emptied and some Local Governments in neighbouring Niger State in effective occupation by Boko Haram.


3.2 Afenifere further notes the President’s lamentations of his serial loss of elections until “God sent technology to my rescue through the introduction of the PVC” . It is rather more lamentable that the manifest desires of Buhari to improve on the efficacy of the technological processes, inherited from Jonathan, by assenting the 2022 Electoral Act with the BVAS and IREV components, were thwarted by the INEC and security agencies under his watch, while high level officers of his government were befuddled by partisan considerations to justify relapse to primitivity. 


4.0 THE 2023 NATIONAL CENSUS.


4.1 Afenifere bemoans the unthinkable insistence of the Buhari administration in conducting the 2023 National Census in spite of the objective realities which make such an important national exercise most inauspicious in timing and impossible in credible implementation.


4.2 Afenifere recalls that in a paper it presented at the National Consultative Forum on the 2023 Census held at the Banquet Hall, State House Abuja on the 11th August 2022, it reiterated the imperative of census in national development noting that the application and misuse of Census data had been our bane as a country where we lie to ourselves and the world about our number indulging in laughable projections sometimes based on assumed and fixed percentage of population growth across different parts notwithstanding glaring variables.


4.3 It is in the light of the importance of credible exercise that, in the August 2022 Conference, we strongly advised against the conduct of the Census which, among other reasons, we said could not possibly hold in the same year of a General election. 4.4 Other well meaning personalities and institutions including the UNFPA Resident Representative in Nigeria who at another Conference in PortHarcourt on the 26th-29th March 2023 and most recently the Methodist Church Nigeria, Diocese of Calabar which all have raised concerns on the possibility of reasonable and genuine participation in an acceptable headcount in the current mood of the nation.


4.5 That Afenifere is particularly bemused that Government expects participation in headcount by citizens still incensed and distraught by the trauma of violence and brigandage of the elections or by those in IDP camps within their country in whose ancestral homes terrorists in occupation will now be counted as new indigenes.


4.6 That all factors considered, including its inability to supervise a transparent electoral process, a lesser headcount exercise, the integrity deficiency of this administration is abysmally compounded in conducting census which partisan disputes in Nigeria is often at the level of communities, states and ethnic nationalities having been politicised overtime.


4.7 Afenifere decries the most insensitive deployment of over 800 bilion Naira on this wasteful exercise as scandalous and an economic offence.


4.8. Afenifere conclusively says there is no compelling reason why the census must be held by the expiring Buhari administration and calls for all steps and preparations in that regards to be stopped FORTHWITH.


Issued and signed at Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State this 25th day of April 2023.


Chief Ayo Adebanjo 

Leader


Chief Sola Ebiseni 

Secretary General.


 *BEING THE COMMUNIQUE AT THE END OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY GENERAL MEETING OF THE AFENIFERE HELD AT THE RESIDENCE OF OUR LEADER CHIEF AYO ADEBANJO AT ISANYA OGBO OGUN STATE ON TUESDAY 25TH APRIL 2023.*


1. 000 PREAMBLE.

Afenifere held its Regular monthly General Meeting today, the 25th day of April 2023, at the residence of our Leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo at Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State, which Meeting had in attendance delegates from the member states and presided over by our Leader aforesaid; and after exhaustive deliberations on the state of the Nigerian Federation, Observed and Resolved as follow:


1.0 ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

 


Afenifere reiterates our position that the emergence of a President of Southern and specifically South Eastern origin will guarantee equity, fairness and peaceful corporate existence of the Nigerian federation and for which we continue to support the victory of Peter Obi of the Labour Party in the 25th February Presidential election and all his endeavours in its realisation.


2.0 THE JUDICIARY AND THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.


 Afenifere strongly calls on the judiciary to ensure that all petitions in respect of the Presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the tenure of the Buhari administration as the only way the confidence of Nigerians in its intervention may be earned. Precedents in this regard have been laid even by less endowed countries in Africa. 


3.0 BUHARI’S MESSAGE OF FORGIVENESS TO NIGERIANS. 


3.1 Afenifere considers the request of President Buhari for pardon “by those he might have hurt along the line of his services to the country” as rather short in statesmanship which demands that such apologies be extended to all Nigerians who have been traumatised especially by the pervasive insecurity and marooned in economic quagmire which in the last 8 years have rendered life most uninspiring, nasty, brutish and short. 


3.2 That it is rather shameful and painful that the President would celebrate, as achievement, the purported containment of insecurity in Abuja where the sovereignty of the nation has been wantonly challenged by terrorists routinely routing the Presidential convoy, Correctional Centres attacked and emptied and some Local Governments in neighbouring Niger State in effective occupation by Boko Haram.


3.2 Afenifere further notes the President’s lamentations of his serial loss of elections until “God sent technology to my rescue through the introduction of the PVC” . It is rather more lamentable that the manifest desires of Buhari to improve on the efficacy of the technological processes, inherited from Jonathan, by assenting the 2022 Electoral Act with the BVAS and IREV components, were thwarted by the INEC and security agencies under his watch, while high level officers of his government were befuddled by partisan considerations to justify relapse to primitivity. 


4.0 THE 2023 NATIONAL CENSUS.


4.1 Afenifere bemoans the unthinkable insistence of the Buhari administration in conducting the 2023 National Census in spite of the objective realities which make such an important national exercise most inauspicious in timing and impossible in credible implementation.


4.2 Afenifere recalls that in a paper it presented at the National Consultative Forum on the 2023 Census held at the Banquet Hall, State House Abuja on the 11th August 2022, it reiterated the imperative of census in national development noting that the application and misuse of Census data had been our bane as a country where we lie to ourselves and the world about our number indulging in laughable projections sometimes based on assumed and fixed percentage of population growth across different parts notwithstanding glaring variables.


4.3 It is in the light of the importance of credible exercise that, in the August 2022 Conference, we strongly advised against the conduct of the Census which, among other reasons, we said could not possibly hold in the same year of a General election. 4.4 Other well meaning personalities and institutions including the UNFPA Resident Representative in Nigeria who at another Conference in PortHarcourt on the 26th-29th March 2023 and most recently the Methodist Church Nigeria, Diocese of Calabar which all have raised concerns on the possibility of reasonable and genuine participation in an acceptable headcount in the current mood of the nation.


4.5 That Afenifere is particularly bemused that Government expects participation in headcount by citizens still incensed and distraught by the trauma of violence and brigandage of the elections or by those in IDP camps within their country in whose ancestral homes terrorists in occupation will now be counted as new indigenes.


4.6 That all factors considered, including its inability to supervise a transparent electoral process, a lesser headcount exercise, the integrity deficiency of this administration is abysmally compounded in conducting census which partisan disputes in Nigeria is often at the level of communities, states and ethnic nationalities having been politicised overtime.


4.7 Afenifere decries the most insensitive deployment of over 800 bilion Naira on this wasteful exercise as scandalous and an economic offence.


4.8. Afenifere conclusively says there is no compelling reason why the census must be held by the expiring Buhari administration and calls for all steps and preparations in that regards to be stopped FORTHWITH.


Issued and signed at Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State this 25th day of April 2023.


Chief Ayo Adebanjo 

Leader


Chief Sola Ebiseni 

Secretary General.


RE-PRESIDENCY : THE SUPREME COURT HAS RESOLVED FCT 25% QUANDARY - MIKE OZEKHOME

RE-PRESIDENCY : THE SUPREME COURT HAS RESOLVED FCT 25% QUANDARY - MIKE OZEKHOME

 *(Read and understand why Tinubu needs to get 25% of votes in Abuja.)*


INTRODUCTION


In an article titled, “Presidency: Supreme Court has resolved FCT 25% quandary: (https:// the eagleonline.com.ng), my younger friend, Dr Kayode Ajulo, specifically mentioned my name (amongst other senior lawyers), whom he respectfully referred to as “revered to be authorities in their fields”. He even generously described us as “legends of Inner Bar (who are) jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law whose names have refused to leave the pages of law reports”. I thank Ajulo for his kind effusive words of praises and adulation.


Were this kind recognition all he said about me and the other “oracles of constitutional law”, I would not have bothered to write this rejoinder. But, he soon thereafter most unfairly descended on us with unrestrained upbraiding as follows: 


“And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions of these senior lawyers as Yeah and Amen”.


“However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the Office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest  public office in the land”.


“We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect”.


“For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens”.


This write-up of mine should, therefore, be seen as my RIGHT OF REPLY of (see section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered). I honestly believe Dr Ajulo went too far in categorizing all senior lawyers whose views are not in tandem with his as holding “curious opinions”, either “by deliberate action or lack of proper research”. He also accused us of being tainted by partisanship or politics, merely for expressing our views. And to think that such views to him constitute “curious opinions on constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass our intellect”, was far too rude, self-opinionated and too vainglorious to be swept under the carpet. He erroneously (perhaps, arrogantly), elevated his personal views over and above all others’. Where is that coming from? Narcissism? Politics? godfatherism? I do not know. Or, do you?  The truth is that it is, rather, Ajulo’s views that were not only political, but heavily politicised. His entire piece read like a piece of a political party’s manifesto. It failed woefully to exhibit the attributes of the rigours and intellectual breadth and depth of scholarly research which he so gleefully talked about in his needless diatribe.






My simple take on this is that when a debate on a serious controversial national issue gets to a crescendo such as we now have it, various dimensions of and opinions on the issue under discourse must be vigorously pursued, explored and interrogated. Consequently, as regards this raging ruckus and scrimmage as to whether the 25% votes required by S.134 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended) is applicable to the FCT, Abuja, I have now decided to navigate further, some uncharted routes, by going mathematical to find X. This will surely emphasize to Ajulo, and others who hold similar or same views as his, that this matter is not just about to go away, or be buried, or swept under the mat, until it is, perhaps, finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court. Even at that, Scholars and Analysts will, for centuries to come, still interrogate it, in the same way, that the debate over the case of AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI & 2 Ors (1979) LPELR-653 (SC), still rages till date (44 years later!).   


Contrary to the simplistic and cavalier manner with which Ajulo dismissed the 25% compulsory requirement (even while paradoxically also extensively discussing it himself), it will not vanish into thin air just like that! He gravely errs in thinking that the debate is simply about how to “interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution”. We must tackle it headlong. Let us therefore now take the argument further. I have always believed that it is in the clash of ideas that the truth- the naked truth– finally emerges.


There is no doubt that the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is rooted in mathematics. It requires that a winning presidential candidate shall have “not less than one-quarter of the votes at the election in each of at least two-third of all the states in the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory Abuja”. (Emphasis supplied).


As lawyers, we should not shy away from embarking on this mathematical pathway to resolve the steaming controversy. Yes, mathematics is part of lawyers’ job in resolving disputes; and Nigerian courts are not strangers to mathematical judgments. Afterall, the 1979 Presidential Election involving Shagari and Awolowo was wholly litigated, won and lost on the basis of the Supreme Court’s mathematical interpretation of what amounted then to 2/3 of the then 19 states of the Federation. The Supreme Court, in delivering judgment in favour of Shagari, ruled that the requirement of votes to win the Presidential election was 25% in 12 states, and no more. It cautiously avoided the attendant fractionalization of Kano State, so as to avoid absurdity in interpretation. My deep research has just thrown up a judgment where the court was called upon to interpret and translate 1.00 to percentage. The Honourable Justice Nelson Ogbuanya of the National Industrial Court, in resolving the mathematical legal question, held that “1.00 of an amount means one whole number and not a fraction; and when converted to percentage, it means 100% and not 1%”. See “https://guardian.ng/features” law Court rules that 1.00 base salary to mean 100% in mathematical judgment” – The Guardian 26th November, 2019). 


Let me therefore state very clearly here, that contrary to what is being peddled by many commentators as purportedly settled judicial decisions on the status of FCT, Abuja (many of them critiquing my earlier write-up (see www.”ruebenabati.com.na-(opinion)- The 25% of FCT, Abuja conundrum-Mike-Ozekhome; Barristering.ng.com”) such decisions are not authorities for the very recondite and recherché issue posed by the 2023 Presidential Election results, which border on mathematical interpretation of the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, regarding the required percentage of votes which must be secured by a candidate in the Presidential Election in relation to the 36 states of the Federation and FCT, Abuja. There is no known judicial authority which has decided and settled this abstruse, arcane and enigmatic legal puzzle which is similar to the one that was thrown up in the aftermath of the 1979 Presidential Election. But that era differs remarkably from the current scenario, as, unlike section 126(2) of the 1979 Constitution which ended with 2/3 of all the states in the Federation, the 1999 Constitution added a fresh, rider, “And the FCT, Abuja”. Both the 1979 Constitution and the unused Babangida’s 1989 Constitution never added FCT, Abuja, since although same was created by Decree No. 6 of 1976, on February 5, 1976, by the assassinated General Muritala Mohammed, it came into existence on December 12, 1991, after the 1979 Constitution had been promulgated; but before the 1989 Babangida Constitution which never saw the light of day.


There is also no doubt that the FCT, Abuja, is not, strict sensu, a State (it has no State-like governance structure). However, by S.299 of the 1999 Constitution and many judicial decisions, it is “to be treated as a State“:  See BABA-PANYA V. PRESIDENT FRN (2018) 15NWLR (Pt 1643)423; BAKAR V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1768) 9. A Community reading of section 2(2), 3(1)(4), 134(2)(b), 297, 298, 299, 301 and 302 of the 1999 Constitution shows that the FCT is accorded a special status as quite distinct from that of a normal state; notwithstanding that it is to be “treated as a state”.  


In dealing with this my new vista which now takes on a mathematical dimension, there are agreed parameters to note and apply, as answering  a mathematical question requires patiently adopting  methodical approach, using certain  laid down formula. This is what is called ‘operation show your work before putting QED on your answer’. The mathematical question thus posed by S.134 (2)(b) of the Constitution is this: what does it mean when it requires a winner of the presidential election to secure not less than (i.e at least) 1/4 ( 25%) of votes  in each of at least 2/3 of all the states in the Federation (36 states) AND the FCT, Abuja? The first step is to note that there are two parts- the variable and constant figures. In mathematics, while constant is a fixed figure, variable figures are imprecise. But, the variables must, nonetheless be ascertained before proceeding to conclude or ascribe a fixed figure in a given arithmetical equation. It is this inability to ascertain the variable figure that usually makes some students afraid of, and intimidated by, mathematics. In the end, they always failed to find X (the constant), with the resultant hatred for mathematics. To find X, the variable figure must be worked out and ascertained in a fixed figure, such as the constant figure. 


It is clear that while “2/3 of all the states in the Federation” is the variable figure, which if worked out would give 24 states and thus become a constant figure, the “FCT, Abuja”, is always the constant figure, which stands as 1. 


Working out the equation to show that the two parts (both variable and constant figures) are separate and distinct in their respective values must be applicable to the 25% votes requirement. This would be subjected to the BODMAS (Bracket, Order of power or roots, Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction) Rule. This Rule is employed to explain the order of operation of mathematical expression. 


Here, Bracket plays the role of “AND”, which serves as coordinating conjunctive verb in English syntax, to ascertain the two parts separated by bracket: See BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19NWLR (Pt 1120) 246 (for the definition “And”); and EYISI & ORS V. STATE (200) LPELR-1186 (SC) (for the definition of “Each”).


In applying this formulae: 


The number of states =36;


2/3 of 36 as variable =24; 


FCT, Abuja as constant =1


So, the 25% of 24 States AND FCT, Abuja (1), will be expressed as: 25 % (24)(1) in mathematics. This is interpreted in English as 25% of 24 and 1, but not 25. The 24 represents states, while 1 represents FCT, Abuja. 


The intention of the lawmaker is quite clear here. 


The FCT, Abuja, is the seat of power of the Nigerian leadership. It is a cosmopolitan convergence of all federating units of the nation. It is to be merely treated like a State; but not as a State for the strange purpose of counting the total number of States to become 37 instead of 36 States and the FCT, Abuja, as wrongly argued by some analysts. The FCT, Abuja, is the political nerve centre of Nigeria. It has been imbued with such a special status as a miniature Nigeria in such a way that any elected president must have to compulsorily win the required 25% vote in the FCT, Abuja, after winning 25% votes in 24 States.


The reasons for this are not far-fetched. FCT, Abuja, is the melting pot which unites all ethnic groups, tribes, religions, people of variegate backgrounds; and other distinct qualities and characteristics in our pluralistic society. It is indeed a multi-diverse and multi-faceted conglomerate of the different and distinct peoples of Nigeria, which according to Prof Onigu Otite, has about 474 ethnic groups which speak over 350 languages. The FCT, Abuja, is thus regarded as the “Centre of Unity”, which is a testament to its inclusiveness of all tribes, religions, ethnic groups, languages; and peoples of different backgrounds. Simply put, FCT, Abuja, is a territory or land mass that is made up of individuals from every State and virtually from all the Local Government Areas in the country. It is itself made up of 6 Area Councils, quite distinct from the 768 LGAs in Nigeria, thus bringing the total to 774 LGCs in Nigeria. Consequently, scoring 25% of votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, is a Presidential candidate’s testament to being widely accepted by majority of the Nigerian people. The President is not expected to be a tenant in his seat of power. Will he pay rent to the 24 states he scored 25% votes? I do not know. Or, do you?


The framers of the 1999 Constitution certainly desired for Nigeria, a President that is widely accepted, with national spread; and not one that is a regional kingpin with support only from of his tribe, region, or ethnic group. The provisions contained in section 134 of the 1999 Constitution are meant to reflect this. In the same vein, the framers of the 1999 Constitution viewed the FCT, Abuja, as a melting pot; a sort of mini-Nigeria. Thus, like a commentator aptly posited, the position or status of the FCT, Abuja, assumes that of a COMPULSORY question that a presidential candidate must ANSWER in the electoral examination. With the FCT, Abuja, serving as the seat of the Federal Government-with all ministries and MDAs situated in it – it represents a Dolly Parton’s “Coat of many colours”. This is why the Federal Character provided for in sections 14(3),(4); 153(1); and 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution is also reflected in the administration of FCT, even though the Gbagyis are the original Aborigines of the FCT.


The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that sections 134 (2)(b) and 299 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, as some commentators posit. Rather, section 299 actually supports and complements section 134. 


Whether FCT, Abuja, is regarded as a super-state, full State, pseudo-State, quasi-State, or semi-State, is to me, immaterial. Even if it is none of these, what matters is the clear intention of the Constitution-makers. 


Had the law makers intended that the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, will be treated simply as a “State” and no more in section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution, they would have simply stopped there. There was no need to specifically add the new phrase, “AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”, as in section 134(2)(b). The Constitution would simply have provided for “two-thirds of all the States in the Federation”, and stopped there. But, it did not. 


From a historical perspective (I am a student of history), recall that the AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI case and section 299 of the 1999 Constitution which states that its provisions shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, “as if it were one of the states of the Federation; including the BABA PANYA and BAKARI cases (supra), often cited with éclat, but out of context, did not deal with the issue of elections, or what percentage of the votes was expected of a presidential candidate. They merely dealt with the issues that were presented in those cases. No more. It is trite law that a case is only an authority for what its peculiar facts present: BABATUNDE v. PASTA (2007) 13 NWLR pt. 1050 pg. 113 @ 157; ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) pg. 250; UWUA UDO v. THE STATE SC. 511/2014; SKYE BANK PLC. & ANOR. V. CHIEF MOSES BOLANLE AKINPEJU (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt LL98) 179; OKAFOR V. NNAIFE (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt 64)129; PDP V. INEC & ORS (2018) LPELR-44373(SC); LAGOS STATE GOVT. & ORS V. ABDULKAREEM & ORS (2022) LPELR-58517 (SC); ILA ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR V. UMAR ALI & CO. NIG LTD (2022) LPELR-75806 (SC).


For example, when section 48 of the 1999 Constitution provides that the “Senate shall consist of three Senators from each state AND one from the FCT, Abuja”, why didn’t these canvassers of FCT, Abuja, being merely a state, argue that once we have three Senators from “each state”, we should discard the “AND” which gives one Senator to the FCT, Abuja, and thus deprive the FCT, Abuja, of its Senator? This provision is one amongst several others which shows that the FCT, Abuja, is to be treated distinctly and separately from the other 24 states. There is no ambiguity in section 134(2)(b) such as to bring in aid, existing canons of statutory interpretation, such as the “Golden Rule”, “Mischief Rule”, etc. It is axiomatic that all sections of the Constitution must be wholly and holistically construed together so as to avoid leaving out some portions, or rendering them nugatory. See THE ESTATE OF ALHAJI N.B. SOULE v. OLUSEYE JOHNSON & CO & ANOR (1974) LPELR-3169 (SC). The reason is that law makers are presumed not to use superfluous, otiose or extravagant words in provisions of the Constitution or statutes which they make.


CONCLUSION


It is my considered opinion that the scope of consideration of the FCT, Abuja, as a state, only applies to the enjoyment and vesting of Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers by relevant bodies in the FCT. It does not apply to all matters, extents, and for all purposes. Further, an interpretation that Section 299 of the Constitution applies for all purposes is too narrow. It is not holistic or inclusive. It will render many other parts of the Constitution redundant, futile, unproductive, meaningless and therefore, unnecessary. Certainly, such could not have been the intention of the Legislature or law makers. 


Section 134(2) of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted to mean that for a candidate to win the Presidential election, such a candidate must obtain 25% of the votes cast in two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (24 States); AND further, in the FCT, Abuja. This is a compulsory requirement for a valid return as President. It seems to me that INEC was not properly legally guided when it declared a President-elect. The Nichodemus announcement and declaration was obviously too hasty, premature and rash.


A great writer (Onwa Nnobi) was most apt when he stated:


“If 5 credits AND English Language are prerequisite to gaining admission into a higher school of Learning; and you make 10As in 10 subjects, but get F9 in English Language, does it qualify you for admission? It is not just commonsense and logic. It is incontrovertible”. I cannot give a better example. But, let me try two more examples of mine: 


If I request to see 24 Corpers in my law firm AND OKON, it means I want to see 25 persons in all; but Okon must be one of the 25 persons. So if 24 or 25 persons in my law firm show up, without Okon, have I had all the persons I wanted to see? The answer is NO. To satisfy my request, Okon must show up in addition to the 24, thus making the 25 persons I desire to see. Okon is a Constant; 24 Corpers is a variable. The variables must be worked by BODMAS-Rule to find the constant. 


As a second example, if I tell my dear wife to treat Andrew (my ward living with us) “like my son”, does that really make Andrew my biological son? I think not. Let me end this piece in response to Ajulo’s apophthegym of the “unwrinkled face (which) is not good for a resounding slap” with some words of advice.


Ajulo ought to know, from the deep recesses of his conscience and inner mind that what we witnessed on 25th February, 2023, was not democracy in practice. Abraham Lincoln, who made his famous Gettysburg speech on 19th November, 1863, had described democracy as government of the people, for the people and by the people. He must be turning in his centuries-old grave. The last election was nothing but a sham and shambolic election of “first-kill-maim-allocate-thumbprint-ballot-papers-select-and-win-at-all-cost-and-let-them-go-to-court”. It was not democracy, but “electionocracy” and “selectocracy” in action.


The new refrain in town has since become “GO TO COURT”; an obvious addition to our warped political lexicon. The election in my humble view, was the shame of a country that has been held down for decades by the jugular by insensitive and insensate elite state captors. It was a purported election in which a supposed Nigerian president-elect allegedly scored 8,795,721 (only about 9.409% of the registered 93.40 million voters). And WITHOUT THE FCT, Abuja! So, that means less than 3.998% of the entire population of the Nigerian people comprising of 220.075.973 million people as at 27th March, 2023- the very people he seeks to govern! That is a mere 454,163 votes more than Chief Abiola’s votes scored about 30 years ago, when Nigeria’s population was only 102.8 million people. It was virtually half of President Buhari’s 15,191,847 votes in 2019; and even far less than the votes of the then runner-up, Atiku Abubakar, which was 11,262,928. What an election! If Ajulo does not recognize this odorous putrefaction and stone-age retrogression, in our electoral system, then it is him, more than any other lawyer, that belongs to one of the “senior lawyers” he so derogatively, perjuratively and derisively referred to as those who “give certain legal opinions that they do not believe in, just because they have been tainted by politics”. I totally agree with his conclusion that “it is the common man on the street that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws”. Welldone. Mercifully, I am very proud to announce to Ajulo and others that going by my very well known antecedents which are self-evident (simply google me), I do not belong to such a lowly class of ego-masseurs. I am certainly not one of those cheap obsequious fawners, brown-nosers, or toady characters that hang around political merchants and buccaneers of corridors of power. Not being a card-carrying member of any of our existing political parties, I am simply a patriotic Pan-Nigerian who interrogates issues and speaks truth to authority and power, with history and posterity as my goal. My parting proverb to Ajulo, more in the form of an anecdote or epigram, is this: 


Once upon a time, an exuberant youth beat his drum so loudly, proudly, ceaselessly and fascinatingly with such reverberating noise that an elderly man sitting nearby told him to reduce the noise. The youth told him pointedly that he bought the drum with a huge sum of money. He exhibitionistly announced the name of the rare drum. The elderly man smiled, shook his greying head slowly, and calmly told the young man the name of the very animal whose skin was used to make the drum. Let us watch our words and actions, no matter how trying and tormenting the times are.


- By Prof. Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D., LL.D, D.Litt.

 *(Read and understand why Tinubu needs to get 25% of votes in Abuja.)*


INTRODUCTION


In an article titled, “Presidency: Supreme Court has resolved FCT 25% quandary: (https:// the eagleonline.com.ng), my younger friend, Dr Kayode Ajulo, specifically mentioned my name (amongst other senior lawyers), whom he respectfully referred to as “revered to be authorities in their fields”. He even generously described us as “legends of Inner Bar (who are) jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law whose names have refused to leave the pages of law reports”. I thank Ajulo for his kind effusive words of praises and adulation.


Were this kind recognition all he said about me and the other “oracles of constitutional law”, I would not have bothered to write this rejoinder. But, he soon thereafter most unfairly descended on us with unrestrained upbraiding as follows: 


“And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions of these senior lawyers as Yeah and Amen”.


“However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the Office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest  public office in the land”.


“We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect”.


“For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens”.


This write-up of mine should, therefore, be seen as my RIGHT OF REPLY of (see section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered). I honestly believe Dr Ajulo went too far in categorizing all senior lawyers whose views are not in tandem with his as holding “curious opinions”, either “by deliberate action or lack of proper research”. He also accused us of being tainted by partisanship or politics, merely for expressing our views. And to think that such views to him constitute “curious opinions on constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass our intellect”, was far too rude, self-opinionated and too vainglorious to be swept under the carpet. He erroneously (perhaps, arrogantly), elevated his personal views over and above all others’. Where is that coming from? Narcissism? Politics? godfatherism? I do not know. Or, do you?  The truth is that it is, rather, Ajulo’s views that were not only political, but heavily politicised. His entire piece read like a piece of a political party’s manifesto. It failed woefully to exhibit the attributes of the rigours and intellectual breadth and depth of scholarly research which he so gleefully talked about in his needless diatribe.






My simple take on this is that when a debate on a serious controversial national issue gets to a crescendo such as we now have it, various dimensions of and opinions on the issue under discourse must be vigorously pursued, explored and interrogated. Consequently, as regards this raging ruckus and scrimmage as to whether the 25% votes required by S.134 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended) is applicable to the FCT, Abuja, I have now decided to navigate further, some uncharted routes, by going mathematical to find X. This will surely emphasize to Ajulo, and others who hold similar or same views as his, that this matter is not just about to go away, or be buried, or swept under the mat, until it is, perhaps, finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court. Even at that, Scholars and Analysts will, for centuries to come, still interrogate it, in the same way, that the debate over the case of AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI & 2 Ors (1979) LPELR-653 (SC), still rages till date (44 years later!).   


Contrary to the simplistic and cavalier manner with which Ajulo dismissed the 25% compulsory requirement (even while paradoxically also extensively discussing it himself), it will not vanish into thin air just like that! He gravely errs in thinking that the debate is simply about how to “interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution”. We must tackle it headlong. Let us therefore now take the argument further. I have always believed that it is in the clash of ideas that the truth- the naked truth– finally emerges.


There is no doubt that the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is rooted in mathematics. It requires that a winning presidential candidate shall have “not less than one-quarter of the votes at the election in each of at least two-third of all the states in the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory Abuja”. (Emphasis supplied).


As lawyers, we should not shy away from embarking on this mathematical pathway to resolve the steaming controversy. Yes, mathematics is part of lawyers’ job in resolving disputes; and Nigerian courts are not strangers to mathematical judgments. Afterall, the 1979 Presidential Election involving Shagari and Awolowo was wholly litigated, won and lost on the basis of the Supreme Court’s mathematical interpretation of what amounted then to 2/3 of the then 19 states of the Federation. The Supreme Court, in delivering judgment in favour of Shagari, ruled that the requirement of votes to win the Presidential election was 25% in 12 states, and no more. It cautiously avoided the attendant fractionalization of Kano State, so as to avoid absurdity in interpretation. My deep research has just thrown up a judgment where the court was called upon to interpret and translate 1.00 to percentage. The Honourable Justice Nelson Ogbuanya of the National Industrial Court, in resolving the mathematical legal question, held that “1.00 of an amount means one whole number and not a fraction; and when converted to percentage, it means 100% and not 1%”. See “https://guardian.ng/features” law Court rules that 1.00 base salary to mean 100% in mathematical judgment” – The Guardian 26th November, 2019). 


Let me therefore state very clearly here, that contrary to what is being peddled by many commentators as purportedly settled judicial decisions on the status of FCT, Abuja (many of them critiquing my earlier write-up (see www.”ruebenabati.com.na-(opinion)- The 25% of FCT, Abuja conundrum-Mike-Ozekhome; Barristering.ng.com”) such decisions are not authorities for the very recondite and recherché issue posed by the 2023 Presidential Election results, which border on mathematical interpretation of the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, regarding the required percentage of votes which must be secured by a candidate in the Presidential Election in relation to the 36 states of the Federation and FCT, Abuja. There is no known judicial authority which has decided and settled this abstruse, arcane and enigmatic legal puzzle which is similar to the one that was thrown up in the aftermath of the 1979 Presidential Election. But that era differs remarkably from the current scenario, as, unlike section 126(2) of the 1979 Constitution which ended with 2/3 of all the states in the Federation, the 1999 Constitution added a fresh, rider, “And the FCT, Abuja”. Both the 1979 Constitution and the unused Babangida’s 1989 Constitution never added FCT, Abuja, since although same was created by Decree No. 6 of 1976, on February 5, 1976, by the assassinated General Muritala Mohammed, it came into existence on December 12, 1991, after the 1979 Constitution had been promulgated; but before the 1989 Babangida Constitution which never saw the light of day.


There is also no doubt that the FCT, Abuja, is not, strict sensu, a State (it has no State-like governance structure). However, by S.299 of the 1999 Constitution and many judicial decisions, it is “to be treated as a State“:  See BABA-PANYA V. PRESIDENT FRN (2018) 15NWLR (Pt 1643)423; BAKAR V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1768) 9. A Community reading of section 2(2), 3(1)(4), 134(2)(b), 297, 298, 299, 301 and 302 of the 1999 Constitution shows that the FCT is accorded a special status as quite distinct from that of a normal state; notwithstanding that it is to be “treated as a state”.  


In dealing with this my new vista which now takes on a mathematical dimension, there are agreed parameters to note and apply, as answering  a mathematical question requires patiently adopting  methodical approach, using certain  laid down formula. This is what is called ‘operation show your work before putting QED on your answer’. The mathematical question thus posed by S.134 (2)(b) of the Constitution is this: what does it mean when it requires a winner of the presidential election to secure not less than (i.e at least) 1/4 ( 25%) of votes  in each of at least 2/3 of all the states in the Federation (36 states) AND the FCT, Abuja? The first step is to note that there are two parts- the variable and constant figures. In mathematics, while constant is a fixed figure, variable figures are imprecise. But, the variables must, nonetheless be ascertained before proceeding to conclude or ascribe a fixed figure in a given arithmetical equation. It is this inability to ascertain the variable figure that usually makes some students afraid of, and intimidated by, mathematics. In the end, they always failed to find X (the constant), with the resultant hatred for mathematics. To find X, the variable figure must be worked out and ascertained in a fixed figure, such as the constant figure. 


It is clear that while “2/3 of all the states in the Federation” is the variable figure, which if worked out would give 24 states and thus become a constant figure, the “FCT, Abuja”, is always the constant figure, which stands as 1. 


Working out the equation to show that the two parts (both variable and constant figures) are separate and distinct in their respective values must be applicable to the 25% votes requirement. This would be subjected to the BODMAS (Bracket, Order of power or roots, Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction) Rule. This Rule is employed to explain the order of operation of mathematical expression. 


Here, Bracket plays the role of “AND”, which serves as coordinating conjunctive verb in English syntax, to ascertain the two parts separated by bracket: See BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19NWLR (Pt 1120) 246 (for the definition “And”); and EYISI & ORS V. STATE (200) LPELR-1186 (SC) (for the definition of “Each”).


In applying this formulae: 


The number of states =36;


2/3 of 36 as variable =24; 


FCT, Abuja as constant =1


So, the 25% of 24 States AND FCT, Abuja (1), will be expressed as: 25 % (24)(1) in mathematics. This is interpreted in English as 25% of 24 and 1, but not 25. The 24 represents states, while 1 represents FCT, Abuja. 


The intention of the lawmaker is quite clear here. 


The FCT, Abuja, is the seat of power of the Nigerian leadership. It is a cosmopolitan convergence of all federating units of the nation. It is to be merely treated like a State; but not as a State for the strange purpose of counting the total number of States to become 37 instead of 36 States and the FCT, Abuja, as wrongly argued by some analysts. The FCT, Abuja, is the political nerve centre of Nigeria. It has been imbued with such a special status as a miniature Nigeria in such a way that any elected president must have to compulsorily win the required 25% vote in the FCT, Abuja, after winning 25% votes in 24 States.


The reasons for this are not far-fetched. FCT, Abuja, is the melting pot which unites all ethnic groups, tribes, religions, people of variegate backgrounds; and other distinct qualities and characteristics in our pluralistic society. It is indeed a multi-diverse and multi-faceted conglomerate of the different and distinct peoples of Nigeria, which according to Prof Onigu Otite, has about 474 ethnic groups which speak over 350 languages. The FCT, Abuja, is thus regarded as the “Centre of Unity”, which is a testament to its inclusiveness of all tribes, religions, ethnic groups, languages; and peoples of different backgrounds. Simply put, FCT, Abuja, is a territory or land mass that is made up of individuals from every State and virtually from all the Local Government Areas in the country. It is itself made up of 6 Area Councils, quite distinct from the 768 LGAs in Nigeria, thus bringing the total to 774 LGCs in Nigeria. Consequently, scoring 25% of votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, is a Presidential candidate’s testament to being widely accepted by majority of the Nigerian people. The President is not expected to be a tenant in his seat of power. Will he pay rent to the 24 states he scored 25% votes? I do not know. Or, do you?


The framers of the 1999 Constitution certainly desired for Nigeria, a President that is widely accepted, with national spread; and not one that is a regional kingpin with support only from of his tribe, region, or ethnic group. The provisions contained in section 134 of the 1999 Constitution are meant to reflect this. In the same vein, the framers of the 1999 Constitution viewed the FCT, Abuja, as a melting pot; a sort of mini-Nigeria. Thus, like a commentator aptly posited, the position or status of the FCT, Abuja, assumes that of a COMPULSORY question that a presidential candidate must ANSWER in the electoral examination. With the FCT, Abuja, serving as the seat of the Federal Government-with all ministries and MDAs situated in it – it represents a Dolly Parton’s “Coat of many colours”. This is why the Federal Character provided for in sections 14(3),(4); 153(1); and 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution is also reflected in the administration of FCT, even though the Gbagyis are the original Aborigines of the FCT.


The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that sections 134 (2)(b) and 299 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, as some commentators posit. Rather, section 299 actually supports and complements section 134. 


Whether FCT, Abuja, is regarded as a super-state, full State, pseudo-State, quasi-State, or semi-State, is to me, immaterial. Even if it is none of these, what matters is the clear intention of the Constitution-makers. 


Had the law makers intended that the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, will be treated simply as a “State” and no more in section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution, they would have simply stopped there. There was no need to specifically add the new phrase, “AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”, as in section 134(2)(b). The Constitution would simply have provided for “two-thirds of all the States in the Federation”, and stopped there. But, it did not. 


From a historical perspective (I am a student of history), recall that the AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI case and section 299 of the 1999 Constitution which states that its provisions shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, “as if it were one of the states of the Federation; including the BABA PANYA and BAKARI cases (supra), often cited with éclat, but out of context, did not deal with the issue of elections, or what percentage of the votes was expected of a presidential candidate. They merely dealt with the issues that were presented in those cases. No more. It is trite law that a case is only an authority for what its peculiar facts present: BABATUNDE v. PASTA (2007) 13 NWLR pt. 1050 pg. 113 @ 157; ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) pg. 250; UWUA UDO v. THE STATE SC. 511/2014; SKYE BANK PLC. & ANOR. V. CHIEF MOSES BOLANLE AKINPEJU (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt LL98) 179; OKAFOR V. NNAIFE (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt 64)129; PDP V. INEC & ORS (2018) LPELR-44373(SC); LAGOS STATE GOVT. & ORS V. ABDULKAREEM & ORS (2022) LPELR-58517 (SC); ILA ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR V. UMAR ALI & CO. NIG LTD (2022) LPELR-75806 (SC).


For example, when section 48 of the 1999 Constitution provides that the “Senate shall consist of three Senators from each state AND one from the FCT, Abuja”, why didn’t these canvassers of FCT, Abuja, being merely a state, argue that once we have three Senators from “each state”, we should discard the “AND” which gives one Senator to the FCT, Abuja, and thus deprive the FCT, Abuja, of its Senator? This provision is one amongst several others which shows that the FCT, Abuja, is to be treated distinctly and separately from the other 24 states. There is no ambiguity in section 134(2)(b) such as to bring in aid, existing canons of statutory interpretation, such as the “Golden Rule”, “Mischief Rule”, etc. It is axiomatic that all sections of the Constitution must be wholly and holistically construed together so as to avoid leaving out some portions, or rendering them nugatory. See THE ESTATE OF ALHAJI N.B. SOULE v. OLUSEYE JOHNSON & CO & ANOR (1974) LPELR-3169 (SC). The reason is that law makers are presumed not to use superfluous, otiose or extravagant words in provisions of the Constitution or statutes which they make.


CONCLUSION


It is my considered opinion that the scope of consideration of the FCT, Abuja, as a state, only applies to the enjoyment and vesting of Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers by relevant bodies in the FCT. It does not apply to all matters, extents, and for all purposes. Further, an interpretation that Section 299 of the Constitution applies for all purposes is too narrow. It is not holistic or inclusive. It will render many other parts of the Constitution redundant, futile, unproductive, meaningless and therefore, unnecessary. Certainly, such could not have been the intention of the Legislature or law makers. 


Section 134(2) of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted to mean that for a candidate to win the Presidential election, such a candidate must obtain 25% of the votes cast in two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (24 States); AND further, in the FCT, Abuja. This is a compulsory requirement for a valid return as President. It seems to me that INEC was not properly legally guided when it declared a President-elect. The Nichodemus announcement and declaration was obviously too hasty, premature and rash.


A great writer (Onwa Nnobi) was most apt when he stated:


“If 5 credits AND English Language are prerequisite to gaining admission into a higher school of Learning; and you make 10As in 10 subjects, but get F9 in English Language, does it qualify you for admission? It is not just commonsense and logic. It is incontrovertible”. I cannot give a better example. But, let me try two more examples of mine: 


If I request to see 24 Corpers in my law firm AND OKON, it means I want to see 25 persons in all; but Okon must be one of the 25 persons. So if 24 or 25 persons in my law firm show up, without Okon, have I had all the persons I wanted to see? The answer is NO. To satisfy my request, Okon must show up in addition to the 24, thus making the 25 persons I desire to see. Okon is a Constant; 24 Corpers is a variable. The variables must be worked by BODMAS-Rule to find the constant. 


As a second example, if I tell my dear wife to treat Andrew (my ward living with us) “like my son”, does that really make Andrew my biological son? I think not. Let me end this piece in response to Ajulo’s apophthegym of the “unwrinkled face (which) is not good for a resounding slap” with some words of advice.


Ajulo ought to know, from the deep recesses of his conscience and inner mind that what we witnessed on 25th February, 2023, was not democracy in practice. Abraham Lincoln, who made his famous Gettysburg speech on 19th November, 1863, had described democracy as government of the people, for the people and by the people. He must be turning in his centuries-old grave. The last election was nothing but a sham and shambolic election of “first-kill-maim-allocate-thumbprint-ballot-papers-select-and-win-at-all-cost-and-let-them-go-to-court”. It was not democracy, but “electionocracy” and “selectocracy” in action.


The new refrain in town has since become “GO TO COURT”; an obvious addition to our warped political lexicon. The election in my humble view, was the shame of a country that has been held down for decades by the jugular by insensitive and insensate elite state captors. It was a purported election in which a supposed Nigerian president-elect allegedly scored 8,795,721 (only about 9.409% of the registered 93.40 million voters). And WITHOUT THE FCT, Abuja! So, that means less than 3.998% of the entire population of the Nigerian people comprising of 220.075.973 million people as at 27th March, 2023- the very people he seeks to govern! That is a mere 454,163 votes more than Chief Abiola’s votes scored about 30 years ago, when Nigeria’s population was only 102.8 million people. It was virtually half of President Buhari’s 15,191,847 votes in 2019; and even far less than the votes of the then runner-up, Atiku Abubakar, which was 11,262,928. What an election! If Ajulo does not recognize this odorous putrefaction and stone-age retrogression, in our electoral system, then it is him, more than any other lawyer, that belongs to one of the “senior lawyers” he so derogatively, perjuratively and derisively referred to as those who “give certain legal opinions that they do not believe in, just because they have been tainted by politics”. I totally agree with his conclusion that “it is the common man on the street that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws”. Welldone. Mercifully, I am very proud to announce to Ajulo and others that going by my very well known antecedents which are self-evident (simply google me), I do not belong to such a lowly class of ego-masseurs. I am certainly not one of those cheap obsequious fawners, brown-nosers, or toady characters that hang around political merchants and buccaneers of corridors of power. Not being a card-carrying member of any of our existing political parties, I am simply a patriotic Pan-Nigerian who interrogates issues and speaks truth to authority and power, with history and posterity as my goal. My parting proverb to Ajulo, more in the form of an anecdote or epigram, is this: 


Once upon a time, an exuberant youth beat his drum so loudly, proudly, ceaselessly and fascinatingly with such reverberating noise that an elderly man sitting nearby told him to reduce the noise. The youth told him pointedly that he bought the drum with a huge sum of money. He exhibitionistly announced the name of the rare drum. The elderly man smiled, shook his greying head slowly, and calmly told the young man the name of the very animal whose skin was used to make the drum. Let us watch our words and actions, no matter how trying and tormenting the times are.


- By Prof. Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D., LL.D, D.Litt.

COURTS CLOSURE: HOLD DAPO ABIODUN RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - FESTUS OGUN

COURTS CLOSURE: HOLD DAPO ABIODUN RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - FESTUS OGUN









The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), last week, called off its strike action that lingered for about two months. They embarked on the industrial action as a result of the government’s refusal to pay judiciary workers their full salary. 


While we are pleased that courts across the state are now opened, it is important to note that the strike action should not have happened in the first place if the leadership of Ogun State was indeed committed to an efficient administration of justice, independence of the judiciary and respect for human rights. It is an aberration that courts are closed in a democratic society.


A great number of presumably innocent citizens were detained unjustly as a result of courts closures. The police, courts and correctional services were left helpless because little or nothing can be achieved when the courts are under locks and keys. Police cells were overcrowded and prison detainees who should access the courts for their liberties were left to their fates. Consequently, the closure of courts has aided gross human rights violations and the government seems unconcerned about the plight of victims of its failure. This is totally unacceptable.


We will hold Prince Dapo Abiodun responsible for all forms of human rights violations that occurred as a result of courts closure in Ogun State. We will never allow such an assault on human rights to pass without consequences. Those who swore oaths of office to protect the dignity and liberty of the people cannot continue to recklessly encroach on human rights through terrible policies. 


Holding Governor Abiodun accountable will be a lesson to other political office holders who believe they can treat the judiciary with contempt and disregard. 


The sacred nature of human rights and civil liberties will never allow us shy away from the inefficiency of the Ogun State Government. We will not fold our hands and allow state authorities to ride roguishly on the fundamental rights of our people. 


FESTUS OGUN, ESQ

27/9/2021









The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), last week, called off its strike action that lingered for about two months. They embarked on the industrial action as a result of the government’s refusal to pay judiciary workers their full salary. 


While we are pleased that courts across the state are now opened, it is important to note that the strike action should not have happened in the first place if the leadership of Ogun State was indeed committed to an efficient administration of justice, independence of the judiciary and respect for human rights. It is an aberration that courts are closed in a democratic society.


A great number of presumably innocent citizens were detained unjustly as a result of courts closures. The police, courts and correctional services were left helpless because little or nothing can be achieved when the courts are under locks and keys. Police cells were overcrowded and prison detainees who should access the courts for their liberties were left to their fates. Consequently, the closure of courts has aided gross human rights violations and the government seems unconcerned about the plight of victims of its failure. This is totally unacceptable.


We will hold Prince Dapo Abiodun responsible for all forms of human rights violations that occurred as a result of courts closure in Ogun State. We will never allow such an assault on human rights to pass without consequences. Those who swore oaths of office to protect the dignity and liberty of the people cannot continue to recklessly encroach on human rights through terrible policies. 


Holding Governor Abiodun accountable will be a lesson to other political office holders who believe they can treat the judiciary with contempt and disregard. 


The sacred nature of human rights and civil liberties will never allow us shy away from the inefficiency of the Ogun State Government. We will not fold our hands and allow state authorities to ride roguishly on the fundamental rights of our people. 


FESTUS OGUN, ESQ

27/9/2021

#FreeDunamis5: Lawless DSS still keep #BuhariMustGo youths in custody after fulfilling bail conditions

#FreeDunamis5: Lawless DSS still keep #BuhariMustGo youths in custody after fulfilling bail conditions

Nigerian mainstream media are complacent and complicit in the  quest for state violations of human rights - Sowore



The five young persons arrested by Dr. Paul Enenche’s Dunamis church security and handed over to Yusuf Bichi-led lawless DSS remains in custody after fulfilling their bail conditions.


The mean stream media in the country have seen no need to call out on the anti-democratic regime of Major General Muhammadu Buhari, says Omoyele Sowore on Tuesday.

" Let me say it here that the Nigerian mainstream media are complacent and complicit in the  quest for state violations of human rights by the tyrannical Buhari regime, not because of the people I know who are victims but because they will never raise a finger even when their colleagues are abused."

The AAC National Chairman said: "These days you can count on your fingers how many media outlets would ever report on human rights abuses!"


The Buhari led lawlessness and pro terrorists regime is known for human rights violation and total disrespectful for court and rule of law.


 #Revolutionnow #Buharimustgo

Nigerian mainstream media are complacent and complicit in the  quest for state violations of human rights - Sowore



The five young persons arrested by Dr. Paul Enenche’s Dunamis church security and handed over to Yusuf Bichi-led lawless DSS remains in custody after fulfilling their bail conditions.


The mean stream media in the country have seen no need to call out on the anti-democratic regime of Major General Muhammadu Buhari, says Omoyele Sowore on Tuesday.

" Let me say it here that the Nigerian mainstream media are complacent and complicit in the  quest for state violations of human rights by the tyrannical Buhari regime, not because of the people I know who are victims but because they will never raise a finger even when their colleagues are abused."

The AAC National Chairman said: "These days you can count on your fingers how many media outlets would ever report on human rights abuses!"


The Buhari led lawlessness and pro terrorists regime is known for human rights violation and total disrespectful for court and rule of law.


 #Revolutionnow #Buharimustgo

FreeOduduwa12 NOW: Nigeria's Lawless DSS produces 8 of #Oduduwa12 in court

FreeOduduwa12 NOW: Nigeria's Lawless DSS produces 8 of #Oduduwa12 in court

 Nigeria's Lawless DSS forced to produce #Oduduwa12 in court today in Abuja but they only came with 8 of them.





 Nigeria's Lawless DSS forced to produce #Oduduwa12 in court today in Abuja but they only came with 8 of them.





#FreeDunamis5: Lawless DSS, AGF MALAMI served with court orders ordering the unconditional release of 5 captives in their custody

#FreeDunamis5: Lawless DSS, AGF MALAMI served with court orders ordering the unconditional release of 5 captives in their custody

On Thursday, the Nigeria's Lawless DSS and the AGF Abubarka MALAMI were been served with court orders given by a Federal High Court ordering the unconditional release of 5 youths who wore #BuhariMustGo T-shirts to Dr. Paul Enenche’s  Dunamis International Gospel Centre church on July 4 2021 in Abuja.


The youths were first arrested and brutalized by @dunamis church security before they were handed over to the DSS. 


Upon realising they’ve gone to the Federal high court to enforce their fundamental rights the DSS rushed them to a Magistrate court in Mpape where they backdated the time and date of filing the charges. 


The impunity of Major General Muhammadu Buhari regime is unprecedented and anyone partaking on it now should be reminded will not go unpunished, including the three lawyers at the DSS that took them to a lower court in violation of the orders of the Federal High Court.

 #RevolutionNow #BuhariMustGo







On Thursday, the Nigeria's Lawless DSS and the AGF Abubarka MALAMI were been served with court orders given by a Federal High Court ordering the unconditional release of 5 youths who wore #BuhariMustGo T-shirts to Dr. Paul Enenche’s  Dunamis International Gospel Centre church on July 4 2021 in Abuja.


The youths were first arrested and brutalized by @dunamis church security before they were handed over to the DSS. 


Upon realising they’ve gone to the Federal high court to enforce their fundamental rights the DSS rushed them to a Magistrate court in Mpape where they backdated the time and date of filing the charges. 


The impunity of Major General Muhammadu Buhari regime is unprecedented and anyone partaking on it now should be reminded will not go unpunished, including the three lawyers at the DSS that took them to a lower court in violation of the orders of the Federal High Court.

 #RevolutionNow #BuhariMustGo







Federal High Court judge orders Lawless DSS to produce 12 IGBOHO associates illegally detained by the agency

Federal High Court judge orders Lawless DSS to produce 12 IGBOHO associates illegally detained by the agency

An Abuja Federal High Court judge has ordered the Lawless DSS to produce #Oduduwa12 illegally detained by the agency by next week Thursday per Justice Obiora!



The Court on Friday granted the applications of the 12 detained aides of Sunday Adeyemo, also known as Sunday Igboho.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu in his ruling on the ex parte application before the court, ordered that the Department of State Service should produce the detained aides of Sunday Igboho in court on the next adjourned date.

Justice Egwuatu also ordered the DSS to show cause why the applicants should not be admitted to bail.

The matter was adjourned to July 29 to take place during the court vacation.

Recall that the 12 detained associates of Yoruba Nation activist, Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho, had instituted a suit against the Department of State Services and its Director-General, Yusuf Bichi.

The applicants’ counsel, Pelumi Olajengbesi, moved his ex parte motion praying the court for an order “mandating and compelling the respondents to produce the applicants” to enable the court “inquire into the circumstances constituting grounds of their arrest and detention” since July 1, 2021 and where it seems fit, grant applicants bail.”

They also sought the order of the court mandating and compelling the respondents to produce the applicants before the court and “show cause as to why the applicants should not be granted bail in accordance with the provision of Section 32 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and other extant laws in Nigeria.”


Olajengbesi argued that the applicants are citizens of Nigeria with inherent rights.

The ex-parte motion was supported by an eight-paragraph affidavit, exhibit, 11-paragraph affidavit of extreme urgency, affidavit of non-complicity of action, and a written address.


 #RevolutionNow #NoRetreat #NoSurrenderNoRetreat #BuhariMustGo

An Abuja Federal High Court judge has ordered the Lawless DSS to produce #Oduduwa12 illegally detained by the agency by next week Thursday per Justice Obiora!



The Court on Friday granted the applications of the 12 detained aides of Sunday Adeyemo, also known as Sunday Igboho.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu in his ruling on the ex parte application before the court, ordered that the Department of State Service should produce the detained aides of Sunday Igboho in court on the next adjourned date.

Justice Egwuatu also ordered the DSS to show cause why the applicants should not be admitted to bail.

The matter was adjourned to July 29 to take place during the court vacation.

Recall that the 12 detained associates of Yoruba Nation activist, Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho, had instituted a suit against the Department of State Services and its Director-General, Yusuf Bichi.

The applicants’ counsel, Pelumi Olajengbesi, moved his ex parte motion praying the court for an order “mandating and compelling the respondents to produce the applicants” to enable the court “inquire into the circumstances constituting grounds of their arrest and detention” since July 1, 2021 and where it seems fit, grant applicants bail.”

They also sought the order of the court mandating and compelling the respondents to produce the applicants before the court and “show cause as to why the applicants should not be granted bail in accordance with the provision of Section 32 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and other extant laws in Nigeria.”


Olajengbesi argued that the applicants are citizens of Nigeria with inherent rights.

The ex-parte motion was supported by an eight-paragraph affidavit, exhibit, 11-paragraph affidavit of extreme urgency, affidavit of non-complicity of action, and a written address.


 #RevolutionNow #NoRetreat #NoSurrenderNoRetreat #BuhariMustGo

#RevolutionNow: Sowore’s treason trial starts afresh as judge abandons case

#RevolutionNow: Sowore’s treason trial starts afresh as judge abandons case

Sowore: AGF Abubakar Malami, DG DSS Yusuf Bichi shopping for pliable judges, putting pressure on one of my sureties so that they can revoke my bail, re-arrest and detain me



The Major General Muhammadu Buhari ledled Fede government trial against the convener of Revolution Now movement Omoyele Sowore, and Olawale Bakare has suffered a setback at the Federal High Court in Abuja, according to reports by the national dailies.

According to the Punch newspapoers, the presiding Judge, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, has been transferred to Calabar and has informed the Chief Justice, Justice Tsoho, that although she would continue with other cases, she would no longer preside over Sowore’s case.

By the regime tactics, this implies that the case marked, FHC/ABJ/CR/235/19, will have to start afresh for the second time as they have nothing to prove against the activists.

This is just as two other judges have refused to take up Sowore’s case due to its ‘sensitive nature.’

Nigeria' Department of State Services had arraigned Sowore and Bakare before Justice Ojukwu for treasonable felony for organising the ‘Revolution Now’ protest on August 5, 2019, which the government saw as an attempt to disrupt peace in the country.

Justice Ojukwu subsequently ordered that Sowore and Bakare be released on bail but the DSS disobeyed the order for several weeks. After granting him bail, the DSS re-arrested Sowore inside the court, causing commotion which made the judge flee.

He was, however, released following nationwide condemnation.


In February 2020, the Office of the Attorney-General took over the case, amended the charges and re-arraigned Sowore and Bakare.

The judge ordered the Federal Government to pay N200,000 as the cost to the defendants for the frivolous application for adjournment and adjourned till February 13.

Following Justice Ojukwu’s transfer to Calabar, lit waa learnt that she was given the option of continuing some other cases. A court official said the judge picked a few cases and returned some others to the CJ including Sowore’s case.

“It seems some of these judges feel intimidated. They don’t want Federal Government trouble. The case is high profile and controversial. So, they have been avoiding it,” she said.

Also it was informed that another criminal defamation case instituted by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), involving Sowore, which is being handled by Justice Taiwo Taiwo, will also have to start afresh as the judge has returned the case file to the CJ.

“The case, Incorporated Trustees of Global Integrity Crusade Network – suing on behalf of Abubakar Malami – VS Omoyele Sowore and three others which is pending before Justice Taiwo Taiwo has also been returned to the Chief Judge for reassignment despite the fact that all the parties have filed all the processes and ready for final hearing before judgement,” the court official said.

Accordinf to the PUNCH reports, it was learnt that a fundamental human rights suit instituted by Sowore against the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Bichi, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/ 1469/2019 for unlawful detention, which is pending before Justice Inyang Ekwo, has also been returned to the CJ for reassignment after several adjournments.

“I have never seen this sort of thing before despite serving in this court for many years. No judge is willing to sit on Sowore’s case. This never happened even during the military era,” the court official said.


Sowore in a confirmation statement has said 
Federal Judges retiring and returning his case files in droves.


He alledged that the Nigeria's AGF Abubakar Malami and the DG DSS Yusuf Bichi are shopping for pliable judges and the duo are putting pressure on one of his sureties so that they can revoke his bail, re-arrest and detain him. 


Sowore said that they’re scared but they can’t escape the upcoming revolt of the massively oppressed people of Nigeria.


"Federal Judges retiring and returning Sowore case files in droves, meanwhile AGF Abubakar Malami and DG DSS Yusuf Bichi are shopping for pliable judges and putting pressure on one of my sureties so that they can revoke my bail, re-arrest and detain me. They’re scared! But they can’t escape the upcoming revolt of the massively oppressed people of Nigeria! #RevolutionNow #BuhariMustGo"




Sowore: AGF Abubakar Malami, DG DSS Yusuf Bichi shopping for pliable judges, putting pressure on one of my sureties so that they can revoke my bail, re-arrest and detain me



The Major General Muhammadu Buhari ledled Fede government trial against the convener of Revolution Now movement Omoyele Sowore, and Olawale Bakare has suffered a setback at the Federal High Court in Abuja, according to reports by the national dailies.

According to the Punch newspapoers, the presiding Judge, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, has been transferred to Calabar and has informed the Chief Justice, Justice Tsoho, that although she would continue with other cases, she would no longer preside over Sowore’s case.

By the regime tactics, this implies that the case marked, FHC/ABJ/CR/235/19, will have to start afresh for the second time as they have nothing to prove against the activists.

This is just as two other judges have refused to take up Sowore’s case due to its ‘sensitive nature.’

Nigeria' Department of State Services had arraigned Sowore and Bakare before Justice Ojukwu for treasonable felony for organising the ‘Revolution Now’ protest on August 5, 2019, which the government saw as an attempt to disrupt peace in the country.

Justice Ojukwu subsequently ordered that Sowore and Bakare be released on bail but the DSS disobeyed the order for several weeks. After granting him bail, the DSS re-arrested Sowore inside the court, causing commotion which made the judge flee.

He was, however, released following nationwide condemnation.


In February 2020, the Office of the Attorney-General took over the case, amended the charges and re-arraigned Sowore and Bakare.

The judge ordered the Federal Government to pay N200,000 as the cost to the defendants for the frivolous application for adjournment and adjourned till February 13.

Following Justice Ojukwu’s transfer to Calabar, lit waa learnt that she was given the option of continuing some other cases. A court official said the judge picked a few cases and returned some others to the CJ including Sowore’s case.

“It seems some of these judges feel intimidated. They don’t want Federal Government trouble. The case is high profile and controversial. So, they have been avoiding it,” she said.

Also it was informed that another criminal defamation case instituted by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), involving Sowore, which is being handled by Justice Taiwo Taiwo, will also have to start afresh as the judge has returned the case file to the CJ.

“The case, Incorporated Trustees of Global Integrity Crusade Network – suing on behalf of Abubakar Malami – VS Omoyele Sowore and three others which is pending before Justice Taiwo Taiwo has also been returned to the Chief Judge for reassignment despite the fact that all the parties have filed all the processes and ready for final hearing before judgement,” the court official said.

Accordinf to the PUNCH reports, it was learnt that a fundamental human rights suit instituted by Sowore against the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Bichi, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/ 1469/2019 for unlawful detention, which is pending before Justice Inyang Ekwo, has also been returned to the CJ for reassignment after several adjournments.

“I have never seen this sort of thing before despite serving in this court for many years. No judge is willing to sit on Sowore’s case. This never happened even during the military era,” the court official said.


Sowore in a confirmation statement has said 
Federal Judges retiring and returning his case files in droves.


He alledged that the Nigeria's AGF Abubakar Malami and the DG DSS Yusuf Bichi are shopping for pliable judges and the duo are putting pressure on one of his sureties so that they can revoke his bail, re-arrest and detain him. 


Sowore said that they’re scared but they can’t escape the upcoming revolt of the massively oppressed people of Nigeria.


"Federal Judges retiring and returning Sowore case files in droves, meanwhile AGF Abubakar Malami and DG DSS Yusuf Bichi are shopping for pliable judges and putting pressure on one of my sureties so that they can revoke my bail, re-arrest and detain me. They’re scared! But they can’t escape the upcoming revolt of the massively oppressed people of Nigeria! #RevolutionNow #BuhariMustGo"




Derek Chauvin Is Sentenced To 22 1/2 Years Over George Floyd's Murder

Derek Chauvin Is Sentenced To 22 1/2 Years Over George Floyd's Murder

BILL CHAPPELL



Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday, over the murder of George Floyd. He's seen here addressing the court at his sentencing hearing.


A Minnesota judge sentenced Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday for the murder of George Floyd — a punishment that exceeds the state's minimum guidelines but falls short of prosecutors' request of a 30-year sentence.


As he issued the sentence, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill said Chauvin will be credited for the 199 days he has already served.


In April, a jury found the former Minneapolis police officer, who is white, guilty of murdering Floyd, who was Black, last year. The killing triggered massive protests against racial injustice and also prompted reviews of the police use of force — including how much the law should protect officers when someone dies in their custody.


As in earlier proceedings, the sentencing hearing was livestreamed from the courtroom. The sentence announcement followed emotional victim impact statements from Floyd's family, as well as a heartfelt message of support from Chauvin's mother.


Chauvin was seen on video pressing his knee onto Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds as Floyd lay facedown on the asphalt outside a convenience store with his hands cuffed behind his back. The police had been called to the store after Floyd allegedly used a counterfeit $20 bill to pay for cigarettes.


The guilty verdict against Chauvin was hailed as a civil rights victory. Since then, his prison sentence has been awaited as a possible affirmation of that victory.


Under Minnesota law, people sentenced to prison become eligible to be considered for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentence, as long as they've had no disciplinary problems while in custody.


Chauvin was in court for Friday's sentencing hearing, wearing a suit rather than a prisoner's uniform by a special order of the court.


Chauvin offers condolences in a brief statement

Chauvin, who did not testify during his trial, addressed the court in remarks that he said would be kept brief as he is still facing other legal issues — including federal charges.


"I want to give my condolences to the Floyd family," Chauvin said as he looked toward Floyd's relatives in the courtroom.


And in a cryptic moment, the former officer added, "There's going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest. And I hope things will give you some, some peace of mind. Thank you."


Chauvin "is the first white officer in Minnesota to face prison time for the killing of a Black man," according to member station Minnesota Public Radio.


Floyd's daughter, 7, gives her victim impact statement


Floyd's loved ones delivered four victim impact statements in court. The first was a video conversation with Floyd's seven-year-old daughter, Gianna.


"I ask about him all the time," she said, adding that she wants to know, "How did my dad get hurt?"


Gianna said her father is still with her in spirit. When she sees him again, she said, she wants to play with him.


"I miss you and I love you," she said she would tell her father, adding that every night, he used to help her brush her teeth.


The girl added that other people have helped her father, after "those mean people did something to him."


Floyd's brother asks Chauvin: "Why?"

"This situation has really affected me and my family," Floyd's brother Terrence Floyd said.


Addressing Chauvin in the courtroom, Floyd said he has some questions.


"Why? What were you thinking? What was going through your head when you had your knee on my brother's neck?"


He then took a moment to compose himself, after growing emotional.


He went on to describe how, in one of his last conversations with his brother, they had been planning playdates for their daughters.


Asking for a maximum penalty against Chauvin, Terrence Floyd said there should be "no more slaps on the wrist."


Philonise Floyd, who has become an outspoken advocate for his brother after his death, then told the court that he has relived Floyd's death repeatedly in the past year. He no longer knows what it feels like to get a full night's sleep, he said.


"My family and I have been given a life sentence" to live without George Floyd, Philonise Floyd added.


Chauvin's mother says she supports her son "100 percent"


Chauvin's mother, Carolyn Pawlenty, spoke in court on his behalf and for her entire family, she said.


All their lives changed forever the day Floyd died, Pawlenty said.


Her son is not an "aggressive, heartless and uncaring person," or a racist, she said. "My son is a good man," Pawlenty said, noting his years of dedication to being a police officer.


Saying that she supports her son 100 percent, she added that the past year has taken a toll on him.


"When you sentence my son, you will also be sentencing me," Pawlenty told the judge. She noted that if her son serves a long prison term, his parents may not be alive when he is released.


Addressing Chauvin, Pawlenty said she is on his side and told him to be strong.


"Remember you are my favorite son," she said.


Lawyers argued over aggravating factors

Minnesota guidelines called for Chauvin to be sentenced to around 12 1/2 years for second-degree unintentional murder, given his lack of prior criminal history. But state prosecutors pushed for a 30-year term, saying Chauvin "acted with particular cruelty," among other aggravating factors in the case.


The prosecution also cited Chauvin's abuse of a position of authority and Floyd's killing in front of children and other witnesses, saying his punishment requires an "upward departure" from the guidelines. Cahill agreed, saying that aggravating factors had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Eric Nelson, Chauvin's defense attorney, asked for Chauvin to be sentenced to probation along with time already served, saying that Chauvin, 45, would likely be a target in prison. He also says that with the support of his family and friends, Chauvin still has the potential to be a positive influence on his community.


Chauvin was found guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. But he's being punished only for the most serious charge: second-degree murder while committing a felony. In Minnesota, a person convicted of multiple crimes that happened at the same time is typically only sentenced for the most severe charge.


The state's maximum prison term for second-degree unintentional murder is 40 years, although the sentencing guidelines for second-degree unintentional murder largely taper off at 24 years.


Chauvin also faces federal charges


Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin listens to verdicts at his trial in April for the 2020 death of George Floyd at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis. Chauvin was convicted of murder and manslaughter charges in state court and is scheduled to be sentenced June 25.


Weeks after Chauvin was found guilty of murdering Floyd, the Justice Department announced federal criminal charges against him and three of his fellow former officers over Floyd's death.


A federal grand jury indicted the four on charges of violating Floyd's civil rights, with Chauvin accused of using excessive force and ignoring the medical emergency that ended in Floyd's death.


The other former officers — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — are also accused of not getting immediate medical help for Floyd, with Kueng and Thao facing an addition charge of failing to intervene and showing "deliberate indifference" to Floyd's predicament.


The grand jury also indicted Chauvin over an arrest he made in 2017, in which he allegedly used a neck restraint and beat a teenager with a flashlight.


No trial date has been announced for the federal charges.


The three other former officers were already facing a state trial in August, on charges of aiding and abetting. But that trial has now been postponed until March of 2022.


All four of the Minneapolis officers involved in Floyd's death were fired days after the incident.


Nelson had asked the state court for a new trial for Chauvin, saying intense press coverage tainted the jury pool. He also alleged prosecutorial misconduct, related to issues such as sharing evidence and handling witnesses. But Cahill denied Nelson's motion on the eve of Friday's sentencing.


Jordan and Royal Pacheco view a mural of George Floyd in Minneapolis on Friday, as a Hennepin County court weighed the sentence to impose on former police officer Derek Chauvin.


Police killings rarely result in criminal charges

Floyd's murder and other high-profile cases, such as the police killing of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky., have put intense scrutiny on the police use of deadly force against Black people, particularly by white officers.


An NPR investigation from early this year found that police officers in the U.S. shot and killed at least 135 unarmed Black men and women since 2015, and that at least 75% of the officers were white.


Law enforcement officers in the U.S. killed 1,099 people in 2019 — by far the most in any wealthy democracy in both raw numbers and per capita, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.


Those killings result in only a small number of officers being charged with a crime each year, and convictions of police on murder charges are very rare.


Last year brought a spike in the number of officers who died on duty, but as in most years, traffic incidents accounted for the largest share of those deaths.


Chauvin case propelled calls to change policing in the U.S.


The uproar over Floyd's death has helped change how some police departments train officers to use force, particularly chokeholds or carotid restraint holds.


But as NPR reported last summer, bans on neck restraints have been mostly ineffective or unenforced. Chauvin's actions against Floyd, for instance, were described by Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo as violating the department's policies on the use of force, as well de-escalation and rendering aid.


Advocates of police reform also say it's time to limit or revoke qualified immunity — a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court in 1967 that has been used to shield officers from facing liability for egregious actions while on-duty.


Demonstrators gather outside Cup Foods in April to celebrate the murder conviction of former 


"The people pushing for this change say the Supreme Court has tightened qualified immunity so much in recent decades that it's become nearly impossible for courts to recognize even blatant examples of police misconduct as illegal," NPR's Martin Kaste reported last year. "But police see things very differently. For them, qualified immunity has become a necessary safe harbor in a fast-paced, often dangerous job."


Qualified immunity's critics range from far-left activists to the libertarian Cato Institute.


A federal judge joined the critics last year, saying that while an officer in a case before him was protected by the doctrine, qualified immunity should be tossed into "the dustbin of history."


Source

BILL CHAPPELL



Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday, over the murder of George Floyd. He's seen here addressing the court at his sentencing hearing.


A Minnesota judge sentenced Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday for the murder of George Floyd — a punishment that exceeds the state's minimum guidelines but falls short of prosecutors' request of a 30-year sentence.


As he issued the sentence, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill said Chauvin will be credited for the 199 days he has already served.


In April, a jury found the former Minneapolis police officer, who is white, guilty of murdering Floyd, who was Black, last year. The killing triggered massive protests against racial injustice and also prompted reviews of the police use of force — including how much the law should protect officers when someone dies in their custody.


As in earlier proceedings, the sentencing hearing was livestreamed from the courtroom. The sentence announcement followed emotional victim impact statements from Floyd's family, as well as a heartfelt message of support from Chauvin's mother.


Chauvin was seen on video pressing his knee onto Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds as Floyd lay facedown on the asphalt outside a convenience store with his hands cuffed behind his back. The police had been called to the store after Floyd allegedly used a counterfeit $20 bill to pay for cigarettes.


The guilty verdict against Chauvin was hailed as a civil rights victory. Since then, his prison sentence has been awaited as a possible affirmation of that victory.


Under Minnesota law, people sentenced to prison become eligible to be considered for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentence, as long as they've had no disciplinary problems while in custody.


Chauvin was in court for Friday's sentencing hearing, wearing a suit rather than a prisoner's uniform by a special order of the court.


Chauvin offers condolences in a brief statement

Chauvin, who did not testify during his trial, addressed the court in remarks that he said would be kept brief as he is still facing other legal issues — including federal charges.


"I want to give my condolences to the Floyd family," Chauvin said as he looked toward Floyd's relatives in the courtroom.


And in a cryptic moment, the former officer added, "There's going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest. And I hope things will give you some, some peace of mind. Thank you."


Chauvin "is the first white officer in Minnesota to face prison time for the killing of a Black man," according to member station Minnesota Public Radio.


Floyd's daughter, 7, gives her victim impact statement


Floyd's loved ones delivered four victim impact statements in court. The first was a video conversation with Floyd's seven-year-old daughter, Gianna.


"I ask about him all the time," she said, adding that she wants to know, "How did my dad get hurt?"


Gianna said her father is still with her in spirit. When she sees him again, she said, she wants to play with him.


"I miss you and I love you," she said she would tell her father, adding that every night, he used to help her brush her teeth.


The girl added that other people have helped her father, after "those mean people did something to him."


Floyd's brother asks Chauvin: "Why?"

"This situation has really affected me and my family," Floyd's brother Terrence Floyd said.


Addressing Chauvin in the courtroom, Floyd said he has some questions.


"Why? What were you thinking? What was going through your head when you had your knee on my brother's neck?"


He then took a moment to compose himself, after growing emotional.


He went on to describe how, in one of his last conversations with his brother, they had been planning playdates for their daughters.


Asking for a maximum penalty against Chauvin, Terrence Floyd said there should be "no more slaps on the wrist."


Philonise Floyd, who has become an outspoken advocate for his brother after his death, then told the court that he has relived Floyd's death repeatedly in the past year. He no longer knows what it feels like to get a full night's sleep, he said.


"My family and I have been given a life sentence" to live without George Floyd, Philonise Floyd added.


Chauvin's mother says she supports her son "100 percent"


Chauvin's mother, Carolyn Pawlenty, spoke in court on his behalf and for her entire family, she said.


All their lives changed forever the day Floyd died, Pawlenty said.


Her son is not an "aggressive, heartless and uncaring person," or a racist, she said. "My son is a good man," Pawlenty said, noting his years of dedication to being a police officer.


Saying that she supports her son 100 percent, she added that the past year has taken a toll on him.


"When you sentence my son, you will also be sentencing me," Pawlenty told the judge. She noted that if her son serves a long prison term, his parents may not be alive when he is released.


Addressing Chauvin, Pawlenty said she is on his side and told him to be strong.


"Remember you are my favorite son," she said.


Lawyers argued over aggravating factors

Minnesota guidelines called for Chauvin to be sentenced to around 12 1/2 years for second-degree unintentional murder, given his lack of prior criminal history. But state prosecutors pushed for a 30-year term, saying Chauvin "acted with particular cruelty," among other aggravating factors in the case.


The prosecution also cited Chauvin's abuse of a position of authority and Floyd's killing in front of children and other witnesses, saying his punishment requires an "upward departure" from the guidelines. Cahill agreed, saying that aggravating factors had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Eric Nelson, Chauvin's defense attorney, asked for Chauvin to be sentenced to probation along with time already served, saying that Chauvin, 45, would likely be a target in prison. He also says that with the support of his family and friends, Chauvin still has the potential to be a positive influence on his community.


Chauvin was found guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. But he's being punished only for the most serious charge: second-degree murder while committing a felony. In Minnesota, a person convicted of multiple crimes that happened at the same time is typically only sentenced for the most severe charge.


The state's maximum prison term for second-degree unintentional murder is 40 years, although the sentencing guidelines for second-degree unintentional murder largely taper off at 24 years.


Chauvin also faces federal charges


Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin listens to verdicts at his trial in April for the 2020 death of George Floyd at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis. Chauvin was convicted of murder and manslaughter charges in state court and is scheduled to be sentenced June 25.


Weeks after Chauvin was found guilty of murdering Floyd, the Justice Department announced federal criminal charges against him and three of his fellow former officers over Floyd's death.


A federal grand jury indicted the four on charges of violating Floyd's civil rights, with Chauvin accused of using excessive force and ignoring the medical emergency that ended in Floyd's death.


The other former officers — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — are also accused of not getting immediate medical help for Floyd, with Kueng and Thao facing an addition charge of failing to intervene and showing "deliberate indifference" to Floyd's predicament.


The grand jury also indicted Chauvin over an arrest he made in 2017, in which he allegedly used a neck restraint and beat a teenager with a flashlight.


No trial date has been announced for the federal charges.


The three other former officers were already facing a state trial in August, on charges of aiding and abetting. But that trial has now been postponed until March of 2022.


All four of the Minneapolis officers involved in Floyd's death were fired days after the incident.


Nelson had asked the state court for a new trial for Chauvin, saying intense press coverage tainted the jury pool. He also alleged prosecutorial misconduct, related to issues such as sharing evidence and handling witnesses. But Cahill denied Nelson's motion on the eve of Friday's sentencing.


Jordan and Royal Pacheco view a mural of George Floyd in Minneapolis on Friday, as a Hennepin County court weighed the sentence to impose on former police officer Derek Chauvin.


Police killings rarely result in criminal charges

Floyd's murder and other high-profile cases, such as the police killing of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky., have put intense scrutiny on the police use of deadly force against Black people, particularly by white officers.


An NPR investigation from early this year found that police officers in the U.S. shot and killed at least 135 unarmed Black men and women since 2015, and that at least 75% of the officers were white.


Law enforcement officers in the U.S. killed 1,099 people in 2019 — by far the most in any wealthy democracy in both raw numbers and per capita, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.


Those killings result in only a small number of officers being charged with a crime each year, and convictions of police on murder charges are very rare.


Last year brought a spike in the number of officers who died on duty, but as in most years, traffic incidents accounted for the largest share of those deaths.


Chauvin case propelled calls to change policing in the U.S.


The uproar over Floyd's death has helped change how some police departments train officers to use force, particularly chokeholds or carotid restraint holds.


But as NPR reported last summer, bans on neck restraints have been mostly ineffective or unenforced. Chauvin's actions against Floyd, for instance, were described by Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo as violating the department's policies on the use of force, as well de-escalation and rendering aid.


Advocates of police reform also say it's time to limit or revoke qualified immunity — a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court in 1967 that has been used to shield officers from facing liability for egregious actions while on-duty.


Demonstrators gather outside Cup Foods in April to celebrate the murder conviction of former 


"The people pushing for this change say the Supreme Court has tightened qualified immunity so much in recent decades that it's become nearly impossible for courts to recognize even blatant examples of police misconduct as illegal," NPR's Martin Kaste reported last year. "But police see things very differently. For them, qualified immunity has become a necessary safe harbor in a fast-paced, often dangerous job."


Qualified immunity's critics range from far-left activists to the libertarian Cato Institute.


A federal judge joined the critics last year, saying that while an officer in a case before him was protected by the doctrine, qualified immunity should be tossed into "the dustbin of history."


Source

PHOTO: First five (5) female Judges in Nigeria

PHOTO: First five (5) female Judges in Nigeria

 The first five (5) female Judges in Nigeria; this photo was taken in Lagos at a Judges Conference c.1980!*



Left-to-Right: _Dulcie Ethel Adunola Oguntoye, Roseline Omotosho, Modupe Omo-Eboh, Atinuke Ige and Aloma Mukhtar!_



Late Justice Modupe Omo-Eboh (neeAkingbein) was called to Bar in March 14th, 1953; _she became the first female High Court Judge in Nigeria on November 10th, 1969;_ Oguntoye was the 2nd to become a Judge, Mukhtar the 3rd, Ige the 4th and Omotosho the 5th!⚖️


Aloma  Mukhtar was _the first female Chief Justice of Nigeria; first female Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria; first female Justice of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria; first female Judge of the High Court in Kano State judiciary and the first female lawyer from Northern Nigeria!


*Photo source: Oguntoye Family/Bimbola Babarinde/NNP*

 The first five (5) female Judges in Nigeria; this photo was taken in Lagos at a Judges Conference c.1980!*



Left-to-Right: _Dulcie Ethel Adunola Oguntoye, Roseline Omotosho, Modupe Omo-Eboh, Atinuke Ige and Aloma Mukhtar!_



Late Justice Modupe Omo-Eboh (neeAkingbein) was called to Bar in March 14th, 1953; _she became the first female High Court Judge in Nigeria on November 10th, 1969;_ Oguntoye was the 2nd to become a Judge, Mukhtar the 3rd, Ige the 4th and Omotosho the 5th!⚖️


Aloma  Mukhtar was _the first female Chief Justice of Nigeria; first female Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria; first female Justice of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria; first female Judge of the High Court in Kano State judiciary and the first female lawyer from Northern Nigeria!


*Photo source: Oguntoye Family/Bimbola Babarinde/NNP*

JUSUN STRIKE, ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE IMPERATIVES OF JUDICIAL AUTONOMY

JUSUN STRIKE, ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE IMPERATIVES OF JUDICIAL AUTONOMY

By Festus Ogun



For about two weeks now, courts all over the country are under lock and key. On April 6, judicial workers under the aegis of Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) embarked on an indefinite nationwide strike to push for the implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary. The Union contended that the Federal and State governments have, over the years, declined to grant financial autonomy to the judiciary. Truthfully, the lingering closures of our courts and the failure, neglect and refusal of the authorities to implement financial autonomy for the judiciary have far-reaching implications that should give all patriots a cause to worry.


The demands and agitations of JUSUN are valid. My position is premised on the ground that granting financial autonomy to the judiciary is one major way with which the judiciary can be truly independent. Ordinarily, if ours was a true constitutional democracy, the issue of granting financial independence to the judiciary, the arm of government wherein lies the last hope of the common man, should not have arisen. As far as Nigeria is concerned, there is no arm of government greater than the other. Therefore, subjecting the judiciary to the shadow of the executive through financial dependence is to make nonsense of the independence of the judiciary and compromise the course of justice. The only way judicial independence can materialise is to bestow on it financial willpower.


By law, the independence of the judiciary is not only guaranteed, its financial autonomy remains the pillar upon which indirect control and manipulation is resisted. Sections 121 and 81 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered) provide succinctly for the financial autonomy of the judiciary. Section 121(3) explicitly provides that “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State shall be paid directly to the heads of the court concerned”. If the Constitution is very clear on an issue, it begs the question why the Governors have chosen to take the path of executive recklessness.


Interestingly, the sacred provisions of the Constitution in respect to financial autonomy of the judiciary have been given judicial blessing by our courts. In cases separately filed by Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN and JUSUN against the Federal Government, the court upheld the financial independence of the judiciary as a constitutional stipulation that cannot be waived or varied by the executive. 


Just last year, President Buhari passed Executive Order 10 to see to the implementation of the Financial Autonomy of the State legislature and State Judiciary. While the Executive Order became controversial as a result of some constitutional defects, the Governors blatantly refused to implement it. Suffice it to say that though the good intention behind the Executive Order is acknowledged and appreciated, any defect in it would not affect the position of the Constitution as it relates to financial independence of the judiciary. This is because the provision of the Constitution is supreme; and any Executive Order that tends to ‘implement’ a constitutional provision only confirms the mandate of the Constitution – and does not necessarily validate it.


Flowing from the provisions of the Constitution, the decisions of our courts and the Executive Order No 10 of 2020 elucidated above, it is crystal clear that the refusal to grant financial autonomy to the judiciary by the Governors speaks volume of the level of unconstitutionality, lawlessness and impunity we have to deal with in our country. The Governors cannot cherry-pick what aspect of the Constitution to obey; neither can they set a particular time in which they will obey the Constitution. To put it rightly, the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State, established under Section 120 of the Constitution, is not a personal property of the executive. It belongs to the executive, legislature and judiciary. So, keeping what rightfully belongs to other arms of government is an abuse.


The offices of the Governors are a creation of the law and those who occupy them cannot continue to whimsically act as though they are above the law. Flagrant violation or breach of the Constitution, like this, is a “gross misconduct” which is a ground for impeachment under Section 188 of the Constitution. Worryingly, the Lawmakers that should initiate the impeachment process have been financially handicapped by the Governors. This supports the ongoing advocacy for the implementation of financial autonomy for the state legislature.


For the faults of Governors who treat our laws with contempt and utter disregard, access to justice have been blocked, human rights are endangered and our civil liberties are periled. For a country where the dispensation of justice takes longer than necessary, the closure of our courts has added insult to injury. How about those whose lives, businesses and liberty depend on a ruling or decision of court scheduled within the striking days? How about the pain of picking a new date in the distant future? The law is that a suspect should not be kept in cells beyond 24 or 48 hours: How about those (unlawfully) arrested and are kept for over a week in terrible detention centres because their bail applications cannot be heard as a result of court closure? The tragedy inflicted by the failure of the Governors to do the needful when necessary can only be best imagined.


In Osun State, for instance, the Police confirmed that the cells have become overcrowded as a result of the strike. This, according to reports, is the case in almost all the states of the federation. I cannot imagine why our precious human rights and civil liberties are set on fire in broad daylight due to the failure of our leadership to adhere to the spirit and letter of our laws. It is a troubling narrative.


He who pays the piper, they say, bears the tune. One who controls the finances controls everything. And our judiciary should not be subject to executive control; not even at this time when judicial intervention is needed to rescue our tottering democracy. The time is ripe for the judiciary to gain financial independence from the illegal dominance of the executive. Our democracy is precious and must be guarded at all cost by ensuring that the sanctity of the judiciary is not unduly infiltrated.


I will like to conclude with the position of senior constitutional lawyer, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN who brilliantly argued that “the continued dependence of the judiciary on the executive arm of government for its budgeting and funds release is directly responsible for the present state of underfunding of the judiciary, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial service delivery, and general low quality and poor out-put by the judiciary.”


 

Festus Ogun is a lawyer-in-equity and human rights activist. [email protected]

By Festus Ogun



For about two weeks now, courts all over the country are under lock and key. On April 6, judicial workers under the aegis of Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) embarked on an indefinite nationwide strike to push for the implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary. The Union contended that the Federal and State governments have, over the years, declined to grant financial autonomy to the judiciary. Truthfully, the lingering closures of our courts and the failure, neglect and refusal of the authorities to implement financial autonomy for the judiciary have far-reaching implications that should give all patriots a cause to worry.


The demands and agitations of JUSUN are valid. My position is premised on the ground that granting financial autonomy to the judiciary is one major way with which the judiciary can be truly independent. Ordinarily, if ours was a true constitutional democracy, the issue of granting financial independence to the judiciary, the arm of government wherein lies the last hope of the common man, should not have arisen. As far as Nigeria is concerned, there is no arm of government greater than the other. Therefore, subjecting the judiciary to the shadow of the executive through financial dependence is to make nonsense of the independence of the judiciary and compromise the course of justice. The only way judicial independence can materialise is to bestow on it financial willpower.


By law, the independence of the judiciary is not only guaranteed, its financial autonomy remains the pillar upon which indirect control and manipulation is resisted. Sections 121 and 81 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered) provide succinctly for the financial autonomy of the judiciary. Section 121(3) explicitly provides that “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State shall be paid directly to the heads of the court concerned”. If the Constitution is very clear on an issue, it begs the question why the Governors have chosen to take the path of executive recklessness.


Interestingly, the sacred provisions of the Constitution in respect to financial autonomy of the judiciary have been given judicial blessing by our courts. In cases separately filed by Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN and JUSUN against the Federal Government, the court upheld the financial independence of the judiciary as a constitutional stipulation that cannot be waived or varied by the executive. 


Just last year, President Buhari passed Executive Order 10 to see to the implementation of the Financial Autonomy of the State legislature and State Judiciary. While the Executive Order became controversial as a result of some constitutional defects, the Governors blatantly refused to implement it. Suffice it to say that though the good intention behind the Executive Order is acknowledged and appreciated, any defect in it would not affect the position of the Constitution as it relates to financial independence of the judiciary. This is because the provision of the Constitution is supreme; and any Executive Order that tends to ‘implement’ a constitutional provision only confirms the mandate of the Constitution – and does not necessarily validate it.


Flowing from the provisions of the Constitution, the decisions of our courts and the Executive Order No 10 of 2020 elucidated above, it is crystal clear that the refusal to grant financial autonomy to the judiciary by the Governors speaks volume of the level of unconstitutionality, lawlessness and impunity we have to deal with in our country. The Governors cannot cherry-pick what aspect of the Constitution to obey; neither can they set a particular time in which they will obey the Constitution. To put it rightly, the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State, established under Section 120 of the Constitution, is not a personal property of the executive. It belongs to the executive, legislature and judiciary. So, keeping what rightfully belongs to other arms of government is an abuse.


The offices of the Governors are a creation of the law and those who occupy them cannot continue to whimsically act as though they are above the law. Flagrant violation or breach of the Constitution, like this, is a “gross misconduct” which is a ground for impeachment under Section 188 of the Constitution. Worryingly, the Lawmakers that should initiate the impeachment process have been financially handicapped by the Governors. This supports the ongoing advocacy for the implementation of financial autonomy for the state legislature.


For the faults of Governors who treat our laws with contempt and utter disregard, access to justice have been blocked, human rights are endangered and our civil liberties are periled. For a country where the dispensation of justice takes longer than necessary, the closure of our courts has added insult to injury. How about those whose lives, businesses and liberty depend on a ruling or decision of court scheduled within the striking days? How about the pain of picking a new date in the distant future? The law is that a suspect should not be kept in cells beyond 24 or 48 hours: How about those (unlawfully) arrested and are kept for over a week in terrible detention centres because their bail applications cannot be heard as a result of court closure? The tragedy inflicted by the failure of the Governors to do the needful when necessary can only be best imagined.


In Osun State, for instance, the Police confirmed that the cells have become overcrowded as a result of the strike. This, according to reports, is the case in almost all the states of the federation. I cannot imagine why our precious human rights and civil liberties are set on fire in broad daylight due to the failure of our leadership to adhere to the spirit and letter of our laws. It is a troubling narrative.


He who pays the piper, they say, bears the tune. One who controls the finances controls everything. And our judiciary should not be subject to executive control; not even at this time when judicial intervention is needed to rescue our tottering democracy. The time is ripe for the judiciary to gain financial independence from the illegal dominance of the executive. Our democracy is precious and must be guarded at all cost by ensuring that the sanctity of the judiciary is not unduly infiltrated.


I will like to conclude with the position of senior constitutional lawyer, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN who brilliantly argued that “the continued dependence of the judiciary on the executive arm of government for its budgeting and funds release is directly responsible for the present state of underfunding of the judiciary, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial service delivery, and general low quality and poor out-put by the judiciary.”


 

Festus Ogun is a lawyer-in-equity and human rights activist. [email protected]

Nigeria: A Preliminary Report on Criminal Proceedings Against Journalist Omoyele Sowore

Nigeria: A Preliminary Report on Criminal Proceedings Against Journalist Omoyele Sowore

Omoyele Sowore

The prosecution of Omoyele Sowore, a political activist and former presidential candidate, has entailed severe rights violations as a result of misconduct on the part of the authorities ­– specifically, the Department of Security Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation (Nigeria’s Attorney General or AGF). The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights has been monitoring the proceedings against Mr. Sowore as part of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative.[1]


On August 2, 2019, after making a series of public statements calling for peaceful revolution, including for country-wide demonstrations on August 5 under the tagline #RevolutionNow, Mr. Sowore was arrested and detained. He was subsequently charged with, among other offenses, treason, money laundering, and cyberstalking. The totality of the facts strongly suggests that the charges against Mr. Sowore were levied in retaliation for his political activism, in violation of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and that the prosecution (first pursued by the DSS and then taken over by the AGF) has never possessed evidence on which to predicate allegations of criminal behavior.


First, Mr. Sowore had explicitly stated that his calls for revolution were non-violent and had created a code of conduct forbidding violence at the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Indeed, the protest held on August 5 was entirely peaceful. Second, Mr. Sowore was not notified of the reasons for, or legal basis of, his arrest at the time it occurred. DSS’s statement to the press in the immediate aftermath of the arrest vaguely referenced threats of disorder but did not provide specifics as to Mr. Sowore’s allegedly criminal behavior. Third, following Mr. Sowore’s arrest the DSS sought an ex parte order – a decision made by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present – of detention on the basis of an anti-terrorism statute, arguing that Mr. Sowore should be detained so as to enable further investigation. When Mr. Sowore was charged 48 days later, the offenses alleged were unrelated to the anti-terrorism statute. This shift suggests that the statute was but a vehicle for the prosecution to continue detaining Mr. Sowore until it could figure out what charges to bring.


Fourth, eight months into the proceedings (after the AGF assumed control of the case), the prosecution dropped five of the seven charges without explanation. Notably, the amended charge sheet, which contains the two remaining counts of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, does not set forth any facts to support the allegation that Mr. Sowore had sought to overthrow the government by unlawful means: it simply cites Mr. Sowore’s involvement in the #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Fifth, the conduct of the trial, including the prosecution’s repeated requests for adjournment and refusal to share key materials with the defense, is further indication that the State lacks evidence of anything but Mr. Sowore’s peaceable political activism. In light of the above, the DSS and AGF’s pursuit of the case against Mr. Sowore breaches prosecutorial ethics, which mandate that that the State drop charges once it becomes apparent that the evidence is insufficient. The facts detailed above likewise give rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that the case is based on Mr. Sowore’s exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 


Lastly, Mr. Sowore’s due process and fair trial rights have consistently been abused throughout the proceedings, breaching international and regional standards. Among other things, his pre-trial detention – at times in defiance of judicial orders to release him – was unlawful and arbitrary, and authorities denied him access to counsel while in custody.  Meanwhile, Mr. Sowore’s criminal trial has been delayed for over a year, largely as a result of the prosecution’s aforementioned failure to comply with court directives to disclose key materials to defense counsel. The prosecution’s conduct in this regard has violated Mr. Sowore’s right to a trial without undue delay.


The delays in the proceedings are in themselves a form of punishment: Mr. Sowore’s bail conditions require him to remain in Abuja – separated from home and family in the United States – until the conclusion of the trial. Given the risk that the proceedings will be prolonged indefinitely, the Center is releasing this preliminary report on the most egregious completed violations to date. Based on the violations (described further below), the AGF should drop the charges against Mr. Sowore, or the Federal High Court of Nigeria should dismiss the case. At the very least, Mr. Sowore should be permitted to return to the United States for the lengthy periods between scheduled hearings.


Background

Omoyele Sowore is a journalist, former presidential candidate, and opposition critic. He is a U.S. permanent resident and lives in New Jersey with his wife and two children. Mr. Sowore founded Sahara Reporters, an investigative online news outlet that covers corruption and political misconduct in Nigeria. He ran as a candidate in the 2019 presidential elections, in which incumbent Muhammadu Buhari was re-elected. After observers documented what they described as “voting irregularities” and “electoral violence,”[2] Mr. Sowore called for peaceful nationwide protests with the tagline #RevolutionNow. On August 2, 2019, he tweeted: “All that is needed for a #Revolution is for the oppressed to choose a date they desire for liberty, not subjected to the approval of the oppressor.”[3] The demonstrations were scheduled for August 5.


On  August 2, at approximately 11 p.m., state security services – the self-styled Department of Security Services (DSS)[4] – stormed Mr. Sowore’s home and arrested him.[5] The DSS did not have a warrant at the time of the arrest.[6] According to defense counsel, agents “seriously hurt” Mr. Sowore’s arm and ankle in the course of the operation.[7] On August 4, the DSS announced that Mr. Sowore had been arrested because his proposed revolution would “threaten[] public safety, peaceful co-existence and social harmony”.[8]


On August 5, the DSS – relying on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013 – filed an ex-parte application requesting that Mr. Sowore be detained for 90 days.[9] On August 8, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted the application, although it only authorized detention for a period of 45 days.[10] Notably, Mr. Sowore was not physically brought before a judge until August 8, exceeding the 48-hour time limit established by Nigerian law.[11]


On September 20, 48 days after Mr. Sowore’s arrest, the DSS filed criminal charges: seven counts total, including charges of treason, cyberstalking, and money laundering.[12] Under Nigeria’s Police Act, police officers are empowered to conduct prosecutions – although the DSS is a security agency, it has understood itself to have similar powers.[13] The same charges brought against Mr. Sowore were also brought against activist Olawale Bakare, who had joined Mr. Sowore in calls for a nationwide protest.[14]


On September 24, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of Mr. Sowore conditioned on the surrender of his passport[15] (the court had declined to hear any challenge to the 45-day extension order until September 21, when the order expired).[16] Although Mr. Sowore surrendered his passport, the DSS refused to release him.[17] On September 30, while still detained, Mr. Sowore pled not guilty to all charges against him.[18] On October 4, a second judge contradicted the first judge’s release order, setting a higher amount for bail – about 280,000 U.S. dollars (later reduced) – and conditioning release on Mr. Sowore refraining from speaking to the media, from protesting, and from leaving Abuja.[19]


On November 4, Mr. Sowore was able to make bail under these more stringent conditions and on November 6, the court issued an order stating: Mr. Sowore “has been Released.” For a second time, however, the DSS refused to release Mr. Sowore – as reported by the BBC, “lawyers and activists stormed the facility to take Sowore home but were met with stiff resistance by operatives, who said they had no clearance to let him go.”[20] Notably, on October 26 of this year, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion on Mr. Sowore’s detention between his arrest in August and early December 2019, finding it arbitrary because of, among other things, the DSS’s defiance of release orders, violations of Mr. Sowore’s right to due process and a fair trial, and the apparent use of detention to retaliate against Mr. Sowore for his political activism.[21]


Mr. Sowore’s trial opened on November 6 before the Federal High Court in Abuja, with the DSS serving as the prosecution.[22] The court adjourned the hearing because the prosecution had not disclosed witnesses’ written pretrial statements (akin to affidavits) to defense counsel.[23] The Constitution of Nigeria entitles every person charged with a criminal offense to adequate time and facilities for preparation of a defense.[24] In this regard, Nigeria’s Administration of Justice Act requires that the prosecution provide the defense with, among other things, its list of witnesses, summaries of witness statements, and any other document, report, or material that it plans to use in support of its case.[25]  In Mr. Sowore’s case, the court ruled that the rights afforded to the defense by the Constitution required the prosecution to share not only summaries of witness statements but the complete written statements (hereinafter “full witness statements”).[26] The prosecution’s defiance of this directive would become a recurrent theme throughout the proceedings, to be discussed at length below.


On November 8, Mr. Sowore began a hunger strike to protest his continued detention, with demonstrators gathering outside DSS headquarters to demand his release.[27] Four days later, DSS officers “deployed excessive and deadly force” against the demonstrators.[28] The next hearing on December 5 was adjourned to December 6 because of the prosecution’s continued failure to provide full witness statements to the defense, with the court ordering the prosecution to pay 100,000 naira (about US$ 265) to the accused.[29] At the hearing, the judge directed the DSS to release Mr. Sowore, stating that he had made bail.[30]  Although Mr. Sowore was finally released in the evening of December 5, his freedom was short-lived.[31]


On December 6, the prosecution had yet to share certain materials with the defense, including full witness statements.[32] At the end of the hearing, which was adjourned to February 2020 to permit the prosecution to both secure the attendance of witnesses and serve witness statements on the defense, members of the DSS stormed the courtroom and re-arrested Mr. Sowore.[33] Camera footage of the incident depicted agents forcefully subduing Mr. Sowore.[34] In the wake of an international outcry,[35] the AGF, Abubakar Malami, took over the prosecution of Mr. Sowore’s case from the DSS.[36] Mr. Sowore was released from DSS custody on the orders of the AGF on December 24.[37]


At Mr. Sowore’s next hearing on February 12, 2020, the prosecution under the AGF informed the court that the AGF had taken over the matter.[38] Due to delays in disclosure, the court ordered the prosecution to pay 200,000 naira (about US$ 526) to the accused.[39] At the subsequent hearing on February 13, Mr. Sowore pled not guilty to the amended charges – the AGF reduced the number of counts from seven to two[40] – treasonable felony (Section 41(a) of the Criminal Code Act) and conspiracy to commit treasonable felony (Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act).[41] The trial, however, did not commence because the prosecution had again failed to deliver full witness statements and video evidence to the defense, contrary to previous judicial orders.[42] At the next hearing on March 11, the court ordered the prosecution to call its first witness. When the witness began testifying beyond the written summary of the testimony that had been provided to the defense, the judge adjourned the hearing once again.[43]


Mr. Sowore’s criminal trial has been further delayed because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. His trial was scheduled to resume in October 2020 but did not because of COVID concerns: the court stated that it would be impossible to restrict social distancing measures because too many individuals had showed up to watch the proceedings.[44] The trial resumed on December 11, 2020, with the completion of the examination of the witness who had started testifying on March 11.[45] The court granted the prosecution’s motion for its remaining witnesses to be heard only in the presence of parties and accredited journalists and for their names to be excluded from the public record.[46] The proceedings were adjourned to January 25, 2021.


Since his release from detention in December 2019, Mr. Sowore has been forced to remain in Abuja, where he does not have a home. He appealed his bail conditions on April 30, 2020. The first hearing, scheduled for June 3, was adjourned due to the government’s failure to file a response to Mr. Sowore’s brief.[47] When Mr. Sowore’s lawyer arrived at court on the rescheduled date, July 8, he was informed that “the case was not listed and that the court would not be able to hear the case.”[48] According to local media, a court official told defense counsel that “only election petition cases would be entertained.”[49] On October 29, the court rejected Mr. Sowore’s appeal of his bail conditions on the grounds that Mr. Sowore had filed it jointly along with his co-accused, Olawale Bakare, finding: “in criminal cases, appeals are personal, and each defendant is required to file individual notice of appeal.”[50]


On November 19, 2019, in response to alleged violations committed by DSS, Mr. Sowore also filed a fundamental rights suit – which individuals can bring to enforce rights guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution (such as the right to liberty and the right to freedom of expression). Like his criminal trial and his appeal on bail conditions, Mr. Sowore’s case seeking redress has faced delays: the case was first adjourned on February 19, 2020,[51] adjourned again on July 10 because the court refused to hear the case – despite it being on the day’s docket, and has subsequently yet to proceed.[52]  The case is now scheduled to be heard in February 2021.


Suppression of Speech 

The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.[53] The United Nations Human Rights Committee places a high value on “uninhibited expression”, particularly in “circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions.”[54] Any restriction on freedom of expression must (i) be provided by law, such that individuals are able to regulate their conduct accordingly, (ii) pursue a legitimate aim, and (iii) be necessary and proportional.[55] The only legitimate grounds for restricting freedom of expression are to preserve respect for the rights or reputation of others, to protect national security, to protect public order, to protect public health, and to protect public morals.[56]


When invoking one of these grounds to justify a restriction on freedom of expression, the State “must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”[57] The U.N. Human Rights Committee has warned that restrictions in the name of national security or other ostensibly legitimate aims “may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights.”[58]


The African Charter imposes similar standards. In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (Declaration), reaffirming the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter.[59] The Declaration sets forth a test identical to that established by the U.N. Human Rights Committee: that any limitation on speech must be “prescribed by law; serve[] a legitimate aim; and [be] a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the stated aim in a democratic society.”[60] Legitimate aims are “to preserve respect for the rights or reputations of others; or to protect national security, public order or public health.”[61] With respect to necessity and proportionality requirements, the Declaration asserts that any limitation on freedom of expression must “originate from a pressing and substantial need that is relevant and sufficient; [must] have a direct and immediate connection to the expression […], and be the least restrictive means of achieving the stated aim; and [must] be such that the benefit of protecting the stated interest outweighs the harm to the expression”.[62] Lastly, in line with the legality principle outlined by the U.N. Human Rights Committee, laws that limit freedom of expression must be “clear, precise, accessible and foreseeable.”[63]


In the present case, the DSS stated to the press that it had arrested Mr. Sowore because his calls for revolution on social media would “threaten[] public safety, peaceful co-existence and social harmony”.[64] The State further alleged in a court filing that the protest planned for August 5, 2019 “constitute[d] a threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic in members of the public.”[65]


Although safeguarding national security is a legitimate ground for restricting expression, the DSS failed to establish a “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Sowore’s posts and the alleged threat, as required under necessity and proportionality standards. Mr. Sowore is a public figure whose run for president gained momentum on an anti-corruption platform. He launched the #RevolutionNow movement to call for “nationwide peaceful protest against political corruption and bad governance,”[66] declaring that marches and rallies would continue “until we have the Nigeria of our dreams.”[67] Mr. Sowore’s demands were consistently non-violent: in one television interview, he emphasized that his call for revolution was a call for substantial change, “not war.”[68] He and his fellow organizers specifically forbade any form of violence ahead of the planned protest, as evidenced by a public code of conduct.[69] The protest that did take place on August 5 was entirely peaceful. As the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded, “the reference to a revolution in [Mr. Sowore’s] discourse was not sufficient to categorize his call as other than a peaceful protest.”[70]


Meanwhile, in the course of the proceedings thus far, the State has yet to put forth evidence linking Mr. Sowore’s #RevolutionNow platform with imminent unrest and violence. The one witness who has testified, DSS officer Rasheed Olawale, stated merely that he had been involved in the arrest of Mr. Sowore and had received intelligence reports that Mr. Sowore was planning to overthrow the government.[71] No further specifics were provided. Mr. Olawale acknowledged that the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations were not violent and had in fact not resulted in a revolution.[72]


Given the evidence that Mr. Sowore’s arrest, detention, and subsequent criminal prosecution were based solely on his comments regarding the need for a peaceful revolution, his right to freedom of expression was violated.


Suppression of Peaceful Assembly 

Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter protect the right to peaceful assembly. As stated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the right to peaceful assembly is a “fundamental human right,” which “entails the possibility of organizing and participating in a peaceful assembly … in a public location.”[73] No restriction of this right is permissible “unless it is (a) imposed in conformity with the law; and (b) necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”[74]


According to the Committee, Article 21 requires States to abstain from “unwarranted interference with peaceful assemblies.”[75] The provision not only “protect[s] participants while and where an assembly is ongoing [but] … extend[s] to actions such as participants’ or organizers’ mobilization of resources; planning; dissemination of information about an upcoming event; preparation for and travelling to the event; communication between participants leading up to and during the assembly” – in essence, to activities “associated” with the assembly.[76] Under the ICCPR, States are prohibited from treating assemblies in a discriminatory manner, including where they break up or otherwise restrict assembly on the basis of political opinion.[77]


 


The African Charter likewise prohibits restrictions of assembly on discriminatory grounds. The Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, assert: “[t]he state shall not discriminate against assemblies on the basis of other illegitimate grounds, including sex, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, migration status, property, socio-economic status, birth, disability, age, sexual orientation or gender identity.”[78] As noted by the Commission, “any limitations imposed shall be in accordance with the principle of legality, have a legitimate public purpose, and be necessary and proportionate means of achieving that purpose within a democratic society.”[79]  The Commission has also emphasized that “an assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have expressed peaceful intentions, and if the conduct of the assembly participants is generally peaceful.”[80]


In the present case, the Nigerian authorities impermissibly restricted Mr. Sowore’s right to peaceful assembly.  Mr. Sowore organized the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstration; his activities in so doing fell under the protection of Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter. As detailed above, the State failed to demonstrate that its intervention was necessary to prevent unrest and violence. Moreover, arresting and detaining Mr. Sowore for months – an extreme incursion on his right to liberty, as well as his right to peaceful assembly – was not the least restrictive measure the State could have employed, in contravention of the proportionality requirement.


On the whole, it appears that the State took action against Mr. Sowore because the demonstration was at odds with the Buhari government’s agenda. This type of discriminatory intervention violates Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter.


Arbitrary Detention

Detention Without Justification

Under Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, “[e]veryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.” Article 6 of the African Charter contains parallel guarantees.[81] The United Nations Human Rights Committee has noted that the concept of “arbitrariness” must be “interpreted broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”.[82] Not only should pretrial detention be the exception and as short as possible, but detention must be “lawful” (in accordance with domestic law) and “reasonable and necessary in all circumstances.”[83] This means that pretrial detention is appropriate for only a limited number of purposes – namely, to prevent flight, interference with evidence, and the recurrence of crime.[84] Furthermore, pretrial detention must be an individualized determinization that takes into account all the circumstances of the case.[85] Courts should favor the liberty of the accused to minimize the risk that an innocent person serves a sentence prior to acquittal.


Article 6 of the African Charter imposes similar requirements. According to the African Commission, detention must be a “last resort and should only be used where necessary and where no other alternatives are available”[86] and “standard operating procedures shall promote the use of alternatives” to detention.[87]  The African Commission’s Luanda Guidelines require that there be “reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has been involved in the commission of a criminal offence that carries a custodial sentence,” and a showing that “there is a danger that he or she will abscond, commit further serious offences or if there is a danger that the release of the accused will not be in the interests of justice.”[88]


Because pretrial detention must be an individualized decision based on review of the reasonableness and necessity of detention pending trial, overly broad, vague, and expansive standards such as “public security” are insufficient justification for detention.[89] Correspondingly, that a defendant is a foreigner is not sufficient to establish likelihood of flight.[90] As the Human Rights Committee has explained, “the mere fact that the accused is a foreigner does not of itself imply that he may be held in detention pending trial.”[91] A State must substantiate any concern of flight and explain “why it could not be addressed by setting an appropriate sum of bail.”[92]


Throughout Mr. Sowore’s detention, DSS never provided adequate justification as to why detaining Mr. Sowore was “reasonable and necessary.” With respect to its ex-parte application to hold Mr. Sowore for 90 days pending formal charges, the DSS argued that detention was warranted because the agency still investigating his alleged crimes.[93] The court approved detention for 45 days on this basis (from August 8 to September 21). Standing alone, completion of an investigation is not a permissible rationale for deprivation of liberty, rendering Mr. Sowore’s detention during this period arbitrary. Correspondingly, that Mr. Sowore is a permanent resident of the United States was not sufficient justification for holding him in custody. As such, the court’s granting of the DSS’s application contravened the requirements that it must favor an accused’s liberty and treat detention as an exception.

Finally, from September 26 to October 4, November 6 to December 5, and December 6 to December 24, the DSS kept Mr. Sowore in custody in the face of judicial orders that he be released (as detailed at more length below), meaning that his detention was without legal basis and thereby arbitrary.


Defiance of Orders of Release

The DSS violated Mr. Sowore’s right to freedom from arbitrary detention by continuing to detain him in the face of multiple judicial orders for his release.


In Moriana Hernandez Valenina de Bazzano v. Uruguay, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 9(1) where the applicant was “kept in custody in spite of a judicial order of release.”[94] Similarly, in its opinion on Mr. Sowore’s case, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention emphasized: “any time an order for release, even for release on bail, is made and the detainee is not released, the subsequent detention becomes without legal ground. Maintaining a person in detention after release has been ordered by a court competent to exercise control over the legality of detention is a manifest violation of … article 9 of the Covenant and renders the detention arbitrary, because it lacks legal basis.”[95]


As noted above, on September 24, 2019, after the 45-day detention order had expired, a Federal High Court judge granted Mr. Sowore bail, ordering his immediate release on the condition that he surrender his passport. Although Mr. Sowore met this condition on September 26 and the court directed the DSS to comply with its order, the DSS refused to release him.[96] Subsequently, on October 4, notwithstanding the fact that the first judicial decision on bail had not been amended or overturned, [97] a second judge set a higher bail amount. On October 21, the same judge reduced the bail amount. On November 6, after Mr. Sowore made bail, the judge signed an order for his release from custody. The DSS, however, still refused to free Mr. Sowore. He remained detained until the start of his trial on December 5, when the presiding judge again ordered that Mr. Sowore be released. Mr. Sowore was released that evening.


Between September 25 and October 4, and November 6 and December 5, the DSS held Mr. Sowore in defiance of court edicts and without legal ground: his detention during this time was thus arbitrary.


At the conclusion of Mr. Sowore’s hearing on December 6, the day after he was released, DSS agents stormed the court and violently re-arrested him. Again, this intervention was in defiance of court orders and lacked legal basis. Mr. Sowore remained unlawfully – and therefore arbitrarily – detained for another 18 days, until the DSS finally released him on December 24 on the orders of the AGF.


Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Resulting from the Exercise of Rights

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has underscored that “[a]rrest or detention as punishment for the legitimate exercise of the rights as guaranteed by the Covenant is arbitrary, including freedom of opinion and expression.”[98] The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention likewise regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary when it “results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms” guaranteed by the ICCPR.[99]


As noted above, after gaining a sizeable following during his campaign for president, Mr. Sowore began calling for a peaceful revolution via social media. On August 2, the day of his arrest, Mr. Sowore posted a tweet that read: “All that is needed for a #Revolution is for the oppressed to choose a date they desire for liberty, not subjected to the approval of the oppressor.” Later that evening, DSS agents arrested him at his house. Mr. Sowore’s demands, however, were consistently peaceful. As noted above, he had explicitly proclaimed that his call for revolution was peaceful and forbade any violence. The protest that did take place on August 5 was entirely peaceful. On this basis, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Mr. Sowore’s “arrest and detention were designed to sanction him” for exercising his rights to “freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly, [and] also to participate in the public affairs in his country.”[100]


The subsequent conduct of the proceedings has only reinforced the correctness of this opinion: the charge sheet fails to set forth facts showing that Mr. Sowore ever called for anything but a peaceful revolution; the allegations against Mr. Sowore have continually shifted, likewise indicating that there is no evidence of criminal behavior; and the prosecution has continually requested adjournments in lieu of producing and/or disclosing such evidence.


The above gives rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Sowore’s arrest and detention were entirely based on his #RevolutionNow platform. Calls for peaceful protests, however, constitute a legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms and do not a criminal case make. Mr. Sowore’s arrest and detention were therefore arbitrary.


Denial of Access to Counsel

Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR guarantees accused persons the right to “communicate with counsel of [their] own choosing.” Defendants must be granted “prompt access to counsel”[101] at all stages of criminal proceedings, including during the initial detention period. In Kelly v. Jamaica, for example, the U.N. Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 14(3)(b) where police officers ignored the complainant’s request to speak to a lawyer for the first five days he was in custody.[102] A violation of Article 14(3)(b) was also found in Lyashkevich v Uzbekistan, where the complainant was interrogated without “access to the legal counsel of his choice.”[103]


Like the ICCPR, Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter provides for the right to defense, which includes access to counsel. The African Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa affirm the right to counsel at all stages of a criminal prosecution: according to the African Commission, “[t]his right begins when the accused is first detained or charged.”[104]


Throughout Mr. Sowore’s detention, State authorities repeatedly obstructed counsel’s efforts to undertake representation. International and local organizations reported that Mr. Sowore was denied access to a lawyer during his first several days in custody.[105] At Mr. Sowore’s trial hearing on November 6, defense counsel stated that the DSS had blocked them from meeting with Mr. Sowore “over 10 times” in the months leading up to the start of trial.[106] In yet another instance, defense counsel’s request to meet with Mr. Sowore on December 4 – to review evidence shared by the prosecution earlier that day – was ignored by the DSS.[107] Subsequently, Mr. Sowore had no opportunity to meet with his lawyers ahead of his trial hearing on December 5.[108]


The State’s continuous denial of Mr. Sowore’s access to his lawyers, including at key points in the proceedings, contravened Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.


Undue Delay

The ICCPR and African Charter entitle individuals charged with criminal offenses to be tried without undue delay.[109] The calculus as to what constitutes a “reasonable time” between arrest and the conclusion of proceedings entails consideration of factors such as the “complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the administrative and judicial authorities.”[110] States carry a heightened burden to expedite proceedings in cases where defendants are detained.[111]


While the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted judicial proceedings in Nigeria and elsewhere, many of the lags in Mr. Sowore’s trial clearly stem from the actions (and inaction) of State authorities. Mr. Sowore was initially held in detention for 48 days before being formally charged. When his trial started, the prosecution’s failure to conduct disclosure caused delays of approximately five months. At the first hearing on November 6, the court adjourned the proceedings because the prosecution had not shared key documents, including full witness statements, with defense counsel.[112]


The court ordered the prosecution to share full witness statements, video evidence, and other relevant materials prior to the next trial date, December 5.[113] Despite the court’s directive, the prosecution waited until December 4, the day before the hearing, to disclose any materials to the defense, leaving counsel with little time to prepare.[114] The prosecution further failed to share the full witness statements.[115] The judge found the prosecution’s actions so egregious that she awarded the accused 100,000 naira, to be paid by the prosecution, and ordered the prosecution to share the statements before the following hearing.[116] At the next day’s hearing on December 6, the prosecution had still yet to share the statements: the prosecutor averred that they were in the possession of absent witnesses and no further explanation was provided.[117] As a result, the court postponed the trial to February 2020.[118] At the February 12 and 13 hearings, the court was again forced to reschedule proceedings because the prosecution – now under the AGF – had yet to share the full witness statements. The court thereby ordered the prosecution to pay the accused 200,000 naira.[119] The next hearing on March 11 was postponed in part because of the prosecution’s failure to comply with the court’s order.


Since that date, the COVID-19 pandemic has further delayed Mr. Sowore’s trial: all judicial activities in Nigeria were suspended in late March, only resuming in August.[120] Mr. Sowore’s trial, however, has only just begun. As noted above, at the hearing scheduled for October 22 the court stated that it could not proceed because of the number of people in attendance. It did not explain, however, why it had not planned for this likely eventuality given public interest in the case, either through using a larger courtroom or livestreaming the proceedings. The trial subsequently resumed on December 11 with the completion of the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness. Proceedings have been adjourned to January 25, 2021, which will be almost a year and a half since Mr. Sowore’s arrest in August 2019.


Throughout this period, the State has been under a heightened obligation to try Mr. Sowore without undue delay. This burden was initially in place due to Mr. Sowore’s months-long detention, as when accused are detained, the State must expedite the proceedings. This burden persists because of the restrictive bail conditions: Mr. Sowore is required to remain in Abuja until the conclusion of his trial. As Mr. Sowore’s home is in New Jersey, he has been prevented from seeing his family for more than a year. The de facto confinement of Mr. Sowore in Abuja (what his lawyers call “Abuja prison”[121]) underscores the State’s responsibility to mitigate delays.


In light of the factors deemed relevant by the U.N. Human Rights Committee and the African Commission and Court, the prolonged nature of the proceedings thus far violates Mr. Sowore’s right to trial without undue delay.


Prosecutorial Misconduct

In addition to violating Mr. Sowore’s rights, the pattern of behavior described above breaches best practices on prosecutorial ethics. Under the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, prosecutors in criminal proceedings must “not initiate or continue prosecution,” or should “make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charges to be unfounded.”[122] Guidelines produced by the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP Guidelines), which complement the U.N. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, require prosecutors to proceed in criminal cases “only when a case is well-founded upon evidence reasonably believed to be reliable and admissible,” and to “not continue with a prosecution in the absence of such evidence.”[123]


The African Commission’s Fair Trial Principles outline similar standards: “[p]rosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded.”[124]


The totality of facts suggests that prosecutors never had reliable and admissible evidence that Mr. Sowore had committed a criminal offense. First, Mr. Sowore had explicitly stated that his calls for revolution were non-violent and had created a code of conduct forbidding violence at the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Indeed, the protest held on August 5 was entirely peaceful. Second, Mr. Sowore was not notified of the reasons for, or legal basis of, his arrest at the time it occurred.[125] In the DSS’s public statement about the arrest on August 4, it vaguely referenced threats of disorder and tumult but did not specify any applicable legislation.[126] Third, following Mr. Sowore’s arrest the DSS sought an ex parte order of detention on the basis of an anti-terrorism statute, arguing that Mr. Sowore should be detained so as to enable further investigation. When Mr. Sowore was charged 48 days later, the offenses alleged were unrelated to the anti-terrorism statute; this shift suggests that the statute was but a vehicle for the DSS to continue detaining Mr. Sowore until it could figure out what charges to bring. Fourth, eight months into the proceedings (after the AGF assumed control), the prosecution dropped five of the seven charges without explanation. Notably, the amended charge sheet, which contains the two remaining counts of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, does not provide any facts to support the allegation that Mr. Sowore had sought to overthrow the government by unlawful means. Fifth, the conduct of the trial, including the prosecution’s repeated requests for adjournment and failure to disclose the requisite materials to the defense, indicates that the State – initially under the DSS and subsequently under the AGF – lacked sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges.


As noted above, the dearth of proof of criminal behavior not only indicates prosecutorial misconduct but also gives rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Sowore was arrested, detained, and prosecuted so as to suppress his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.


Conclusion

It appears that the prosecution never possessed sufficient evidence on which to predicate a criminal case against Mr. Sowore. Calls for peaceful protest do not constitute treason. The proceedings have violated – and continue to violate – Mr. Sowore’s right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of assembly, and right to trial without undue delay, as well as best practices in prosecutorial ethics. The AGF should withdraw the charges or, alternatively, the Federal High Court should dismiss the case. At the very least, the court should allow Mr. Sowore to return to the United States and reunite with his family pending resumption of his trial on January 25.


[1] This report was prepared by staff attorneys of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights and reflects their views. It has not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and therefore should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association as a whole. Further, nothing in this report should be considered as legal advice in a specific case. Additionally, the views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Clooney Foundation for Justice.


[2] See Africa Times, “Nigeria’s INEC Details Voting Irregularities, Electoral Violence”, March 2, 2019. Available at https://africatimes.com/2019/03/02/nigerias-inec-report-details-voting-irregularities-electoral-violence/. See also The Guardian, “Nigeria Election Marred by Vote Buying, Tech Failures, and Violence”, February 23, 2019. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/23/nigeria-election-goes-ahead-amid-violence-tech-failures.


[3] BBC, “Omoyele Sowore: Nigeria Journalist Detained Hours After Release”, December 6, 2019. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50689265.


[4] The State Security Service (SSS) was established by the National Security Agencies Act, Decree 19 of June 5, 1986, which created three intelligence agencies – including the SSS. The National Security Agencies Act charges the SSS with the responsibility of ensuring internal security in Nigeria, including preventing and detecting “any crime against the internal security of Nigeria.” See https://nlipw.com/national-security-agencies-act/. Instrument No. 1 of 1999 details the types of crimes SSS is mandated to prevent, detect, and investigate, including espionage, treason, and threats to law and order. In the last decade, the SSS began referring to itself as the “Department of Security Services,” (i.e. DSS), which is now the term commonly used to describe the agency. See The Premium Times, “How Nigeria’s Secret Police, SSS, is Violating the Law and Illegally Parading Itself as DSS”, August 26, 2016. Available at https://www.premiumtimesng.com/investigationspecial-reports/209343-fact-check-nigerias-secret-police-sss-violating-law-illegally-parading-dss.html.


[5] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Submission on Point of Law (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 9, 2019.


[6] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Address in Support of Motion on Notice (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, September 5, 2019, para. 2.1.


[7] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Respondent/Applicant Reply on Point of Law (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 22, 2019. para. 5(ii)(aa).


[8] The Punch, “Why We Arrested Sowore- DSS”, August 4, 2019. Available at https://punchng.com/why-we-arrested-sowore-dss/.


[9] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Address in Support of Motion on Notice (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, September 5, 2019, para. 2.1; Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 1. Available at https://rfkhumanrights.org/assets/documents/Omoyele-Sowore-UN-WGAD-Petition.pdf.


[10] Id. See also “Nigerian Court permits detention of political activist and journalist Omoyele Sowore”, August 10, 2019. Available at https://peoplesdispatch.org/2019/08/10/nigerian-court-permits-detention-of-political-activist-omoyele-sowore/.


[11] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 9.


[12] Id. at pgs. 1–2.


[13] Nigerian Police Act, 2020, Section 23; This Day, “DSS Lacks Power to Arrest, Prosecute for Terrorism”, August 28, 2019. Available at https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/08/28/dss-lacks-power-to-arrest-prosecute-for-terrorism-falana-tells-court/.


[14] This preliminary report is focused on the proceedings against Mr. Sowore.


[15] Premium Times, “Court orders immediate release of Sowore”, September 24, 2019. Available at https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/354093-breaking-court-orders-immediate-release-of-sowore.html.


[16] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 1.


[17] Nigeria Democratic Report, “Sowore Files Contempt Suit Against DSS”, September 27, 2019. Available at https://www.ndr.org.ng/sowore-files-contempt-suit-against-dss/.


[18] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 3. See also Reuters, “Nigerian activist Sowore pleads not guilty to treason charges”, September 30, 2019. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-politics/nigerian-activist-sowore-pleads-not-guilty-to-treason-charges-idUSKBN1WF16F.


[19] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 3. On October 21, the same judge reduced the bail amount.


[20] BBC News, “Omoyele Sowore: Anger over detention of Nigerian journalist”, November 9, 2019. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50361883.


[21] United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 27/2020 Concerning Omoyele Sowore: Nigeria, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2020/27, October 6, 2020 (hereinafter “UNWGAD Decision”).


[22] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[23] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[24] Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, Section 36(6)(b).


[25] Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, Section 379(a).


[26] See Trial Monitor’s Notes, March 11, 2020.


[27] UNWGAD Decision, para. 14.


[28] Id. See also Human Rights Watch, “Nigeria: Despite Court Order, Activist Still Held”, November 15, 2019. Available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/15/nigeria-despite-court-order-activist-still-held.


[29] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 5, 2019.


[30] Id.


[31] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 6, 2019.


[32] Id.


[33] Id.


[34] YouTube, “Moment DSS Attempted to Rearrest Sowore at Federal High Court, Abuja”, December 6, 2019. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUVVMLsyuc. See also Council on Foreign Relations, “Buhari’s Attacks on the Press in Nigeria Continue Unabated”, December 11, 2019. Available at https://www.cfr.org/blog/buharis-attacks-press-nigeria-continue-unabated.


[35] CNN, “Nigeria faces backlash over the arrest of a US-based activist and journalist”, December 9, 2019. Available at https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/africa/nigeria-sowore-arrest-backlash/index.html.


[36] The Punch, “AGF takes over Sowore’s case from DSS”, December 13, 2019. Available at https://punchng.com/breaking-agf-takes-over-sowores-case-from-dss/.


[37] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, “The Case of Omoyele Sowore The Nigerian Authorities Have Subjected Journalist and Human Rights Defender to Multiple Human Rights Violations”, January 30, 2020. Available at https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/the-case-of-omoyele-sowore; Sahara Reporters, “Why We Decided to Release Sowore, Dasuki – Nigeria’s Attorney – General, Malami”, December 24, 2019. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2019/12/24/update-why-we-decided-release-sowore-dasuki-%E2%80%93nigeria%E2%80%99s-attorney-general-malami.


[38] Trial Monitor’s Notes, February 12, 2020.


[39] Id.


[40] See Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Charge Sheet, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/235/2019, February 10, 2020.


[41] Trial Monitor’s Notes, February 13, 2020.


[42] Id.


[43] Trial Monitor’s Notes, March 11, 2020.


[44] Trial Monitor’s Notes, October 22, 2020.


[45] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 11, 2020.


[46] Id.


[47] Sahara Reporters, “Appeal Court Fixes July 8 To Hear Sowore’s Appeal on Bail Condition”, June 3, 2020. Available a http://saharareporters.com/2020/06/03/appeal-court-fixes-july-8-hear-sowores-appeal-bail-condition.


[48] Naija Newspaper, “Appeal Court Fails to Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Case”, July 8, 2020. Available at https://www.naijanews.com/2020/07/08/appeal-court-fails-to-hear-sowores-bail-variation-case/; Sahara Reporters, “Again Appeal Court Fails To Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Suit”, July 8, 2020. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2020/07/08/breaking-again-appeal-court-fails-hear-sowores-bail-variation-suit.


[49] Naija Newspaper, “Appeal Court Fails to Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Case”, July 8, 2020.


[50] The Nation, “Court Reject’s Sowore’s, Bakare’s Appeal Against Bail Conditions”, October 29, 2020. Available at https://thenationonlineng.net/court-rejects-sowores-bakares-appeal-against-bail-conditions/.


[51] Sahara Reporters, “Court Adjourns Sowore, Bakare’s Fundamental Rights Suit to March 25”, February 19, 2020. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2020/02/19/breaking-court-adjourns-sowore-bakares-fundamental-rights-suit-march-25.


[52] Sahara Reporters, “Again, Court Refuses to Hear Sowore’s Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Suit Against DSS, Malami”, July 10, 2020. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2020/07/10/again-court-refuses-hear-sowores-enforcement-fundamental-rights-suit-against-dss-malami. See also Naija News, “Court Again Snubs Sowore’s Suit Against DSS, AGF Malami”, July 10, 2020. Available at https://www.naijanews.com/2020/07/10/court-again-snubs-sowores-suit-against-dss-agf-malami/.


[53] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19; African (Banjul) Charter on Human Rights, Article 9, 11.


[54] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, para. 38.


[55] Id. at para 22.                                                                              


[56] ICCPR, Article 19(3). See also Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, paras. 28–29.


[57] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, para. 35.


[58] Id. at para. 23.


[59] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, Adopted at the 65th Ordinary Session, October 21 to November 10, 2019. Available at https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=69.


[60] Id. at Principle 9.1.


[61] Id. at Principle 9.3.


[62] Id. at Principle 9.4.


[63] Id. at Principle 9.2.


[64] The Punch, “Why We Arrested Sowore- DSS”, August 4, 2019.


[65] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, State Security Service Written Address in Support of the Counter Affidavit, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 16, 2019, para. 4.xx.


[66] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 3.


[67] Amsterdam News, “He Named His Movement ‘Revolution Now’ and They Jailed Him”, August 8, 2019. Available at http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2019/aug/08/he-named-his-movement-revolution/.


[68] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Submission on Point of Law (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 9, 2019, para. 1.0.17.


[69] Id. at para. 1.0.9.


[70] UNWGAD Decision, para. 58.


[71] Trial Monitor’s Notes, March 11, 2020; Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 11, 2020.


[72] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 11, 2020.


[73] Human Rights Committee, Strizhak v. Belarus, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/124/D/2260/2013, November 1, 2018, para. 6.5. See also Human Rights Committee, Giménez v. Paraguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/123/D/2372/2014, September 26, 2018, para. 8.3.


[74] Human Rights Committee, Giménez v. Paraguay, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/123/D/2372/2014, September 26, 2018, para. 8.3. See also Human Rights Committee, Strizhak v. Belarus, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/124/D/2260/2013, November 1, 2018, para. 6.5.


[75] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 37, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, July 23, 2020, para. 23.


[76] Id. at para. 33.


[77] Human Rights Council, Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/31/66, February 4, 2016, paras. 15–16. See also Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Georgia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GEO/CO/4, August 19, 2014, para. 8; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Mongolia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/MNG/CO/6, August 22, 2017, para. 11.


[78] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, Adopted at the 60th Ordinary Session, May 8-22, 2017, para. 80. Available at https://www.achpr.org/public/Document/file/English/guidelines_on_freedom_of_association_and_assembly_in_africa_eng.pdf.


[79] Id. at para. 85.


[80] Id. at para. 70.


[81] African (Banjul) Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 6.


[82] Human Rights Committee, Ismet Ozcelik et. al. v. Turkey, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017, May 28, 2019, para. 9.3.


[83] Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[84] Human Rights Committee, Mikhail Marinich v. Belarus, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/99/D/1502/2006, August 19, 2010, para. 10.4; Human Rights Committee. See also M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3; Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, November 21, 2011, para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[85] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 38. See also Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3; Human Rights Committee, Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, November 21, 2011, para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[86] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (Luanda Guidelines), 55th Ordinary Session, April 28–May 12, 2014, para. 10(b).


[87] Id. at para. 6(a).


[88] Id. at para. 11(a)(ii).


[89] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 38. See also Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3; Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, November 21, 2011, para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[90] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 38. See also Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3.


[91] Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3.


[92] Id.


[93] See Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, State Security Service Written Address in Support of the Counter Affidavit, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 16, 2019, paras. 1.2, 4.xxi, 4.xxvii.


[94] Human Rights Committee, Moriana Hernandez Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/7/D/5/1977, August 15, 1979, para. (10)(i).


[95] UNWGAD Decision, para. 54.


[96]See Sahara Reporters, “Release Sowore or Go to Jail”, September 26, 2019. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2019/09/26/breaking-release-sowore-or-go-jail-federal-high-court-tell-dss-dg.


[97] This report does not address the validity of the second judge’s decision to issue a new bail order despite the fact that the first bail order had yet to be overturned.


[98] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 17.


[99] Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 3/2019 concerning Uon Chhin and Yeang Sothearin (Cambodia), U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2019/3, para. 3.


[100] UNWGAD Opinion, para. 58.


[101] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, Aug. 23, 2017, para. 34.


[102] Human Rights Committee, Kelly v. Jamaica, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/57/D/537/1993, July 17, 1996, para. 9.2.


[103] Human Rights Committee, Lyashkevich v Uzbekistan, U.N. Doc CCPR/ C/98/D/1552/2007, May 11, 2010, para. 9.4.


[104]African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, Principle N(2)(c-d).


[105] Index on Censorship, Urgent Appeal in Relation to the Arrest and Detention of Omoyele Sowore, Nigerian Journalist and Human Rights Defender, August 23, 2019. Available at https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/08/urgent-appeal-in-relation-to-the-arrest-and-detention-of-omoyele-sowore-nigerian-journalist-and-human-rights-defender/.


[106] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[107] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 5, 2019


[108] Id.


[109] ICCPR, 14(3)(c); African Charter, Article 7(1)(d).


[110] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 35. See also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, Principle N(5)(c).


[111] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 35.


[112] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[113] Id.


[114] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 5, 2019.


[115] Id.


[116] Id.


[117] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 6, 2019.


[118] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 6, 2019.


[119] Trial Monitor’s Notes, February 13, 2020.


[120] Nairametrics, “Covid-19: All courts to shut down immediately”, March 24, 2020. Available at https://nairametrics.com/2020/03/24/covid-19-all-courts-to-shut-down-immediately/. See also All Africa, “Nigeria: Covid-19 Delays 155,757 Court Cases in Nigeria”, April 20, 2020. Available at https://allafrica.com/stories/202004200271.html.


[121] Naija Newspaper, “Appeal Court Fails to Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Case”, July 8, 2020. Available at https://www.naijanews.com/2020/07/08/appeal-court-fails-to-hear-sowores-bail-variation-case/.


[122] United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, 1990, para. 14. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RoleOfProsecutors.aspx.


[123] International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, 1999, Principle 4.2(d). Available at https://www.iap-association.org/getattachment/Resources-Documentation/IAP-Standards-(1)/IAP_Standards_Oktober-2018_FINAL_20180210.pdf.aspx.


[124] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, Principle F(j).


[125] UNWGAD Decision, para. 53.


[126] The Punch, “Why We Arrested Sowore- DSS”, August 4, 2019.

Omoyele Sowore

The prosecution of Omoyele Sowore, a political activist and former presidential candidate, has entailed severe rights violations as a result of misconduct on the part of the authorities ­– specifically, the Department of Security Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation (Nigeria’s Attorney General or AGF). The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights has been monitoring the proceedings against Mr. Sowore as part of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative.[1]


On August 2, 2019, after making a series of public statements calling for peaceful revolution, including for country-wide demonstrations on August 5 under the tagline #RevolutionNow, Mr. Sowore was arrested and detained. He was subsequently charged with, among other offenses, treason, money laundering, and cyberstalking. The totality of the facts strongly suggests that the charges against Mr. Sowore were levied in retaliation for his political activism, in violation of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and that the prosecution (first pursued by the DSS and then taken over by the AGF) has never possessed evidence on which to predicate allegations of criminal behavior.


First, Mr. Sowore had explicitly stated that his calls for revolution were non-violent and had created a code of conduct forbidding violence at the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Indeed, the protest held on August 5 was entirely peaceful. Second, Mr. Sowore was not notified of the reasons for, or legal basis of, his arrest at the time it occurred. DSS’s statement to the press in the immediate aftermath of the arrest vaguely referenced threats of disorder but did not provide specifics as to Mr. Sowore’s allegedly criminal behavior. Third, following Mr. Sowore’s arrest the DSS sought an ex parte order – a decision made by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present – of detention on the basis of an anti-terrorism statute, arguing that Mr. Sowore should be detained so as to enable further investigation. When Mr. Sowore was charged 48 days later, the offenses alleged were unrelated to the anti-terrorism statute. This shift suggests that the statute was but a vehicle for the prosecution to continue detaining Mr. Sowore until it could figure out what charges to bring.


Fourth, eight months into the proceedings (after the AGF assumed control of the case), the prosecution dropped five of the seven charges without explanation. Notably, the amended charge sheet, which contains the two remaining counts of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, does not set forth any facts to support the allegation that Mr. Sowore had sought to overthrow the government by unlawful means: it simply cites Mr. Sowore’s involvement in the #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Fifth, the conduct of the trial, including the prosecution’s repeated requests for adjournment and refusal to share key materials with the defense, is further indication that the State lacks evidence of anything but Mr. Sowore’s peaceable political activism. In light of the above, the DSS and AGF’s pursuit of the case against Mr. Sowore breaches prosecutorial ethics, which mandate that that the State drop charges once it becomes apparent that the evidence is insufficient. The facts detailed above likewise give rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that the case is based on Mr. Sowore’s exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 


Lastly, Mr. Sowore’s due process and fair trial rights have consistently been abused throughout the proceedings, breaching international and regional standards. Among other things, his pre-trial detention – at times in defiance of judicial orders to release him – was unlawful and arbitrary, and authorities denied him access to counsel while in custody.  Meanwhile, Mr. Sowore’s criminal trial has been delayed for over a year, largely as a result of the prosecution’s aforementioned failure to comply with court directives to disclose key materials to defense counsel. The prosecution’s conduct in this regard has violated Mr. Sowore’s right to a trial without undue delay.


The delays in the proceedings are in themselves a form of punishment: Mr. Sowore’s bail conditions require him to remain in Abuja – separated from home and family in the United States – until the conclusion of the trial. Given the risk that the proceedings will be prolonged indefinitely, the Center is releasing this preliminary report on the most egregious completed violations to date. Based on the violations (described further below), the AGF should drop the charges against Mr. Sowore, or the Federal High Court of Nigeria should dismiss the case. At the very least, Mr. Sowore should be permitted to return to the United States for the lengthy periods between scheduled hearings.


Background

Omoyele Sowore is a journalist, former presidential candidate, and opposition critic. He is a U.S. permanent resident and lives in New Jersey with his wife and two children. Mr. Sowore founded Sahara Reporters, an investigative online news outlet that covers corruption and political misconduct in Nigeria. He ran as a candidate in the 2019 presidential elections, in which incumbent Muhammadu Buhari was re-elected. After observers documented what they described as “voting irregularities” and “electoral violence,”[2] Mr. Sowore called for peaceful nationwide protests with the tagline #RevolutionNow. On August 2, 2019, he tweeted: “All that is needed for a #Revolution is for the oppressed to choose a date they desire for liberty, not subjected to the approval of the oppressor.”[3] The demonstrations were scheduled for August 5.


On  August 2, at approximately 11 p.m., state security services – the self-styled Department of Security Services (DSS)[4] – stormed Mr. Sowore’s home and arrested him.[5] The DSS did not have a warrant at the time of the arrest.[6] According to defense counsel, agents “seriously hurt” Mr. Sowore’s arm and ankle in the course of the operation.[7] On August 4, the DSS announced that Mr. Sowore had been arrested because his proposed revolution would “threaten[] public safety, peaceful co-existence and social harmony”.[8]


On August 5, the DSS – relying on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013 – filed an ex-parte application requesting that Mr. Sowore be detained for 90 days.[9] On August 8, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted the application, although it only authorized detention for a period of 45 days.[10] Notably, Mr. Sowore was not physically brought before a judge until August 8, exceeding the 48-hour time limit established by Nigerian law.[11]


On September 20, 48 days after Mr. Sowore’s arrest, the DSS filed criminal charges: seven counts total, including charges of treason, cyberstalking, and money laundering.[12] Under Nigeria’s Police Act, police officers are empowered to conduct prosecutions – although the DSS is a security agency, it has understood itself to have similar powers.[13] The same charges brought against Mr. Sowore were also brought against activist Olawale Bakare, who had joined Mr. Sowore in calls for a nationwide protest.[14]


On September 24, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of Mr. Sowore conditioned on the surrender of his passport[15] (the court had declined to hear any challenge to the 45-day extension order until September 21, when the order expired).[16] Although Mr. Sowore surrendered his passport, the DSS refused to release him.[17] On September 30, while still detained, Mr. Sowore pled not guilty to all charges against him.[18] On October 4, a second judge contradicted the first judge’s release order, setting a higher amount for bail – about 280,000 U.S. dollars (later reduced) – and conditioning release on Mr. Sowore refraining from speaking to the media, from protesting, and from leaving Abuja.[19]


On November 4, Mr. Sowore was able to make bail under these more stringent conditions and on November 6, the court issued an order stating: Mr. Sowore “has been Released.” For a second time, however, the DSS refused to release Mr. Sowore – as reported by the BBC, “lawyers and activists stormed the facility to take Sowore home but were met with stiff resistance by operatives, who said they had no clearance to let him go.”[20] Notably, on October 26 of this year, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion on Mr. Sowore’s detention between his arrest in August and early December 2019, finding it arbitrary because of, among other things, the DSS’s defiance of release orders, violations of Mr. Sowore’s right to due process and a fair trial, and the apparent use of detention to retaliate against Mr. Sowore for his political activism.[21]


Mr. Sowore’s trial opened on November 6 before the Federal High Court in Abuja, with the DSS serving as the prosecution.[22] The court adjourned the hearing because the prosecution had not disclosed witnesses’ written pretrial statements (akin to affidavits) to defense counsel.[23] The Constitution of Nigeria entitles every person charged with a criminal offense to adequate time and facilities for preparation of a defense.[24] In this regard, Nigeria’s Administration of Justice Act requires that the prosecution provide the defense with, among other things, its list of witnesses, summaries of witness statements, and any other document, report, or material that it plans to use in support of its case.[25]  In Mr. Sowore’s case, the court ruled that the rights afforded to the defense by the Constitution required the prosecution to share not only summaries of witness statements but the complete written statements (hereinafter “full witness statements”).[26] The prosecution’s defiance of this directive would become a recurrent theme throughout the proceedings, to be discussed at length below.


On November 8, Mr. Sowore began a hunger strike to protest his continued detention, with demonstrators gathering outside DSS headquarters to demand his release.[27] Four days later, DSS officers “deployed excessive and deadly force” against the demonstrators.[28] The next hearing on December 5 was adjourned to December 6 because of the prosecution’s continued failure to provide full witness statements to the defense, with the court ordering the prosecution to pay 100,000 naira (about US$ 265) to the accused.[29] At the hearing, the judge directed the DSS to release Mr. Sowore, stating that he had made bail.[30]  Although Mr. Sowore was finally released in the evening of December 5, his freedom was short-lived.[31]


On December 6, the prosecution had yet to share certain materials with the defense, including full witness statements.[32] At the end of the hearing, which was adjourned to February 2020 to permit the prosecution to both secure the attendance of witnesses and serve witness statements on the defense, members of the DSS stormed the courtroom and re-arrested Mr. Sowore.[33] Camera footage of the incident depicted agents forcefully subduing Mr. Sowore.[34] In the wake of an international outcry,[35] the AGF, Abubakar Malami, took over the prosecution of Mr. Sowore’s case from the DSS.[36] Mr. Sowore was released from DSS custody on the orders of the AGF on December 24.[37]


At Mr. Sowore’s next hearing on February 12, 2020, the prosecution under the AGF informed the court that the AGF had taken over the matter.[38] Due to delays in disclosure, the court ordered the prosecution to pay 200,000 naira (about US$ 526) to the accused.[39] At the subsequent hearing on February 13, Mr. Sowore pled not guilty to the amended charges – the AGF reduced the number of counts from seven to two[40] – treasonable felony (Section 41(a) of the Criminal Code Act) and conspiracy to commit treasonable felony (Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act).[41] The trial, however, did not commence because the prosecution had again failed to deliver full witness statements and video evidence to the defense, contrary to previous judicial orders.[42] At the next hearing on March 11, the court ordered the prosecution to call its first witness. When the witness began testifying beyond the written summary of the testimony that had been provided to the defense, the judge adjourned the hearing once again.[43]


Mr. Sowore’s criminal trial has been further delayed because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. His trial was scheduled to resume in October 2020 but did not because of COVID concerns: the court stated that it would be impossible to restrict social distancing measures because too many individuals had showed up to watch the proceedings.[44] The trial resumed on December 11, 2020, with the completion of the examination of the witness who had started testifying on March 11.[45] The court granted the prosecution’s motion for its remaining witnesses to be heard only in the presence of parties and accredited journalists and for their names to be excluded from the public record.[46] The proceedings were adjourned to January 25, 2021.


Since his release from detention in December 2019, Mr. Sowore has been forced to remain in Abuja, where he does not have a home. He appealed his bail conditions on April 30, 2020. The first hearing, scheduled for June 3, was adjourned due to the government’s failure to file a response to Mr. Sowore’s brief.[47] When Mr. Sowore’s lawyer arrived at court on the rescheduled date, July 8, he was informed that “the case was not listed and that the court would not be able to hear the case.”[48] According to local media, a court official told defense counsel that “only election petition cases would be entertained.”[49] On October 29, the court rejected Mr. Sowore’s appeal of his bail conditions on the grounds that Mr. Sowore had filed it jointly along with his co-accused, Olawale Bakare, finding: “in criminal cases, appeals are personal, and each defendant is required to file individual notice of appeal.”[50]


On November 19, 2019, in response to alleged violations committed by DSS, Mr. Sowore also filed a fundamental rights suit – which individuals can bring to enforce rights guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution (such as the right to liberty and the right to freedom of expression). Like his criminal trial and his appeal on bail conditions, Mr. Sowore’s case seeking redress has faced delays: the case was first adjourned on February 19, 2020,[51] adjourned again on July 10 because the court refused to hear the case – despite it being on the day’s docket, and has subsequently yet to proceed.[52]  The case is now scheduled to be heard in February 2021.


Suppression of Speech 

The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.[53] The United Nations Human Rights Committee places a high value on “uninhibited expression”, particularly in “circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions.”[54] Any restriction on freedom of expression must (i) be provided by law, such that individuals are able to regulate their conduct accordingly, (ii) pursue a legitimate aim, and (iii) be necessary and proportional.[55] The only legitimate grounds for restricting freedom of expression are to preserve respect for the rights or reputation of others, to protect national security, to protect public order, to protect public health, and to protect public morals.[56]


When invoking one of these grounds to justify a restriction on freedom of expression, the State “must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”[57] The U.N. Human Rights Committee has warned that restrictions in the name of national security or other ostensibly legitimate aims “may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights.”[58]


The African Charter imposes similar standards. In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (Declaration), reaffirming the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter.[59] The Declaration sets forth a test identical to that established by the U.N. Human Rights Committee: that any limitation on speech must be “prescribed by law; serve[] a legitimate aim; and [be] a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the stated aim in a democratic society.”[60] Legitimate aims are “to preserve respect for the rights or reputations of others; or to protect national security, public order or public health.”[61] With respect to necessity and proportionality requirements, the Declaration asserts that any limitation on freedom of expression must “originate from a pressing and substantial need that is relevant and sufficient; [must] have a direct and immediate connection to the expression […], and be the least restrictive means of achieving the stated aim; and [must] be such that the benefit of protecting the stated interest outweighs the harm to the expression”.[62] Lastly, in line with the legality principle outlined by the U.N. Human Rights Committee, laws that limit freedom of expression must be “clear, precise, accessible and foreseeable.”[63]


In the present case, the DSS stated to the press that it had arrested Mr. Sowore because his calls for revolution on social media would “threaten[] public safety, peaceful co-existence and social harmony”.[64] The State further alleged in a court filing that the protest planned for August 5, 2019 “constitute[d] a threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic in members of the public.”[65]


Although safeguarding national security is a legitimate ground for restricting expression, the DSS failed to establish a “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Sowore’s posts and the alleged threat, as required under necessity and proportionality standards. Mr. Sowore is a public figure whose run for president gained momentum on an anti-corruption platform. He launched the #RevolutionNow movement to call for “nationwide peaceful protest against political corruption and bad governance,”[66] declaring that marches and rallies would continue “until we have the Nigeria of our dreams.”[67] Mr. Sowore’s demands were consistently non-violent: in one television interview, he emphasized that his call for revolution was a call for substantial change, “not war.”[68] He and his fellow organizers specifically forbade any form of violence ahead of the planned protest, as evidenced by a public code of conduct.[69] The protest that did take place on August 5 was entirely peaceful. As the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded, “the reference to a revolution in [Mr. Sowore’s] discourse was not sufficient to categorize his call as other than a peaceful protest.”[70]


Meanwhile, in the course of the proceedings thus far, the State has yet to put forth evidence linking Mr. Sowore’s #RevolutionNow platform with imminent unrest and violence. The one witness who has testified, DSS officer Rasheed Olawale, stated merely that he had been involved in the arrest of Mr. Sowore and had received intelligence reports that Mr. Sowore was planning to overthrow the government.[71] No further specifics were provided. Mr. Olawale acknowledged that the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations were not violent and had in fact not resulted in a revolution.[72]


Given the evidence that Mr. Sowore’s arrest, detention, and subsequent criminal prosecution were based solely on his comments regarding the need for a peaceful revolution, his right to freedom of expression was violated.


Suppression of Peaceful Assembly 

Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter protect the right to peaceful assembly. As stated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the right to peaceful assembly is a “fundamental human right,” which “entails the possibility of organizing and participating in a peaceful assembly … in a public location.”[73] No restriction of this right is permissible “unless it is (a) imposed in conformity with the law; and (b) necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”[74]


According to the Committee, Article 21 requires States to abstain from “unwarranted interference with peaceful assemblies.”[75] The provision not only “protect[s] participants while and where an assembly is ongoing [but] … extend[s] to actions such as participants’ or organizers’ mobilization of resources; planning; dissemination of information about an upcoming event; preparation for and travelling to the event; communication between participants leading up to and during the assembly” – in essence, to activities “associated” with the assembly.[76] Under the ICCPR, States are prohibited from treating assemblies in a discriminatory manner, including where they break up or otherwise restrict assembly on the basis of political opinion.[77]


 


The African Charter likewise prohibits restrictions of assembly on discriminatory grounds. The Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, assert: “[t]he state shall not discriminate against assemblies on the basis of other illegitimate grounds, including sex, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, migration status, property, socio-economic status, birth, disability, age, sexual orientation or gender identity.”[78] As noted by the Commission, “any limitations imposed shall be in accordance with the principle of legality, have a legitimate public purpose, and be necessary and proportionate means of achieving that purpose within a democratic society.”[79]  The Commission has also emphasized that “an assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have expressed peaceful intentions, and if the conduct of the assembly participants is generally peaceful.”[80]


In the present case, the Nigerian authorities impermissibly restricted Mr. Sowore’s right to peaceful assembly.  Mr. Sowore organized the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstration; his activities in so doing fell under the protection of Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter. As detailed above, the State failed to demonstrate that its intervention was necessary to prevent unrest and violence. Moreover, arresting and detaining Mr. Sowore for months – an extreme incursion on his right to liberty, as well as his right to peaceful assembly – was not the least restrictive measure the State could have employed, in contravention of the proportionality requirement.


On the whole, it appears that the State took action against Mr. Sowore because the demonstration was at odds with the Buhari government’s agenda. This type of discriminatory intervention violates Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter.


Arbitrary Detention

Detention Without Justification

Under Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, “[e]veryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.” Article 6 of the African Charter contains parallel guarantees.[81] The United Nations Human Rights Committee has noted that the concept of “arbitrariness” must be “interpreted broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”.[82] Not only should pretrial detention be the exception and as short as possible, but detention must be “lawful” (in accordance with domestic law) and “reasonable and necessary in all circumstances.”[83] This means that pretrial detention is appropriate for only a limited number of purposes – namely, to prevent flight, interference with evidence, and the recurrence of crime.[84] Furthermore, pretrial detention must be an individualized determinization that takes into account all the circumstances of the case.[85] Courts should favor the liberty of the accused to minimize the risk that an innocent person serves a sentence prior to acquittal.


Article 6 of the African Charter imposes similar requirements. According to the African Commission, detention must be a “last resort and should only be used where necessary and where no other alternatives are available”[86] and “standard operating procedures shall promote the use of alternatives” to detention.[87]  The African Commission’s Luanda Guidelines require that there be “reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has been involved in the commission of a criminal offence that carries a custodial sentence,” and a showing that “there is a danger that he or she will abscond, commit further serious offences or if there is a danger that the release of the accused will not be in the interests of justice.”[88]


Because pretrial detention must be an individualized decision based on review of the reasonableness and necessity of detention pending trial, overly broad, vague, and expansive standards such as “public security” are insufficient justification for detention.[89] Correspondingly, that a defendant is a foreigner is not sufficient to establish likelihood of flight.[90] As the Human Rights Committee has explained, “the mere fact that the accused is a foreigner does not of itself imply that he may be held in detention pending trial.”[91] A State must substantiate any concern of flight and explain “why it could not be addressed by setting an appropriate sum of bail.”[92]


Throughout Mr. Sowore’s detention, DSS never provided adequate justification as to why detaining Mr. Sowore was “reasonable and necessary.” With respect to its ex-parte application to hold Mr. Sowore for 90 days pending formal charges, the DSS argued that detention was warranted because the agency still investigating his alleged crimes.[93] The court approved detention for 45 days on this basis (from August 8 to September 21). Standing alone, completion of an investigation is not a permissible rationale for deprivation of liberty, rendering Mr. Sowore’s detention during this period arbitrary. Correspondingly, that Mr. Sowore is a permanent resident of the United States was not sufficient justification for holding him in custody. As such, the court’s granting of the DSS’s application contravened the requirements that it must favor an accused’s liberty and treat detention as an exception.

Finally, from September 26 to October 4, November 6 to December 5, and December 6 to December 24, the DSS kept Mr. Sowore in custody in the face of judicial orders that he be released (as detailed at more length below), meaning that his detention was without legal basis and thereby arbitrary.


Defiance of Orders of Release

The DSS violated Mr. Sowore’s right to freedom from arbitrary detention by continuing to detain him in the face of multiple judicial orders for his release.


In Moriana Hernandez Valenina de Bazzano v. Uruguay, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 9(1) where the applicant was “kept in custody in spite of a judicial order of release.”[94] Similarly, in its opinion on Mr. Sowore’s case, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention emphasized: “any time an order for release, even for release on bail, is made and the detainee is not released, the subsequent detention becomes without legal ground. Maintaining a person in detention after release has been ordered by a court competent to exercise control over the legality of detention is a manifest violation of … article 9 of the Covenant and renders the detention arbitrary, because it lacks legal basis.”[95]


As noted above, on September 24, 2019, after the 45-day detention order had expired, a Federal High Court judge granted Mr. Sowore bail, ordering his immediate release on the condition that he surrender his passport. Although Mr. Sowore met this condition on September 26 and the court directed the DSS to comply with its order, the DSS refused to release him.[96] Subsequently, on October 4, notwithstanding the fact that the first judicial decision on bail had not been amended or overturned, [97] a second judge set a higher bail amount. On October 21, the same judge reduced the bail amount. On November 6, after Mr. Sowore made bail, the judge signed an order for his release from custody. The DSS, however, still refused to free Mr. Sowore. He remained detained until the start of his trial on December 5, when the presiding judge again ordered that Mr. Sowore be released. Mr. Sowore was released that evening.


Between September 25 and October 4, and November 6 and December 5, the DSS held Mr. Sowore in defiance of court edicts and without legal ground: his detention during this time was thus arbitrary.


At the conclusion of Mr. Sowore’s hearing on December 6, the day after he was released, DSS agents stormed the court and violently re-arrested him. Again, this intervention was in defiance of court orders and lacked legal basis. Mr. Sowore remained unlawfully – and therefore arbitrarily – detained for another 18 days, until the DSS finally released him on December 24 on the orders of the AGF.


Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Resulting from the Exercise of Rights

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has underscored that “[a]rrest or detention as punishment for the legitimate exercise of the rights as guaranteed by the Covenant is arbitrary, including freedom of opinion and expression.”[98] The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention likewise regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary when it “results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms” guaranteed by the ICCPR.[99]


As noted above, after gaining a sizeable following during his campaign for president, Mr. Sowore began calling for a peaceful revolution via social media. On August 2, the day of his arrest, Mr. Sowore posted a tweet that read: “All that is needed for a #Revolution is for the oppressed to choose a date they desire for liberty, not subjected to the approval of the oppressor.” Later that evening, DSS agents arrested him at his house. Mr. Sowore’s demands, however, were consistently peaceful. As noted above, he had explicitly proclaimed that his call for revolution was peaceful and forbade any violence. The protest that did take place on August 5 was entirely peaceful. On this basis, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Mr. Sowore’s “arrest and detention were designed to sanction him” for exercising his rights to “freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly, [and] also to participate in the public affairs in his country.”[100]


The subsequent conduct of the proceedings has only reinforced the correctness of this opinion: the charge sheet fails to set forth facts showing that Mr. Sowore ever called for anything but a peaceful revolution; the allegations against Mr. Sowore have continually shifted, likewise indicating that there is no evidence of criminal behavior; and the prosecution has continually requested adjournments in lieu of producing and/or disclosing such evidence.


The above gives rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Sowore’s arrest and detention were entirely based on his #RevolutionNow platform. Calls for peaceful protests, however, constitute a legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms and do not a criminal case make. Mr. Sowore’s arrest and detention were therefore arbitrary.


Denial of Access to Counsel

Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR guarantees accused persons the right to “communicate with counsel of [their] own choosing.” Defendants must be granted “prompt access to counsel”[101] at all stages of criminal proceedings, including during the initial detention period. In Kelly v. Jamaica, for example, the U.N. Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 14(3)(b) where police officers ignored the complainant’s request to speak to a lawyer for the first five days he was in custody.[102] A violation of Article 14(3)(b) was also found in Lyashkevich v Uzbekistan, where the complainant was interrogated without “access to the legal counsel of his choice.”[103]


Like the ICCPR, Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter provides for the right to defense, which includes access to counsel. The African Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa affirm the right to counsel at all stages of a criminal prosecution: according to the African Commission, “[t]his right begins when the accused is first detained or charged.”[104]


Throughout Mr. Sowore’s detention, State authorities repeatedly obstructed counsel’s efforts to undertake representation. International and local organizations reported that Mr. Sowore was denied access to a lawyer during his first several days in custody.[105] At Mr. Sowore’s trial hearing on November 6, defense counsel stated that the DSS had blocked them from meeting with Mr. Sowore “over 10 times” in the months leading up to the start of trial.[106] In yet another instance, defense counsel’s request to meet with Mr. Sowore on December 4 – to review evidence shared by the prosecution earlier that day – was ignored by the DSS.[107] Subsequently, Mr. Sowore had no opportunity to meet with his lawyers ahead of his trial hearing on December 5.[108]


The State’s continuous denial of Mr. Sowore’s access to his lawyers, including at key points in the proceedings, contravened Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.


Undue Delay

The ICCPR and African Charter entitle individuals charged with criminal offenses to be tried without undue delay.[109] The calculus as to what constitutes a “reasonable time” between arrest and the conclusion of proceedings entails consideration of factors such as the “complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the administrative and judicial authorities.”[110] States carry a heightened burden to expedite proceedings in cases where defendants are detained.[111]


While the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted judicial proceedings in Nigeria and elsewhere, many of the lags in Mr. Sowore’s trial clearly stem from the actions (and inaction) of State authorities. Mr. Sowore was initially held in detention for 48 days before being formally charged. When his trial started, the prosecution’s failure to conduct disclosure caused delays of approximately five months. At the first hearing on November 6, the court adjourned the proceedings because the prosecution had not shared key documents, including full witness statements, with defense counsel.[112]


The court ordered the prosecution to share full witness statements, video evidence, and other relevant materials prior to the next trial date, December 5.[113] Despite the court’s directive, the prosecution waited until December 4, the day before the hearing, to disclose any materials to the defense, leaving counsel with little time to prepare.[114] The prosecution further failed to share the full witness statements.[115] The judge found the prosecution’s actions so egregious that she awarded the accused 100,000 naira, to be paid by the prosecution, and ordered the prosecution to share the statements before the following hearing.[116] At the next day’s hearing on December 6, the prosecution had still yet to share the statements: the prosecutor averred that they were in the possession of absent witnesses and no further explanation was provided.[117] As a result, the court postponed the trial to February 2020.[118] At the February 12 and 13 hearings, the court was again forced to reschedule proceedings because the prosecution – now under the AGF – had yet to share the full witness statements. The court thereby ordered the prosecution to pay the accused 200,000 naira.[119] The next hearing on March 11 was postponed in part because of the prosecution’s failure to comply with the court’s order.


Since that date, the COVID-19 pandemic has further delayed Mr. Sowore’s trial: all judicial activities in Nigeria were suspended in late March, only resuming in August.[120] Mr. Sowore’s trial, however, has only just begun. As noted above, at the hearing scheduled for October 22 the court stated that it could not proceed because of the number of people in attendance. It did not explain, however, why it had not planned for this likely eventuality given public interest in the case, either through using a larger courtroom or livestreaming the proceedings. The trial subsequently resumed on December 11 with the completion of the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness. Proceedings have been adjourned to January 25, 2021, which will be almost a year and a half since Mr. Sowore’s arrest in August 2019.


Throughout this period, the State has been under a heightened obligation to try Mr. Sowore without undue delay. This burden was initially in place due to Mr. Sowore’s months-long detention, as when accused are detained, the State must expedite the proceedings. This burden persists because of the restrictive bail conditions: Mr. Sowore is required to remain in Abuja until the conclusion of his trial. As Mr. Sowore’s home is in New Jersey, he has been prevented from seeing his family for more than a year. The de facto confinement of Mr. Sowore in Abuja (what his lawyers call “Abuja prison”[121]) underscores the State’s responsibility to mitigate delays.


In light of the factors deemed relevant by the U.N. Human Rights Committee and the African Commission and Court, the prolonged nature of the proceedings thus far violates Mr. Sowore’s right to trial without undue delay.


Prosecutorial Misconduct

In addition to violating Mr. Sowore’s rights, the pattern of behavior described above breaches best practices on prosecutorial ethics. Under the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, prosecutors in criminal proceedings must “not initiate or continue prosecution,” or should “make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charges to be unfounded.”[122] Guidelines produced by the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP Guidelines), which complement the U.N. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, require prosecutors to proceed in criminal cases “only when a case is well-founded upon evidence reasonably believed to be reliable and admissible,” and to “not continue with a prosecution in the absence of such evidence.”[123]


The African Commission’s Fair Trial Principles outline similar standards: “[p]rosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded.”[124]


The totality of facts suggests that prosecutors never had reliable and admissible evidence that Mr. Sowore had committed a criminal offense. First, Mr. Sowore had explicitly stated that his calls for revolution were non-violent and had created a code of conduct forbidding violence at the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Indeed, the protest held on August 5 was entirely peaceful. Second, Mr. Sowore was not notified of the reasons for, or legal basis of, his arrest at the time it occurred.[125] In the DSS’s public statement about the arrest on August 4, it vaguely referenced threats of disorder and tumult but did not specify any applicable legislation.[126] Third, following Mr. Sowore’s arrest the DSS sought an ex parte order of detention on the basis of an anti-terrorism statute, arguing that Mr. Sowore should be detained so as to enable further investigation. When Mr. Sowore was charged 48 days later, the offenses alleged were unrelated to the anti-terrorism statute; this shift suggests that the statute was but a vehicle for the DSS to continue detaining Mr. Sowore until it could figure out what charges to bring. Fourth, eight months into the proceedings (after the AGF assumed control), the prosecution dropped five of the seven charges without explanation. Notably, the amended charge sheet, which contains the two remaining counts of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, does not provide any facts to support the allegation that Mr. Sowore had sought to overthrow the government by unlawful means. Fifth, the conduct of the trial, including the prosecution’s repeated requests for adjournment and failure to disclose the requisite materials to the defense, indicates that the State – initially under the DSS and subsequently under the AGF – lacked sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges.


As noted above, the dearth of proof of criminal behavior not only indicates prosecutorial misconduct but also gives rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Sowore was arrested, detained, and prosecuted so as to suppress his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.


Conclusion

It appears that the prosecution never possessed sufficient evidence on which to predicate a criminal case against Mr. Sowore. Calls for peaceful protest do not constitute treason. The proceedings have violated – and continue to violate – Mr. Sowore’s right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of assembly, and right to trial without undue delay, as well as best practices in prosecutorial ethics. The AGF should withdraw the charges or, alternatively, the Federal High Court should dismiss the case. At the very least, the court should allow Mr. Sowore to return to the United States and reunite with his family pending resumption of his trial on January 25.


[1] This report was prepared by staff attorneys of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights and reflects their views. It has not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and therefore should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association as a whole. Further, nothing in this report should be considered as legal advice in a specific case. Additionally, the views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Clooney Foundation for Justice.


[2] See Africa Times, “Nigeria’s INEC Details Voting Irregularities, Electoral Violence”, March 2, 2019. Available at https://africatimes.com/2019/03/02/nigerias-inec-report-details-voting-irregularities-electoral-violence/. See also The Guardian, “Nigeria Election Marred by Vote Buying, Tech Failures, and Violence”, February 23, 2019. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/23/nigeria-election-goes-ahead-amid-violence-tech-failures.


[3] BBC, “Omoyele Sowore: Nigeria Journalist Detained Hours After Release”, December 6, 2019. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50689265.


[4] The State Security Service (SSS) was established by the National Security Agencies Act, Decree 19 of June 5, 1986, which created three intelligence agencies – including the SSS. The National Security Agencies Act charges the SSS with the responsibility of ensuring internal security in Nigeria, including preventing and detecting “any crime against the internal security of Nigeria.” See https://nlipw.com/national-security-agencies-act/. Instrument No. 1 of 1999 details the types of crimes SSS is mandated to prevent, detect, and investigate, including espionage, treason, and threats to law and order. In the last decade, the SSS began referring to itself as the “Department of Security Services,” (i.e. DSS), which is now the term commonly used to describe the agency. See The Premium Times, “How Nigeria’s Secret Police, SSS, is Violating the Law and Illegally Parading Itself as DSS”, August 26, 2016. Available at https://www.premiumtimesng.com/investigationspecial-reports/209343-fact-check-nigerias-secret-police-sss-violating-law-illegally-parading-dss.html.


[5] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Submission on Point of Law (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 9, 2019.


[6] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Address in Support of Motion on Notice (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, September 5, 2019, para. 2.1.


[7] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Respondent/Applicant Reply on Point of Law (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 22, 2019. para. 5(ii)(aa).


[8] The Punch, “Why We Arrested Sowore- DSS”, August 4, 2019. Available at https://punchng.com/why-we-arrested-sowore-dss/.


[9] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Address in Support of Motion on Notice (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, September 5, 2019, para. 2.1; Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 1. Available at https://rfkhumanrights.org/assets/documents/Omoyele-Sowore-UN-WGAD-Petition.pdf.


[10] Id. See also “Nigerian Court permits detention of political activist and journalist Omoyele Sowore”, August 10, 2019. Available at https://peoplesdispatch.org/2019/08/10/nigerian-court-permits-detention-of-political-activist-omoyele-sowore/.


[11] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 9.


[12] Id. at pgs. 1–2.


[13] Nigerian Police Act, 2020, Section 23; This Day, “DSS Lacks Power to Arrest, Prosecute for Terrorism”, August 28, 2019. Available at https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/08/28/dss-lacks-power-to-arrest-prosecute-for-terrorism-falana-tells-court/.


[14] This preliminary report is focused on the proceedings against Mr. Sowore.


[15] Premium Times, “Court orders immediate release of Sowore”, September 24, 2019. Available at https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/354093-breaking-court-orders-immediate-release-of-sowore.html.


[16] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 1.


[17] Nigeria Democratic Report, “Sowore Files Contempt Suit Against DSS”, September 27, 2019. Available at https://www.ndr.org.ng/sowore-files-contempt-suit-against-dss/.


[18] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 3. See also Reuters, “Nigerian activist Sowore pleads not guilty to treason charges”, September 30, 2019. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-politics/nigerian-activist-sowore-pleads-not-guilty-to-treason-charges-idUSKBN1WF16F.


[19] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 3. On October 21, the same judge reduced the bail amount.


[20] BBC News, “Omoyele Sowore: Anger over detention of Nigerian journalist”, November 9, 2019. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50361883.


[21] United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 27/2020 Concerning Omoyele Sowore: Nigeria, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2020/27, October 6, 2020 (hereinafter “UNWGAD Decision”).


[22] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[23] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[24] Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, Section 36(6)(b).


[25] Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, Section 379(a).


[26] See Trial Monitor’s Notes, March 11, 2020.


[27] UNWGAD Decision, para. 14.


[28] Id. See also Human Rights Watch, “Nigeria: Despite Court Order, Activist Still Held”, November 15, 2019. Available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/15/nigeria-despite-court-order-activist-still-held.


[29] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 5, 2019.


[30] Id.


[31] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 6, 2019.


[32] Id.


[33] Id.


[34] YouTube, “Moment DSS Attempted to Rearrest Sowore at Federal High Court, Abuja”, December 6, 2019. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUVVMLsyuc. See also Council on Foreign Relations, “Buhari’s Attacks on the Press in Nigeria Continue Unabated”, December 11, 2019. Available at https://www.cfr.org/blog/buharis-attacks-press-nigeria-continue-unabated.


[35] CNN, “Nigeria faces backlash over the arrest of a US-based activist and journalist”, December 9, 2019. Available at https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/africa/nigeria-sowore-arrest-backlash/index.html.


[36] The Punch, “AGF takes over Sowore’s case from DSS”, December 13, 2019. Available at https://punchng.com/breaking-agf-takes-over-sowores-case-from-dss/.


[37] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, “The Case of Omoyele Sowore The Nigerian Authorities Have Subjected Journalist and Human Rights Defender to Multiple Human Rights Violations”, January 30, 2020. Available at https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/the-case-of-omoyele-sowore; Sahara Reporters, “Why We Decided to Release Sowore, Dasuki – Nigeria’s Attorney – General, Malami”, December 24, 2019. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2019/12/24/update-why-we-decided-release-sowore-dasuki-%E2%80%93nigeria%E2%80%99s-attorney-general-malami.


[38] Trial Monitor’s Notes, February 12, 2020.


[39] Id.


[40] See Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Charge Sheet, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/235/2019, February 10, 2020.


[41] Trial Monitor’s Notes, February 13, 2020.


[42] Id.


[43] Trial Monitor’s Notes, March 11, 2020.


[44] Trial Monitor’s Notes, October 22, 2020.


[45] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 11, 2020.


[46] Id.


[47] Sahara Reporters, “Appeal Court Fixes July 8 To Hear Sowore’s Appeal on Bail Condition”, June 3, 2020. Available a http://saharareporters.com/2020/06/03/appeal-court-fixes-july-8-hear-sowores-appeal-bail-condition.


[48] Naija Newspaper, “Appeal Court Fails to Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Case”, July 8, 2020. Available at https://www.naijanews.com/2020/07/08/appeal-court-fails-to-hear-sowores-bail-variation-case/; Sahara Reporters, “Again Appeal Court Fails To Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Suit”, July 8, 2020. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2020/07/08/breaking-again-appeal-court-fails-hear-sowores-bail-variation-suit.


[49] Naija Newspaper, “Appeal Court Fails to Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Case”, July 8, 2020.


[50] The Nation, “Court Reject’s Sowore’s, Bakare’s Appeal Against Bail Conditions”, October 29, 2020. Available at https://thenationonlineng.net/court-rejects-sowores-bakares-appeal-against-bail-conditions/.


[51] Sahara Reporters, “Court Adjourns Sowore, Bakare’s Fundamental Rights Suit to March 25”, February 19, 2020. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2020/02/19/breaking-court-adjourns-sowore-bakares-fundamental-rights-suit-march-25.


[52] Sahara Reporters, “Again, Court Refuses to Hear Sowore’s Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Suit Against DSS, Malami”, July 10, 2020. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2020/07/10/again-court-refuses-hear-sowores-enforcement-fundamental-rights-suit-against-dss-malami. See also Naija News, “Court Again Snubs Sowore’s Suit Against DSS, AGF Malami”, July 10, 2020. Available at https://www.naijanews.com/2020/07/10/court-again-snubs-sowores-suit-against-dss-agf-malami/.


[53] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19; African (Banjul) Charter on Human Rights, Article 9, 11.


[54] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, para. 38.


[55] Id. at para 22.                                                                              


[56] ICCPR, Article 19(3). See also Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, paras. 28–29.


[57] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, para. 35.


[58] Id. at para. 23.


[59] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, Adopted at the 65th Ordinary Session, October 21 to November 10, 2019. Available at https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=69.


[60] Id. at Principle 9.1.


[61] Id. at Principle 9.3.


[62] Id. at Principle 9.4.


[63] Id. at Principle 9.2.


[64] The Punch, “Why We Arrested Sowore- DSS”, August 4, 2019.


[65] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, State Security Service Written Address in Support of the Counter Affidavit, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 16, 2019, para. 4.xx.


[66] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Petition to: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, In the Matter of Omoyele Sowore, October 28, 2019, pg. 3.


[67] Amsterdam News, “He Named His Movement ‘Revolution Now’ and They Jailed Him”, August 8, 2019. Available at http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2019/aug/08/he-named-his-movement-revolution/.


[68] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, Written Submission on Point of Law (Defense Counsel for Omoyele Sowore), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 9, 2019, para. 1.0.17.


[69] Id. at para. 1.0.9.


[70] UNWGAD Decision, para. 58.


[71] Trial Monitor’s Notes, March 11, 2020; Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 11, 2020.


[72] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 11, 2020.


[73] Human Rights Committee, Strizhak v. Belarus, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/124/D/2260/2013, November 1, 2018, para. 6.5. See also Human Rights Committee, Giménez v. Paraguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/123/D/2372/2014, September 26, 2018, para. 8.3.


[74] Human Rights Committee, Giménez v. Paraguay, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/123/D/2372/2014, September 26, 2018, para. 8.3. See also Human Rights Committee, Strizhak v. Belarus, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/124/D/2260/2013, November 1, 2018, para. 6.5.


[75] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 37, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, July 23, 2020, para. 23.


[76] Id. at para. 33.


[77] Human Rights Council, Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/31/66, February 4, 2016, paras. 15–16. See also Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Georgia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GEO/CO/4, August 19, 2014, para. 8; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Mongolia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/MNG/CO/6, August 22, 2017, para. 11.


[78] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, Adopted at the 60th Ordinary Session, May 8-22, 2017, para. 80. Available at https://www.achpr.org/public/Document/file/English/guidelines_on_freedom_of_association_and_assembly_in_africa_eng.pdf.


[79] Id. at para. 85.


[80] Id. at para. 70.


[81] African (Banjul) Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 6.


[82] Human Rights Committee, Ismet Ozcelik et. al. v. Turkey, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017, May 28, 2019, para. 9.3.


[83] Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[84] Human Rights Committee, Mikhail Marinich v. Belarus, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/99/D/1502/2006, August 19, 2010, para. 10.4; Human Rights Committee. See also M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3; Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, November 21, 2011, para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[85] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 38. See also Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3; Human Rights Committee, Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, November 21, 2011, para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[86] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (Luanda Guidelines), 55th Ordinary Session, April 28–May 12, 2014, para. 10(b).


[87] Id. at para. 6(a).


[88] Id. at para. 11(a)(ii).


[89] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 38. See also Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3; Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, November 21, 2011, para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Cedeno v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1940/2010, December 4, 2012, para. 7.10.


[90] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 38. See also Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3.


[91] Human Rights Committee, M. and B. Hill v. Spain, April 2, 1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, para. 12.3.


[92] Id.


[93] See Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, State Security Service Written Address in Support of the Counter Affidavit, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/915/2019, August 16, 2019, paras. 1.2, 4.xxi, 4.xxvii.


[94] Human Rights Committee, Moriana Hernandez Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/7/D/5/1977, August 15, 1979, para. (10)(i).


[95] UNWGAD Decision, para. 54.


[96]See Sahara Reporters, “Release Sowore or Go to Jail”, September 26, 2019. Available at http://saharareporters.com/2019/09/26/breaking-release-sowore-or-go-jail-federal-high-court-tell-dss-dg.


[97] This report does not address the validity of the second judge’s decision to issue a new bail order despite the fact that the first bail order had yet to be overturned.


[98] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35, December 16, 2014, para. 17.


[99] Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 3/2019 concerning Uon Chhin and Yeang Sothearin (Cambodia), U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2019/3, para. 3.


[100] UNWGAD Opinion, para. 58.


[101] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, Aug. 23, 2017, para. 34.


[102] Human Rights Committee, Kelly v. Jamaica, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/57/D/537/1993, July 17, 1996, para. 9.2.


[103] Human Rights Committee, Lyashkevich v Uzbekistan, U.N. Doc CCPR/ C/98/D/1552/2007, May 11, 2010, para. 9.4.


[104]African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, Principle N(2)(c-d).


[105] Index on Censorship, Urgent Appeal in Relation to the Arrest and Detention of Omoyele Sowore, Nigerian Journalist and Human Rights Defender, August 23, 2019. Available at https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/08/urgent-appeal-in-relation-to-the-arrest-and-detention-of-omoyele-sowore-nigerian-journalist-and-human-rights-defender/.


[106] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[107] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 5, 2019


[108] Id.


[109] ICCPR, 14(3)(c); African Charter, Article 7(1)(d).


[110] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 35. See also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, Principle N(5)(c).


[111] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 35.


[112] Trial Monitor’s Notes, November 6, 2019.


[113] Id.


[114] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 5, 2019.


[115] Id.


[116] Id.


[117] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 6, 2019.


[118] Trial Monitor’s Notes, December 6, 2019.


[119] Trial Monitor’s Notes, February 13, 2020.


[120] Nairametrics, “Covid-19: All courts to shut down immediately”, March 24, 2020. Available at https://nairametrics.com/2020/03/24/covid-19-all-courts-to-shut-down-immediately/. See also All Africa, “Nigeria: Covid-19 Delays 155,757 Court Cases in Nigeria”, April 20, 2020. Available at https://allafrica.com/stories/202004200271.html.


[121] Naija Newspaper, “Appeal Court Fails to Hear Sowore’s Bail Variation Case”, July 8, 2020. Available at https://www.naijanews.com/2020/07/08/appeal-court-fails-to-hear-sowores-bail-variation-case/.


[122] United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, 1990, para. 14. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RoleOfProsecutors.aspx.


[123] International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, 1999, Principle 4.2(d). Available at https://www.iap-association.org/getattachment/Resources-Documentation/IAP-Standards-(1)/IAP_Standards_Oktober-2018_FINAL_20180210.pdf.aspx.


[124] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, Principle F(j).


[125] UNWGAD Decision, para. 53.


[126] The Punch, “Why We Arrested Sowore- DSS”, August 4, 2019.

Poster Speaks

Poster Speaks/box

Trending

randomposts