A plan by Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited to sack its Nigerian crew members violates the International Labour Conference Convention 158 and the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Chief Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN), has said.
Fagbohungbe, who is the counsel to the workers, said his clients have resolved to challenge that decision in court if the issue is not resolved in seven days.
Virgin Atlantic Airways’ Marketing and Communications Manager, Kudi Scott-Igbene, has been quoted as saying the company’s decision to relieve members of the Lagos crew of their duties is because their cultural expertise is no longer required on the Nigerian route.
“Customer feedback has shown us that this is no longer a requirement on the Lagos route,” she said.
The airline has also stated that its restructuring programme, which seeks to ‘cut down additional layers and complexities to reduce cost’, will affect all of its four international bases with local based crew: Delhi, Hong-Kong, Shanghai and Lagos- being its most profitable routes.
However, in a letter written through their lawyer, Chief Fagbohungbe (SAN), the affected workers alleged that they are treated differently than cabin crew in other Virgin Airways international base stations.
They alleged that out of all who have been rendered redundant, only the Lagos crew members’ termination takes effect on November 30 while others have up till March 31, 2016.
Fagbohungbe said: “Our clients are aware that their counterparts on other routes which may not be as profitable as the Lagos-London route, were given various options to remain in the employment of Virgin Atlantic or given severance packages which are regarded as reasonable.
“Virgin Atlantic did not extend these courtesies to its Nigerian crew.”
He added “There is also no gainsaying that your action is contrary to the relevant provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right to the effect that every individual shall be entitled to enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the charter without distinction of any kind.”
Fagbohungbe charged the Minister of Aviation to urgently look into what he termed an “utter disdain and disregard for the feelings of Nigerians by Virgin Atlantic.”
He added: “We demand that Virgin Atlantic should immediately withdraw the notices of termination served on our clients through its agent – Aviation Logistics and Management Limited.”
Lead Partner at the Detail Commercial Solicitors, Mr Ayuli Jemide, has called for a review of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) Act of 2005.
He said the commission needs to be empowered to impose sanctions on the Act’s violators. The Act’s provisions on procurement also need to be modified, he added.
Jemide, who spoke during his firm’s Fifth Business Series, said there is the need for sanctity of contracts so that investors can enforce their rights in record time when infringed upon.
According to him, terminating contracts unduly can shape investments, as “money has choices as to where it goes.”
The event had the theme: Nigeria’s infrastructure: What next? Detail Solicitors is distinct as Nigeria’s first commercial law firm to specialise exclusively in non-courtroom practice.
Jemide thinks the ICRC Act should be amended to give the commission not just regulatory powers, but to be “a dog that can bite”.
He said: “I think there needs to be specific provisions regarding ICRC’s powers to charge fines and penalties. I also think there is still a conflict between procurement under the ICRC Act and procurement under the 2007 procurement law.
“A reviewed ICRC Act will have clearer statements on who is responsible for procurement in public private partnerships as opposed to procurement under the 2007 Act, which should deal with traditional procurement.”
Jemide said Nigeria needs a development bank that will drive infrastructure financing. To him, it will be ideal to have a local development finance institution (DFI) rather than relying on multilaterals or foreign DFIs.
“If you have your own development bank, it will help to constantly create the right framework and the right space for infrastructure financing. For instance, one of the things a development bank will do is to put seed capital to develop projects up to a point where they are bankable, before you call in investors,” he said.
Other speakers included Olufunke Jones (Ecobank), Wale Shonibare (United Capital Plc), Hakeem Olopade (Infrastructure Bank Plc), Tony Ejiofor (First Bank Capital) and Opuiyo Oforiokuman (Arm-Harith Infrastructure Investment Limited).
Discussions centered on other sources of infrastructure funding, such as pension funds, effective taxation, government savings, the capital market, among others.
On which funding methods he thinks is feasible, Jemide, speaking on the sidelines, said: “I think the lowest hanging fruits will be pension funds because it’s already there. It will be inter-governmental.
“You just need to create the right avenue for PFAs (Pension Fund Administrators) to be comfortable to put retirement money in a long-term project. One way to secure it is for government to give a guarantee and say: ‘Don’t worry, if anything happens to the project, we’ll pay.’”
Jones believes banks need to get more involved in projects. “Banks can no longer sit on the fence,” she said.
For Shonibare, Nigeria can imitate Japan which had long-term savings plan for infrastructure financing. He also thinks Nigeria needs a National Development Bank. To him, institutions, rather than individuals, should finance projects.
He suggested that ICRC, which he described as an aberration, should be merged with the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE). Government, he said, should not borrow to fund recurrent expenditure to avoid high interest rates and “crowing out” other borrowers.
Olopade thinks more than one DFI is needed. “The more the merrier, as it is in the US. We need them to do infrastructure financing,” he said.
Oforiokuman, a former executive at Lekki Concession Company, said the Lekki toll shows that PPP can work in Nigeria. He decried a situation where projects are tied to the initiating governor, saying sometimes long-term projects become short-term after a change of power.
On why the forum was organised, Jemide said: “We think that beyond being lawyers and working on projects, you should have fora such as this that helps to synthesize thought and feedback to government.
“If you can’t influence policy, you should have discussions that can help shape policy. At the end of the day, there’ll be a communiqué which we’ll give to people in government privately.”
Lagos lawyer, Otolorin Faleti has joined the furore over who is the first Nigerian lawyer.
Accoring to him, the late Sapara Williams and not the late Asuquo Etim Inyang was the first Nigerian lawyer.
Calabar branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, William Anwan at an event to honour Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen of the Supreme Court was reported to have said: “The first lawyer in Nigeria was from the Eastern Region, though we are yet to confirm details. We were told that Sapara Williams was not truly a Nigerian, but was a Nigerian by naturalisation. He was a Sierra Leonean returnee, who came to Nigeria and settled here.”
Chief Judge of Cross River State Okoi Ikpi Itam also told the gathering that Asuquo Etim Inyang, was the first Nigerian to be called to the bar.
But, Faleti in a statement, titled: “First Nigerian lawyer – settled issue” however queried how “Inyang who enrolled on August 1, 1924 as No. 76 became the first Nigerian to be called to the bar when there were 75 others before him.”
“Bench and Bar in Nigeria” published by the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi in Chapter 11 page 314 listed Christopher Sapara Williams as “the First Indigenous Male Lawyer in the federation,” adding that he was enrolled to practise in Nigeria on January 30, 1888.
Asuquo Etim Inyang was listed as the first Indigenous Male Lawyer in Cross River State, he was enrolled to practise in Nigeria on August 1, 1924.
Faleti regretted that no one challenged William Anwan on this claim which he said has no basis in fact or in law.
“For over 100 years, history tells us that the first Nigerian called to the English bar in February 20, 1886 was Sapara Williams from Ilesa in Western Nigeria (now Osun State). He was enrolled as No.1 as WILLIAM N.H). This has not been questioned or challenged until I came across the above claim.
“Of course there is nothing wrong with revisiting history and over the years, there has been new light thrown upon interpretation of history and not of history itself.
The motive of this revisionism is unclear to me but, it is completely wrong to turn history on its head to fit into our preconceived prejudices. It is a greater disservice to those who propagate it as they diminish themselves by such false claim”, he added.
The former Minister of Police Affairs, Navy Captain Caleb Olukolade has been sued before an Abuja High Court by the Oladapo family in Ondo town over the ownership of a landed property.
The property which is the subject of litigation is situated in Plot 321, Zone A7 Wuse 11, Abuja.
Other defendant in the matter is Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Federal Capital Development Authority.
The plaintiffs are praying the court that the purported revocation/withdrawal of the plaintiffs right of occupancy in respect of the land was unconstitutional and illegal, hence is null, void and of no effect.
They asked the court for an order mandating Olukolade to vacate all the structure on the land and granting possession of the land and a perpetual injunction directing the defendants, their agents, servants and privies from entering and further trespassing or disturbing the plaintiff from peaceful possession of the land in dispute.
The plaintiffs also demanded for N150m, being damages for unlawful transfer/allocation of the landed property in dispute and N100m for trespass, forcible entry and unlawful occupation and use of the plaintiff’s land.
According to them, the former Minister of State for Federal Capital Territory used government machinery to harass and chase away contractors engaged by them and ever since dinied them access to the land.
The defendants in their statement of claim averred that the land in dispute was allocated to their late father during his life as a member of House of Representatives in the First Republic and was given a certificate of Right of Occupancy with reference number FCDA/ES/80/OD-13 along with schedule of Right of Occupancy Rent indicating the rent to be paid.
According to them, the deceased commissioned a registers surveyor, Geodata Limited which produced a survey plan with number -FCT/ABU/OD.130 with full Beacon number – FCTA7PB1614, dated April 7, 1992.
The defendant is his reply argued that the land was allocated to him sometimes in 1997 and commenced all the necessary documentation of the land sometimes in May 1998, adding that he did not meet anybody on the land as at 1998 when it was lawfully allocated to him.
The defendant contended that the plaintiffs plan allegedly was an afterthought and a document prepared in contemplation of the suit saying that the deceased and the plaintiffs were the rightful owners or in possession of the property.
He averred that the plaintiffs did not make physical inspection of the land, saying that they would have known and had knowledge of the first defendant’s legal ownership and possession of the land since 1998.
A real estate investor, Mr. Ignay Nwene, has filed a suit at the Lagos State High Court over his inability to register his interest and take possession of a property at 18 Shagamu Avenue, Ilupeju.
He is seeking N200 million as damages for losses suffered due to a caveat placed on the property by a mortgagor.
The plaintiff said by virtue of a Deed of Tripartite Legal Mortgage among Onyi Nigeria Limited (borrower), Blessing Onyi Okwuokei (mortgagor) and Guarantee Trust Bank Plc dated December 8, 2011 and registered at the Land Registry, Alausa, a legal mortgage interest was created over the property.
The plaintiff said the mortgagor defaulted in servicing a loan granted him by GTBank, following which the bank put out the property for sale.
Nwene said he bought the property for N39million and spent over N5.1million as fees for the governor’s consent.
“The defendant also executed and supplied to the claimant other documents required for the claimant to apply for and process the governor’s consent in respect of the said sale.
“The claimant had passed through or scaled all the stages of the perfection and was at the final state of registration of his said interest, when it was discovered that Okwuokei had caused a caveat/caution dated May 9, 2014 to be put on the Certificate of Occupancy, thus effectively shutting out the claimant from registering his interest in the said property and also prevented the claimant from taking possession of the said property,” the plaintiff said.
But the defendant (GTBank) averred that as at the time of the sale, there was no caveat registered at the Land Registry against the property.
“The caveat was entered over a year after the property in question was transferred to the claimant, the defendant having delivered the requisite documents on the property to the defendant via a letter dated March 27, 2013,” the bank said.
The defendant added it did all it was required to do and cannot be blamed for the plantiff’s inability to perfect his title or take possession. The case, which is before Justice Oyindamola Ogala, has been adjourned to January 26.
A clearly orchestrated tirade against the Supreme Court of Nigeria in respect of its acceptance of an undertaking by the counsel to the Respondent in the Saraki Appeal has come to my attention following two days of consistent bashing of the Court for daring to do the unthinkable by scuttling the politically motivated stampede to remove Bukola Saraki from his position as Senate President through a wholly unconstitutional trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
Concerning my submission that the Code of Conduct Tribunal’s trial of Bukola Saraki is unconstitutional, I will address that in another forum. For now I wish to respond to the clearly misconceived notion that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act can be used to oust the power of the courts to grant stay of proceedings in criminal trials.
The issue as formulated by the leader of the charge goes as follows:
“It is unfathomable that the Supreme Court decided to return the country to the status quo ante in a rather brazen and bizzare manner. Given the ouster clause contained in section 306 of the AJCS(sic), the Code of Conduct Tribunal ought not to have delivered its ruling in respect of the preliminary objections filed by Dr. Saraki” –Femi Falana (SAN)
Highly respected Professor ItseSagay (SAN) was also quoted by the media as having said that “The new Administration of Criminal Justice Act has completely eliminated any application or grant of stay of actions or proceedings in criminal trials; it prohibits it. So, what the Supreme Court has done is illegal and it is shocking that the Supreme Court would indulge in illegalities”.
Both eminent lawyers are intolerably wrong and thus give the impression that their perincuriam opinions could only have been motivated by prejudice and not by their well known life long struggle for the public good.
Indeed the manner in which their respected opinions have rabble-roused a surge of public opinion against the apex court in respect of an issue which is still sub-judice smacks, in my humble opinion, of criminal contempt.
It is in this context that I join issues with them on the matter as follows:
Section 306 of the ACJA is unconstitutional null and void in so far as it seeks to limit the exercise of judicial powers vested in the courts by section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
Ayoola JCA (as he then was) in NNPC V Fawehinmi [1998] 7NWLR (PART 559) 598 at 612E-H echoed an age-old principle of separation of powers when he said “Other than in consonance with the constitution itself, legislative provisions which preclude the judiciary from exercising judicial powers violate the separation of powers principle enshrined in section 6 of the Constitution”
Relying on the above dictum, Omoleye JCA in Njikoye V MTN [2008] 9 NWLR (part 1092) 339 at 369 F-H also stated that “..the courts would disregard any statute that seeks to regulate and obliterate their judicial powers conferred on them by the express provisions of the Constitution, the supreme and grund norm of Nigeria. ….. An enactment will therefore be considered opposed to the constitutional provisions vesting judicial powers in a court if: it … purported to remove judicial powers vested in the court or redefine it in a way as to whittle it or limit the extent of the power vested or conferred on the court by the Constitution.”
What this means is that no legislature in Nigeria has the power to enact legislation that limits the exercise of judicial power or (as Falana states in his submission) constitute an “ouster clause”.
With regard to ouster clauses (although I do not agree that section 306 is one) Section 4(8) of the Constitution expressly forbids it and disempowers the legislature from making any such law.
To do so the legislature would have to amend the Constitution and that procedure is not the same as the mere passing of a bill into law as was done with the ACJA.
It is, therefore, more strange and bizarre that any lawyer would castigate the apex court or any court for that matter for ignoring the so-called “ouster clause” constituted by Section 306 of the ACJA especially as it expressly conflicts with the powers donated to the judiciary by the constitution, part of which is the power to order stay of any proceedings.
In this regard the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 expressly provide in Order 4 Rule 4(iv) that the Civil Rights Court may “Grant injunction restraining the Respondent from taking further steps in connection with the matter or maintaining status quo or staying all actions pending the determination of [a Fundamental Rights] Application”
In Order XI of the same rules it is provided that the Civil Rights Court may “At the hearing of any [fundamental right]s application, under these rules, …. make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider just or appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the Constitution or African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act to which the applicant may be entitled”
KatsinaAlu JCA (as he then was) in the case of Abia State University V Anyaibe [1996] 3 NWLR (PART 439) 646 at 661 E-F said of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules as follows: “Since the Rules have the force of law as the Constitution itself, it overrides the provisions of any other enactment which seeks to provide ‘an alternative’”
Therefore, in my humble submission, it is erroneous for anyone to state that it is illegal to grant a stay of proceedings in criminal proceedings.
The criminal court may ignore the provisions of section 306 in so far as it limits its ability to do justice in any worthy case and certainly an appellate court that perceives that something is wrong with any criminal proceedings may order its stay notwithstanding the provisions of section 306 of the ACJA and if it becomes an issue may infact set aside the section as invalid null and void.
Furthermore, a Civil Rights court before whom a complaint is made that a criminal proceeding infringes on any of the fundamental rights in chapter iv of the Constitution certainly has the power donated expressly by the constitution to intervene and the provisions of section 306 of the ACJA would not be of any moment in that circumstance given the superiority of the Constitution to the ACJA.
Care must be taken by the Buhari Government and its advisers not to end up reducing the judiciary to irrelevance under the cover of this “war against corruption”.
Whereas everyone agrees that it is necessary to root out the plague of corruption from this country, the method by which that is to be done must not be at the expense of the integrity of the institutions of democracy.
The idea to limit the power of the courts to grant stay of proceedings in criminal trials is apparently rooted in the perception that judges cannot be trusted to do the right thing in Nigeria because of corruption this cannot be the appropriate way to root out the corruption in the judiciary.
It is equivalent to enacting a law forbidding the President from approving expenditure because we believe that politicians are corrupt. That would only bring governance to a halt. The hue and cry about the efficacy of section 306 today is because those who favour it are not themselves judges.
If they were, they probably would frown on a law that already labels them as incompetent to rightly exercise discretion or corrupt before they had a chance to show their mettle.
It must be borne in mind that the fight against corruption is a worldwide fight as evidenced by the United Nations Convention against Corruption 2003 and the ECOWAS protocol on the fight against corruption 1993 both of which Nigeria is a signatory to.
The methods are stated in those conventions and they include a strengthening of the institutions of democracy and not the whittling down of their efficacy, authority or powers. I wonder why Nigeria’s case is always negatively different.
Furthermore, abuse of office and the illegal instigation of criminal processes are required by Articles 17 and 25 of the UN Convention to be criminalised by signatories as corrupt practices. If the Supreme Court perceives that the criminal proceedings against Senator Saraki might have been improperly instigated for any reason, it is obliged to join in the fight against corruption by stopping it completely and to this end may properly stay proceedings until it is satisfied that its perception is wrong.
I congratulate the Supreme Court for braving the mob hysteria which appears to be the hallmark of this new fight against corruption to do the right thing.
A don, Prof. Bankole Sodipo, has expressed concern over the slow pace of adjudication of commercial litigation in the country.
Prof. Sodipo expressed this worry last week while delivering the 7th inaugural lecture of the Babcock University, Ilisan Remo, Ogun State titled: “The Oracle Intellectual Property and Allied Rights, The Knowledge Economy and The Development Agenda”
He warned that direct foreign investments would be jeopardised if nothing is done to improve the pace of commercial litigation in country.
He, therefore, urged the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), to give priority to intellectual and commercial cases for foreign investors to develop interest and confidence in the economy of the country.
Sodipo canvassed for speedy hearing of commercial and intellectual property related cases just as it is done for election cases.
He urged judges of the high courts and other higher levels of the court system to support the establishment of a Commercial Court of Appeal as the final arbiter of commercial disputes.
The professor of law also urged Lagos State governor, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode, to work assidiously with the police with a view to tackling counterfeiting in Alaba International market which he described as the largest counterfeit market in Africa said intellectual property cannot thrive if nothing is done to curtail activities of counterfeiter in Alaba market.
A federal high court sitting in Lagos has restrained the Directors and agents of a company, BSS Steel Rolling Mill Limited from having access to any sum of money standing to the credit of the company in the course of business.
The order will subsist until the sum of N346,798,405,96 plus interest owed by the company to Guaranty Trust Bank(GTB) is fully liquidated.
The court also restrained the directors and agents of the company from obstructing MR Norrison Quakers (SAN) duly appointed by GTB from exercising his power and performing his duties as Receiver /Manager over the assets of the company covered by deed all assets of debenture.
The order of the court was sequel to a debt recovery suit file before the court by Quarkers on behalf of the bank ,as Receiver /Manager, to recover the sum of N346,798,405.95 from the company.
Between May 11, 2009 and March, 2010,the bank granted various credit facilities to BSS Steel Rolling Mills totalling N400million.
The loan was accepted by Otunba Ayoola Abioye as Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the company. The loan was secured by all assets of the company.
However,the company could not meet its repayment obligations to the bank and as at January 2012, the indebtedness of which stood at N346,798,405.95 while interest continue to accrue on the principal sum.
Consequently,the bank appointed Quakers as receiver /Manager over the assets of the company.
In his defence, Otunba Ayoola Abioye alleged that the bank had over charged the company and that interest is a subject of litigation at a Lagos high court.
He had, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the suit as an abuse of court process.
But the bank had contended that it filed a counter claim to the said suit claiming the same amount of N346,789,405.95.
The trial judge, Justice Ibrahim Buba, after appraising the submissions of the two parties, declared the suit as lacking in merit and that it was bound to succeed.
Justice Buba accordingly granted all the reliefs sought by the bank and its Receiver/Manager while the cost of N250,000 was also awarded in their favour.
Forty-five years after the civil war, which signalled Biafra’s death, Nigeria is again facing a secession threat. A group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is behind the separatist campaign. In the past one week, it has marched through some Southeast and Southsouth states whipping up the Biafran sentiment. How far can it go? ADEBISI ONANUGA reports.
Biafra died 45 years ago, following the end of the civil war. But a group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is not giving up on the fanciful dream. In the past one week, it has marched through some Southeast and Southsouth states, whipping up the Biafran sentiment. The group is believed to have taken certain steps toward the actualisation of its dream. A new beer – Hero – with the rising sun as its logo has been launched in the Southeast. The rising sun was the symbol on the Biafran flag.
• Kanu
IPOB is taking off from where the Ralph Uwazuruike-led Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) seems to have stopped. Last week’s protests in Enugu, Asaba (Delta), Owerri (Imo), Aba (Abia) and Port Harcourt (Rivers) were sparked by the arrest of London-based Radio Biafra Director and IPOB promoter Nnamdi Kanu on his arrival in Lagos. His people are demanding his unconditional release.
Kanu was accused of peddling hate speeches against Nigeria and its leaders.
To some, the demontrators are wasting time. But others believe they should not be treated with kid gloves.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo called it a fake agitation, saying those behind it only want to draw attention to themselves to make money.
Another former Head of State Gen. Yakubu Gowon said Biafra died in 1970 after the civil war, adding that those agitating for it now are misguided.
But political observers see the development in another light. They said there was the need for the government to be cautious, especially now that the fight against Boko Haram, which also declared a Caliphate State, has not yet been won.
Igbo divided
The renewed agitation for Biafra has split the Igbo. Some believe there is no justification for it.
A pro-Igbo group, the Igbo Information Network, led by Chuks Ibegu, argued that the agitations may not be unconnected with hidden selfish interests.
It sees the trend as an attempt by those who want to capitalise on the past and railroad the region into another “avoidable civil war”.
Those agitating for Biafra argued that the Southeast and Southsouth have suffered too much marginalisation; that successive government has refused to restructure Nigeria into true federalism; and that there is still oppression against the people 45 years after the civil war.
The law and secession
The 1999 Constitution and the Criminal Code view any act of aggression or any act to levy war on the state as treason.
According to a lawyer, Onyekachi Wisdom Duru, treason is a capital offence, which is defined by Section 37(1) of the Criminal Code Act as: “Any person who levies war against the state, in order to intimidate or overawe the president or the governor of a state is guilty of treason and is liable to the punishment of death.
“Any person conspiring with any person, either within or without Nigeria, to levy war against the state with the intent to cause such leving of war as would be treason if committed by a citizen of Nigeria, is guilty of treason and is liable to punishment of death.”
Section 38 of the Criminal Code states: “Any person who instigates any foreigner to invade Nigeria with an Armed Force is guilty of treason and is liable to the punishment of death.
The offence of Treasonable Felony is defined by Section 41 of the Criminal Code as: “Any person who forms an intention to effect any of the following purposes that is to say: To remove during his term of office otherwise than by constitutional means the President as Head of State of the Federation and Commander-in- Chief of the Armed Forces thereof; or to likewise remove during this terms of office the Governor of a state or to levy war against Nigeria in order to put any force or compel the President to change his measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or overawe any House of the National Assembly or any other legislative or legislation authority or to instigate any foreigner to make any armed invasion of Nigeria or any of the territories thereof and manifests such intention by an over act is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
Lawyers’ reactions
Constitutional lawyer Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN) described the agitation as unnecessary and diversionary. He asked Southeast leaders to call youths, who are agitating for a state of Biafra to order.
“The reason for this is that it is going to divert the attention of the present government and will lead to nowhere.
“The situation that presented itself for the agitation that led to the civil war, those factors are no longer present in the Nigeria of today. Therefore, it is not a realisable objective or mission,” he said.
Fagbohungbe argued that charging the agitators with treason would amount to giving unnecessary publicity to their illicit ambition.
Besides, he said Kanu’s arrest was unnecessary. Fagbohungbe advised strongly that the fresh agitation for Biafra state should be played down.
He urged the government to suspend Radio Biafra. “It is for the Federal Government to invite all the leaders of the Southeast, including the governors and political leaders, to a meeting to discuss how to stem the agitation. Charging them to court for treason would make them more popular and bring them to the attention of the world as if something serious is happening. It is a storm in a tea cup.
“It should not be countenanced because it is not a realisable mission. Biafra has long ended.”
A Lagos-based lawyer and lecturer at the University of Lagos, Wahab Shittu, believes the agitation for Biafra is not justified.
“There is no justification for it in the sense that there is no indication that the Igbo section of Nigeria is marginalised. They are not. If the Igbo are complaining, all others should be complaining too. But we have a government in place that is sensitive and trying to repair the rot perpetuated by previous administration.
“So, this is not the time to castigate this government. This is the time that we should all support the government to correct the wrongs of the past years,” Shittu said.
He said the crisis engendered by the agitation should not be treated with kid’s gloves, stressing that it should be seen as a very serious matter.
This, he said, is because violence in other parts of the world usually starts with little skirmishes.
“So, it is important for the government to treat it with the highest priority and attention,” he said.
To him, it is high time the government began to engage opinion and political leaders and interest groups in a systematic and sustained dialogue to identify whether the project emanates from the genuine aspiration of the people or is largely sponsored by certain elements to destabilise the polity.
“It may have been sponsored by people who are bent on sabotaging this government. So government must move very swiftly and to nip the crisis in the bud before it escalates.
“It is important for government to identify these saboteurs and then examines the relevant legislation and see whether they can be prosecuted within the frame work of our laws.”
About 70 per cent of prison inmates are awaiting trial, the Prison Fellowship Nigeria (PFN) Secretary-General Jacob Tsado, has said.
Speaking with reporters during the group’s Family Week/Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Redemption Camp of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) in Mowe, Ogun State, Tsado called for a review of the criminal justice system.
He said: “Our justice system is tilted against the victim. Justice is done when harmony is restored. We have inmates whose files are lost; they have no lawyers and on the day they are to appear, the Black Maria vehicle refuses to work because either it has no fuel or it is not in good working condition.
“So, the court has to adjourn the case. You can imagine someone who had waited for four months for his case and on that day, the case is adjourned for the above reasons. That is why in Prison Fellowship, we have become the voice for the voiceless.”
The scribe said the Week was aimed at stocking and equipping PFN members spiritually and morally for the tasks ahead.
“The popular saying is: ‘You can’t give what you don’t have.’ To give to prisoners, we need to be imparted by the power of God and to acquire relevant skills and capacities for prison ministries. For people to be engaged in the system, they need to be taught certain things for us to go out and spread the good news to engage people in criminal justice.’’
He noted that PFN is specialised non-governmental organisation (NGO) involved in security, criminal justice and the law.
To tackle the problems of those on the awaiting trial list, Tsado said his group was partnering the Lagos State government on the adoption of the restorative justice system, adding that is signed an memorandum of understanding with the government.
He said the system would promote harmony, peace, development and reintegration of offenders to the society.’’ It is good for communal progress,’’ he added.
The group’s Chair Dorcas Din appealed to the government and individuals to assist body to build its centrein Abuja to train newly released inmates before they are enter the society. She said the group has acquired land for the centre but had not been able to develop it.
She urged the government to rehabilitate the prisons, saying many of them have dilapidated facilities.
PFN’s Executive Director Ben Iwuagwu, a lawyer, urged all political leaders to assist in reforming the prisons. He said the prisons should serve as reformative centres. He said it was wrong to make them punitive, adding that our leaders have a responsibility to the downtrodden, especially those in the prisons in this regard.
