Court fines government, Amnesty Office for non-appearance

Simon Utebor, Yenagoa

A FEDERAL High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, has ordered the Federal Ministry of Justice and the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) to pay N20,000 to a Bayelsa-based lawyer, Ibanga John, as litigation costs.

John is representing the ex-militants.

The court awarded the cost as a penalty for the ministry’s and PAP’s failure to appear in court over a suit of non-inclusion in the Amnesty Programme brought against them by 19 aggrieved ex-Niger Delta militants.

Justice Jane Inyang rejected the excuses offered for the non-appearance of their lawyers, and ordered that the cost be paid before the adjourned date of December 9. The suit has lasted since 2013.

The aggrieved ex-militants – Asenekiri Oyinle, Angiama-Owei Oyindoubra, John Government, Henry Gomeromo, John Sawyer, Trydi Okpeke, Dollar Motor, Selebi Ayowei, Bobra Angese, Ekerebi Umber and others, sued the government and the Amnesty Office for their non-inclusion in the scheme.

They said the Amnesty Office erred by refusing to include them in the ongoing Amnesty Programme after series of resolutions from meetings with past and present National Security Advisers.

Read Also: A’Ibom offers repentant cultists amnesty

They said: “Instead of respecting the resolutions and directives from the National Security Advisers, the Amnesty Office turned down the call and adopted a divide and rule tactic with the inclusion of only three of the 22 persons.”

In two separate objections to the suit, the Federal Government and the Amnesty Office, on April 24, 2014 and March 2, 2015, argued over lack of jurisdiction.

The Amnesty programme started in 2009 while the claimants said they surrendered arms in 2011.

But the Amnesty Office, in its objection, claimed that ‘Amnesty is a privilege, not a right, and they cannot litigate’.

John argued that the case of jurisdiction did not arise as ‘the ex-militants had submitted copies of Amnesty identification cards, proof of bank details which confirmed they embraced the scheme when it was right and due hence, they have the right to litigate.