The Special Adviser to President Muhammadu Buhari on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, has said only Kaduna State government has the power to prosecute leader of the Shi’ite group, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky.
He spoke at training for institutions in the justice sector, organised by justice advocacy group, Access to Justice (A2Justice).
Obono-Obla said it was not the responsibility of the Federal Government to prosecute El-Zakzaky since the laws infringed upon are Kaduna State laws.
His words: “It is not a federal crime; this matter is a local crime. The law infringed upon by El-Zakzaky is not a federal offence. If he blocked the roads, if he confronted the soldiers, if they assaulted the soldiers, these are local offences that the Kaduna State government can try.
“The offense was committed in Kaduna, against the laws of the Kaduna State government, so ask Governor Nasir El-Rufai why he has not charged El-Zakzaky to court.
“You have a group that does not recognise the Constitution, a group that infringes on the rights of Nigerians if they go out on their procession; they carry dangerous weapons and try to intimidate everybody; they block the roads and don’t obey laws. Do we allow such group to trample on the rights of everybody?”
Obla said the committee on Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) was working to reduce the number of people under pretrial detention across the country.
According to him, the goal of the committee is to ensure that all criminal matters are handled by professional lawyers in the Federal Ministry of Justice, even as he called for the employment of professional prosecutors by the government.
Tag: El-Zakzaky
-
‘Only El-Rufai can prosecute El-Zakzaky’
-
Free El-Zakzaky now
•The Federal Government must obey court ruling
IT is sometimes difficult to understand the vision and goals of the Buhari administration. The depth of comprehension of the democratic order by key officials of the government is also questionable. Had the Attorney General of the Federation lived up to his responsibility as Chief Law Officer of the Federation and Legal Adviser to the President, the rough edges around interpretation of the law and the executive’s relationship with the other two arms of government could have been prevented.
Consistently, the judiciary has said that democracy is antithetical to impunity and rule of the thumb, which the Federal Government appears to enjoy. On Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, it is now clear that the Federal Government has no regard for the rule of law. Since his abode was destroyed by soldiers in December 2015, the man, his wife and children have been in detention.
As provided for in the Constitution and the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, the Sheikh, leader of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria who was charged with terrorism and disregard for constituted authority, approached the court for enforcement of his right. He is not only entitled to fair hearing, but is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, the government wants to be prosecutor and judge in the matter. It has been unwilling to get the detainees prosecuted and has done everything to stand in the way of judicial arbitration.
After one year of unlawful detention, the judge handling the case, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordered that the detainees be unconditionally released and provided accommodation and security by the Department of State Services (DSS) in a town of their choice. He gave 45 days within which the government should fully comply with the judgment, in addition to payment of N50 million general damages. It is instructive that the government ignored the judgment and failed to apply the verdict within the 45-day window it had. It has now approached the Court of Appeal to annul it.
It appears the Federal Government is still suffering from the lingering effect of military dictatorship. When a constitutional government chooses to willfully stamp down the law, what is expected of the citizenry? How is the Buhari administration better than the sect that it has accused of disregarding the law and constituted authority?
We agree with Amnesty International that warned when the 45-day window was about closing that: “if the government deliberately disregards the orders of its own courts, it will demonstrate a flagrant and dangerous contempt for the rule of law.” It is an invitation to the people to resort to self-help whenever court decisions run against their preference.
Justice Kolawole could not have been clearer in his verdict. He said: “Let me state clearly and for the avoidance of doubt that the failure by the government to effect the release of the applicant and his wife from its custody or any illegal custody whatsoever, upon the expiration of the 45th day from December 2, 2016, such failure shall not only constitute a deliberate act of disobedience of these orders, but it will crystallise into fresh cause of action of infraction of the applicant’s rights and his wife to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, as amended.”
A government which became inheritor of a general agitation for the right of the people cannot afford to trample on the rights of the same people. President Muhammadu Buhari should remember the consequences of the mindless murder of Muhammad Yusuf who founded the Boko Haram sect. His death in custody only further radicalised his followers and Nigeria is yet to recover from the after-effect. All those being detained outside the purview of the law, especially in those cases where the courts have ruled for their release, should be set free immediately. Nigeria is not a jungle. -
Travails of El-Zakzaky
Governments, saddled with the responsibility of protecting the interest of the noble, the ignoble and the insane who engage in activities that often defy reasoning, are constituted by ordinary men. For this reason, they are prone to political crime. Their arduous task is not made any easier by the fact that these ordinary men are not immune to the deep-seated prejudices of their group. The result is that quite often, private interest is substituted for public interest.
To many critical minds, the ongoing war against El- Zakzaky and his Shia group viciously waged by state actors who happen to be members of the predominant rival Sunni Islam, the medium is the message. It is believed Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha, Abdulsalami Abubakar and Umaru Yar’Adua and now Buhari under whose administrations El Zakzaky and his Shia Islam group have experienced some form deprivations cannot be independent arbiters. There are just too many coincidences to invalidate such a conspiracy theory.
Let us first trace the Sunni and Shi’a political rivalry back to Saudi Arabia tribal groups put together as Islamic state by Holy Prophet Mohammed and the war of succession that followed his death in 632 A.D. Available literature has shown that in the ensuing war of succession, the Shi’a made up of Prophet Mohammed’s family and the Muhajirun, supported Ali Ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law as his authentic successor while the Sunni, predominantly made up of tribal leaders of Mecca and Medina who were initially opposed to Prophet Mohammed insisted the Prophet died without appointing a successor and proceeded to vote for Abu Bakr as the new Caliph to head the Islamic state. Beyond politics, what separates the two warring groups are a number disputed Hadiths relating to aspects of prayers and marriage. Therefore, that the war has gone on for about 14 centuries despite the fact that there is no serious disagreement on theological teaching only confirms it is all about politics rather than quest for salvation of souls.
Nigeria where over 95% of Muslims faithful belong to the Sunni group did not get entangled in the endless battle until mid-80s when Ibrahim El-Zakzaky probably of Ebira ethno-linguistic group, born in Zaria, formerly known as Zazzau, one of the original Hausa states that embraced Islamic religion in mid 1450s, long before it was captured by the Fulani jihadists in 1805, introduced Shia Islam to Nigeria. Just as it was in the early days of the rivalry in Mecca, El Zakzaky and his Shi’a group drew most of their support from the poor and the disadvantaged indigenous tribal groups in the north. And just as in Saudi Arabia where the political actors hide under the state to wage a proxy war against Shia states like Iran, the belief is that political state actors in Nigeria have on behalf of the dominant Sunni Islam, waged a proxy war under the guise of protecting the Nigerian society from El Zakzaky’s dangerous religious teachings.
And what are these dangerous teachings? As defined by the state actors, they include El-Zakzaky and his Shi’a Islam group’s claim that ‘sovereignty lies only with Allah’, their call for a stringent application of the Islamic law and their yearning for a theocratic state patterned after post- Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution Iran. But to many objective observers, these so-called dangerous teachings are not any more inimical to the health of our nation than the pronouncements and actions of prominent mainstream Sunni northern Muslims including governors who sent hundreds of northern youths for religious indoctrination under Bin Laden while he took political refuge in Sudan.
It is also debatable if El-Zakzaky is any more dangerous than Senator Ahmed Yerima, who as governor of Zamfara, one of the poorest and educationally backward states in the federation, assembled prominent northern Sunni Islam members along with ambassadors of Muslim nations who hailed him as he hilariously launched what President Obasanjo then described as ‘political Sharia that will soon fade away’. Yerima’s action, more than El-Zakzaky’s cravings was a direct assault on Nigeria constitution and a threat to the unity of the country as it led to massive demonstrations and killings of hundreds of people in Kano, Kaduna and a few other states in the north.
To deny the possibility of the state proxy war on behalf of dominant Sunni in Nigeria is to deny the fact that Sunni Saudi Arabia is waging a proxy war on demonized Shia Iran long after it was established by the international intelligence community that the former which pretends to fight God’s war is a fertile breeding ground for radical Islam and by extension global terrorism.
But perhaps what has made the argument of the state and its actors about protecting our nation from the dangerous teachings of El-Zakzaky and his Shia group more tenuous has been the various pronouncements by the judiciary since the travails of El-Zakzaky began during Babangida regime in the 90s, all of which contradicted the state claim that he constitutes a danger to society.
El-Zakzaky’s latest victory and the judicial pronouncement came after one year in detention without charges. Arrested by the military on December 14, 2015, and detained following a clash with the military during which about 347 members of his Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) were killed, he approached the court through his lawyer, Femi Falana to demand for his freedom. Rejecting submission by Tijjani Gazali, the SSS lawyer, that “decision to hold the Islamic cleric and his wife for their safety was not based on law,” Justice Gabriel Kolawole, ordered El-Zakzaky’s release saying, “I have not been shown any incident report or any complaint lodged by residents around the neighborhood that the applicant has become a nuisance to his neighborhood.”
Long before this victory, El-Zakzaky had back in 1996 after a protracted judicial battle secured another landmark judicial victory over General Abacha who had ordered his detention in February 1996 for causing public disaffection against his military junta.
And it is also on record that while the April 21, 1998, Muslim Brotherhood’s violent protest against the arrest of El-Zakzaky’s wife and children failed to secure their release, it was the court that later ordered the release of Zeenah, El-Zakzaky’s wife, her six children along with eight other women detained for insulting Abacha. Again when the Abdulsalami regime failed to extend the general amnesty enjoyed by many Abacha detainees to El-Zakzaky in August 27, 1998, following Abacha’s death, the judiciary ordered his release. It is safe to conclude from this string of judicial victories that contrary to the claim by the state, the judiciary does not consider El-Zakzaky a danger to society.
El-Zakzaky has not denied his preference for a more stringent application of Islamic legal system or indeed the establishment of a theocracy modeled after Iran, but he has insisted “Our weapon is positive reasoning, truth and good conduct. Guns are for the reckless and foolhardy. We have been conducting our affairs peacefully, calling people to the truth for the last 36 years… We save lives, not kill them.”
Since the judiciary has consistently insisted that El-Zakzaky and his Shia group are not a threat to the country’s security, the state has to provide proof to invalidate his thesis that he and his group are victims of religious intolerance that have come to define the once-celebrated ‘one north, one people’ since the assassination of Ahmadu Bello in 1966.
-
EU seeks El-Zakzaky’s unconditional release
The European Union (EU) Heads of Mission has condemned the continued detention of leader of the Shi’ites, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, despite court orders.
The mission, in a statement in Abuja, urged the Federal Government to ensure El-Zakzaky is released in accordance with the ruling of the court or is charged formally.
The statement reads: “The EU Heads of Mission note that the decision of a Federal High Court, ordering Mr. Ibrahim El-Zakzaky’s release from custody of the State Security Service (SSS) has not been enforced.
“The EU underlines the universality of fundamental human rights, which includes the right to a fair trial and freedom from arbitrary detention. We find it worrying that Mr. Zakzaky has been detained for more than a year without having been brought to Justice.
“We, therefore, urge the Nigerian authorities to ensure Mr. Zakzaky is released in accordance with the ruling of the court or is charged formally in accordance with law. He should also face an impartial and balanced trial without further delay.
“We encourage transparency and believe it is important that findings by past or ongoing investigations into December 2015 violence are published.
“The EU Heads of Mission are of the view that those responsible for the violence must be prosecuted according to the law and anyone found guilty sentenced accordingly.
“The right to peaceful assembly, association, and free speech is enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. The EU Heads of Mission remind Nigeria that it is essential to promote religious tolerance and respect religious rights.
“The EU Heads of Mission will continue to follow the judicial situation of Mr. Zakzaky and his wife closely.” -
El-Zakzaky: federal subversion of the law
MORE than one year after he was detained without charge, and obviously more than 45 days after a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja ordered his release, the bruised and battered Shi’a leader, Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, is still in detention. The reason is that the government in Abuja believes it is above the law. Worse, it has contempt for the law; that is why it refused to appeal. The court, presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, had on December 2, 2016 ordered the release of the Shi’a leader and his wife in 45 days, the provision of an accommodation for the couple, and payment of N50m compensation to them. It is not clear what part of the judgement the federal government was unable to comprehend, for the order of the court was rendered in English and in a style that did not admit of any ambiguity. After all, the government put up a spirited but futile defence in court.
But days after the release of the Shi’a leader and his wife was due, the government has neither released the couple nor said anything. It is turning out that the Muhammadu Buhari presidency is both the law and the constitution. Any other thing, including the written Nigerian constitution, is obviously impotent in the estimation of the government and a rude, unpatriotic distraction. Rather than obey the court judgement on the Shi’a leader, certain faceless sources have sponsored publications intended to suggest that other more pressing reasons not placed before the court during adjudication are sufficiently powerful enough to make the government defy the court and the constitution. In sum, the Buhari presidency has served notice that it reserves the right to determine when, how and why any accused person would be released from jail.
The argument of the anonymous sponsors of the publications in the Sheikh El-Zakzaky case is simple but exasperatingly unpersuasive. Said the anonymous source defending the government’s defiance of the law: “The major constitutional policy objective of government as stated in section 14 (2) (b) is public and not individual security…The issue of the release of El-Zakzaky is not exclusively legal. It has security and public interest as against individual interest undertone. Public interest and national security implications must be factored into consideration in line with international practices that conventionally place national security and public interest above any other individual claim of right. The Federal Government of Nigeria is looking into the case with the public and security interest dimensions into consideration.”
It is not clear how ‘international practices’ supersedes the law and constitution of Nigeria, nor what public interest the source was referring to that transcended the rights of the individual enshrined in the same constitution disingenuously and mischievously quoted by the anonymous source to justify the arbitrary denial of a person’s rights. What is, however, clear is that by refusing to release the Shi’a leader and his wife, the government has deliberately decided to violate the law and desecrate the constitution. More, it has served notice that private considerations by government and its own insular interpretations of the law outside the courts of law are superior to any and every other consideration. In effect, the Nigerian has just been divested of his rights. If anyone thinks he has any rights henceforth, he must wait until he confronts the government to suffer disillusionment.
When this whole saga began in Zaria in December 2015, after elements of the Nigerian Army clashed with members of the Shi’a group called the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), the federal government repeatedly attempted to whip up public emotions against the group. In inquiry after inquiry, and from one court to the other, lawyers and witnesses of the government spoke of the Shiites in very uncomplimentary manner. They were a violent, surly and unruly neighbour to Zarians, said the government. They built without permits, said the Kaduna State governor, Nasir el-Rufai. They did not recognise any government, the governor added. And they were potentially more dangerous than the notorious Boko Haram sect, they summed up. None of these allegations against the sect held up in court, for the courts hardly judge anyone on intentions without proof.
Indeed, President Buhari and Governor el-Rufai anchor and justify their disposition towards the Shi’a group and its leaders based on the persuasion, sentiments and arguments of haters of the sect. They list a litany of grievances against the group, including the unruly execution of their obligatory marches, the mistreatment of neighbours, their imperiousness, and the adamantine resolve of the sect’s leaders to permit and even encourage their members’ excesses. Since the sect was uprooted from their Zaria redoubt in December 2015, said the neighbours gleefully, peace had descended on the community. According to the neighbours, the long list of excesses of the sect was possible because the Kaduna State Government was for many years absolutely remiss in controlling and checking the IMN. But when it finally chose to do something, following hard on the heels of the army’s crackdown on the sect, the state government went along with the rampaging soldiers regardless of the law. Sects and individuals often subvert the law as heartily as they wish, however, the law makes provision for reining in malfeasant persons and groups. The problem, it seems, is that neither the army nor the state government followed the law in finding a solution to the Shi’a excesses.
In fact, fearing that it could never secure a conviction against the sect’s leaders, and unable to defend its atrocious crackdown on the sect in court, including the more than one year detention of Sheikh El-Zakzaky and his wife without charging them in court, the government is now attempting to take refuge in the same constitution it has defied and desecrated. It is clear that the Buhari presidency operates outside the law when it suits it. It appears determined to keep the couple in detention for as long as it pleases, though it remarked snidely that El-Zakzaky’s wife was free to go if she was tired of caring for her battered husband. The government fails to realise that by cherry-picking what laws and judgements to obey, it is indirectly undermining both its own legitimacy and constitutional government, and invariably arming its enemies, many of whom have never had confidence in the president’s democratic credentials nor trusted Governor el-Rufai’s propagandist campaign that his messianic instincts tell him the worst of the sect.
At long last, the government has admitted what everyone has long suspected: that this government relishes and engages in self-help. Gradually, Nigerians are waking up to the fact that dictatorship may already be upon the country. Worse, the more astute rest of the world will gradually and deliberately begin the process of coming to the despairing conclusion that the Buhari presidency is averse to the rule of law. Coupled with the police invasion of the premises of the online medium, Premium Times, an invasion that appears to have neither rhyme nor reason, there are increasingly fewer people who think Nigerian democracy is in a safe pair of hands. (See box). -
Why El-Zakzaky is still in detention, by Presidency
The Presidency yesterday said the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) leader, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, is still being detained for public interest and security implications.
The government said it was keeping the IMN leader in line with its obligations as enshrined in Section 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution.
But it, the government added that the spiritual leader’s wife, Malama Zeenatu Ibraheem, was free to go home because she had no case to answer.
A top Presidency source spoke in an interview with reporters in Abuja against the backdrop of pressure on the government to obey court orders on the release of El-Zakzaky.
The official, who craved anonymity, said the “major constitutional policy objective of government as stated in section 14 (2) (b) is public and not individual security”.
The source said: “The issue of the release of Zakzaky is not exclusively legal. It has security and public interest as against individual interest undertones.
“Public interest and national security implications must be factored into consideration in line with international practices that conventionally place national security and public interest above any other individual claim of right.
“The Federal Government is looking into the case with the public and security interest dimensions being put into consideration.”
The source, however, said the wife of El-Zakzaky was free to go home because she has never had a case to answer.
The source claimed the IMN leader’s wife was “not of any security interest and therefore was merely keeping her husband company in the apartment in which he is kept”.
The source added: “She is not under detention. If it is her wish, that of her husband or of the IMN, she will be allowed to go home in a matter of hours.
“El-Zakzaky’s spouse was picked up by the Department of Security Service (DSS) beside her husband with bullet wounds following IMN’s encounter with the army.
“They took her along with the husband, treated her wounds and allowed her to care for her husband.
“Upon his request on an occasion, the children joined them during Ramadan. That is what happened.”
The IMN, on Wednesday, made seven demands for the release of El Zakzaky.
At a briefing, Sheikh Abdulhamid Bello, head of the Shuhadah (Martyrs) Foundation, IMN, tabled the demands, among others:
“We demand and insist that the Federal unconditionally and in accordance with the procedures laid down in the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on December 2, 2016.
“The Federal Government and its agencies must obey the orders of the Federal High Court Abuja, as they have a responsibility to show good example to the people of Nigeria as a regime that believes in the rule of law and due process. Serial disobedience to court orders and contempt for the fundamental rights of citizens to freedom of religion does not portray our country as one that is ready to manage its religious diversity in a way that strengthens the federation.
“The IMN demands that the government desists from trying to infiltrate the movement using fifth columnists and agent provocateurs. The IMN does not believe in violence or the use of violence to achieve its objectives.
“The Federal Government and the Kaduna State government have been and continue to engage in provocative acts aimed at inciting the movement to take to the path of violence in vain. The IMN assures the Nigerian public that any act of violence attributed to it can only emanate from agent provocateurs being injected into the movement by state agents.
“The IMN thanks the human rights community and professional groups and organisations for their support in this matter thus far and urges them to persuade the government to release our leader and his wife and withdraw all trumped up charges against members of our movement.
”We urge the international community to persuade the government to obey the orders of court and to release our leader unconditionally.
“We also appeal to the international community to commit Nigeria to upholding religious rights and freedoms, failing which the Nigerian government and its agents be isolated and sanctioned.
“We appeal to all Nigerians to prevail on the government to release our leader to seek medical attention to the challenges of his sight.”
-
IMN to international community: tell Fed Govt to release El-Zakzaky
Worried by it’s serial disobedience to court orders, the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), yesterday called on the international community to persuade the Federal Government to release its leader, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky and his wife after a year and one month in solitary confinement.
The Islamic group also appealed to the international community to commit Nigeria to upholding religious rights and freedom, failing which the Nigerian government would be isolated and sanctioned.
The Chairman, Shuhadah (Martyrs) Foundation, (IMN), Sheik Abdulhameed Bello made the call at a news conference in Abuja, where he also said that the movement was in the process of heading back to court to enforce court judgment delivered on December 2, by Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
He added that the movement finds it difficult to understand why the government has decided against all international human rights form and tenets of decency to hold its leader without trial.
“The detention of El-Zakzaky and his wife since 14th of December, 2015 is illegal and unconstitutional and violates their fundamental rights to health and association.
“A few people that do not wish our movement well claimed that we do not recognise the sovereignty of Nigeria and its institutions, yet we took our grievances to a properly constituted court of law.
“The government claimed that members of our movement do not obey rule of law and due process but it is our leader that has been held in solitary confinement for one year and one month without charges against him and without the authorities alleging any offence being filed against him. The houses of our leader have been destroyed. His children have been brutally killed. His wife is in custody and carrying bullet wounds,” he stated.
The group, therefore, demanded that its leader and his wife be released unconditionally and in accordance with the procedures laid down in the judgement of the Federal High court.
“We urge the international community to persuade the government to obey the order of a Federal High court and release our leader unconditionally. We also appeal to the international community to commit Nigeria to upholding religious freedoms, failing which Nigerian government and its agents be isolated and sanctioned.
-
Shi’ites: don’t let El-Zakzaky die in custody
The Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), also known as Shi’ites, yesterday warned that its leader, Sheik Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, who has been in detention since December 2015, must not die in custody.
A statement by its spokesman Ibrahim Musa also said Sadau Garba and Bello Ibrahim, allegedly representing El-Zakzaky before Department of State Services (DSS) were impostors.
The statement reads: “We demand that our leader and his wife be released unconditionally. It will be a tragedy of monumental proportion should he go blind in detention or suffer further physical disability due to his denial to medical attention.
“Our leader’s health, and that of his wife continue to deteriorate daily and those holding him in custody are playing politics with his detention.
“We urge the people and the international community to intervene in this crude violation of the fundamental rights of our leader.
“The movement also makes it clear that Sadau Garba and Bello Ibrahim can only be solicitors to the Department of State Services (DSS), with who they are in constant contact, and not that of the movement or our leader. It is the DSS that briefed the two, giving them access to its facilities and encouraging them to pose as solicitors to our leader, also urging them to write letters begging the department to release our leader on compassionate grounds.
“On the basis of this dubious alliance, the department has been giving the two unrestricted access and have been sending out dubious feelers that they will release our leader when they are begged by the two to do so.
“We want to make it clear that Sadau Garba and Bello Ibrahim are not solicitors to the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, and have not been briefed by our leader to represent him in any of the cases pending in court.
“Femi Falana (SAN) is the leader of the Legal Team and assisted by Festus Okoye Esq and Maxwell Kyon Esq.”
-
Court refuses El-Zakzaky’s bail application
A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined the bail application of the Shi’ites leader, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky.
El-Zakzaky’s counsel Abubakar Masha instituted the suit seeking an enforcement of the fundamental human rights on behalf of his client.
Vacation Judge Justice Okon Abang said Zakzaky ought to have obtained the leave of court for the matter to be heard during vacation.
He explained that the applicant failed to serve the Department of State Sevices, inspector-general of Police (IG) and the federal attorney general, who were joined as respondents.
Abang struck out the application for incompetency.
-
Women protest El-Zakzaky’s detention
Widows and orphans of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), otherwise known as Shi’ites, yesterday marched on the streets of Kaduna to protest the eight-month detention of their leader, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky.
The protesters, led by Abdullahi Mohammed, and chanting “free Sheikh Zakzaky”, said the protest was to condemn the Department of State Service’ (DSS) continuous detention of their leader.
Speaking on behalf of the women, Fauziya Saidu said the protest would continue until Zakzaky is released unconditionally to allow him seek proper medical attention.
She alleged that military personnel on the Zaria-Kaduna road took their photographs, the purpose of which they are not privy to, but added that no level of intimidation can stop them from marching to Abuja and remaining there until El-Zakzaky, wife and others are released.
Her words: “Most of us here are widows and orphans. We are only demanding that our leader be released for medical treatment. We will continue this match to Abuja and will not leave until our Sheikh, his wife and others are released.
“Prior to that in an unusual twist, the DSS claimed that Sheikh Zakzaky is being kept in ‘protective custody because he is a vulnerable individual’. Although our leader and his wife are not being held in a prison cell, they are certainly not living in a comfortable state, nor are they ‘safe’.
“Then there is his health, specifically the health of his remaining eye, which is already half blind. We call on those who believe in the adorable right of all human beings to fairness, justice and dignity, to help by joining us in a redoubled effort. We must act before it is too late. Our leader needs access to doctors now.
“If they are really protecting him as their lawyers have claimed, we ask them what form of threat is the visit of family and doctors, considering the impending and dangerous situation threatening to turn him blind, why are no doctors allowed?”