The Nation Newspaper

Tag: jail

  • Use of phone while driving: Beyond jail sentence

    The use of mobile phone technology was initially confined to the affluent. However, usage patterns have changed substantially in recent yearsas the costs of owning and using a mobile phone have declined.

    Mobile phone use while driving is common, but widely considered dangerous. Concerns have been raised that use of mobile phone while driving increases the risk oftraffic collisions, property damage, injuries, and fatalities.The weight of the scientific evidence to date suggests that use of mobile phone whiledriving does create safety risks for the driver and his/her passengers as well as other road users. Due to the number of accidents that are related to mobile phone use while driving, some jurisdictions have made the use of mobile phone while driving illegal. Others have enacted laws to ban it but allow use of a hands-free device.

    Mobile phone use while driving is classified as distracted driving. Driver distraction is a sub-category of inattention and has been estimated to be a contributing factor in eight to 13 per cent of all road crashes. In fact, it is believed that drivers who use mobile phone while driving exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers. Concentration, therefore, is an absolute requirement for safe driving because there is so much competing for the attention of the human mind. In the principles of defensive driving, the driver must get the total picture which is all inclusive; what is in front of him, what is behind him, what is beside him.One big irony of distracted driving is that many drivers see distracted driving as risky when other drivers do it, but never get to recognise when their own driving deteriorates.

    Recently, the Federal Road Safety Corp (FRSC) pronounced a prison sentence for anyone accosted using a mobile phone while driving. The recommendation of the jail term by FRSC was predicated on the basis that fines are not achieving the necessary deterrent effect, thus making prosecution the next option to effect attitudinal change amongst motorists. To further drive its seriousness home, the FRSC has teamed up with ExxonMobil and its joint venture partner, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to embark on public enlightenment focusing among other safety measures the dangers of using mobile phone while driving.

    The use of mobile phone while driving mayentail a variety of different maneuvers; searching for a phone in the vehicle, reaching for aphone to initiate or receive a call, dialing, holding a phone near the ear while talking and driving,picking up a phone that has been dropped.

    Even use of a hands-free phone can bedistracting to the driver as conversation consumes mental energy while driving. The varioustasks entailed in using a mobile phone each require a different amount of time, mental energy,and coordination, leading to potentially different complications of the driving task and possibly risking collision.

    Using the mobile phone while driving is not only dangerous to the driver-phone user but to the other road users too. Of all the potential distractions, the conversation takes the prime focus of the driver away from his driving and what is happening around him. His focus becomes the object or subject of his discussion. The hand-held phone detracts from effective handling of the steering wheel or the gear knob.

    Studies have also revealed that even the use of the hands-free phone poses greater risk, because the driver tends to get carried away in the false comfort that he was not holding the phone and this further diminishes attention.

    Severalsurveysby the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in America have found that 80-90 per cent of mobile phone owners use these devices while driving at leastsome of the time. The extent of use whiledriving varies substantially among owners. The survey also discloses that while most drivers understood the dangers of using mobile phones while driving, a large percentage used them not thinking or understanding the safety implications.

    The fallout from the use of mobile phone while driving cannot just be limited to the collisions that may happen. Motor vehicle collisions are harmful in many ways. For motorists these collisions canresult in minor, serious, crippling, fatal injuries or even death. Collisions result in property damageto vehicles that are often expensive to repair. There are also related health care costs, litigationexpenses, insurance administration, lost work time, and other adverse ramifications of collisions.In urban areas, each collision occurring in rush hour can induce a cascade of traffic congestion,emergency response time, and grief for those affected. Thus, if use of mobile phones whiledriving causes more collisions, motorists and policymakers should be concerned. Businesses andinsurers may also become concerned since these firms bear a significant fraction of the monetarycosts of motor vehicle collisions.

    Some people have argued that the use of phone while driving has some benefits. Whether tangible or intangible, they believe that using a mobile phone while driving has some benefits which may accrue to the user of the phone, the user’s family or household, the user’s social network of friends, acquaintances, the user’s business, or the community as a whole. They believe that use of mobile phone while driving can reduceunnecessary trips, minimise the length of trips, and diminish overall time on the road byallowing more effective communication with household members, friends/acquaintances, andother parties whose schedules and transit plans need to be coordinated with the schedule of the driver.

    There is also the tendency to believe that when a driver is running late, he is more likely to speed in order to reach the destination quickly, thereby reducing any negative consequence of arriving late. In such situation, a call from a mobile phone by the driver can notify colleagues of late arrival and diminish the driver’s urge to speed. They also believe that the ability toachieve instant communication, whether from or to a driver, provides the driver apsychological reassurance that unexpected events of the day can be managed effectively and thatworries related to uncertainties can be resolved by instant news conveyed through a phone call. Also, when teenagers drive, parents worry. Similar concern is expressed for other members of the household (spouses or parents), particularly if they are driving long distances or driving late at night. Knowing that these individuals can, if necessary, call home while driving or can be contacted while in transit contributes to peace of mind for all concerned family members.

    However, as rational as these arguments sound, they pale into insignificance because in any of the situations mentioned above, the driver could have easily pulled up at a convenient roadside and make the call without necessary putting his life and that of other road users at risk.

  • Use of phone while driving: Beyond jail sentence

    Use of mobile phone technology was initially confined to the affluent. However, usage patterns have changed substantially in recent yearsas the costs of owning and using a mobile phone have declined. Mobile phone use while driving is common, but widely considered dangerous. Concerns have been raised that use of mobile phone while driving increases the risk oftraffic collisions, property damage, injuries, and fatalities.The weight of the scientific evidence to date suggests that use of mobile phone whiledriving does create safety risks for the driver and his/her passengers as well as other road users.Due to the number of accidents that are related to mobile phone use while driving, some jurisdictions have made the use of mobile phone while driving illegal. Others have enacted laws to ban it but allow use of a hands-free device.

    Mobile phone use while driving is classified as distracted driving. Driver distraction is a sub-category of inattention and has been estimated to be a contributing factor in eight to 13 per cent of all road crashes.In fact, it is believed that drivers who use mobile phone while driving exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.Concentration, therefore, is an absolute requirement for safe driving because there is so much competing for the attention of the human mind. In the principles of defensive driving, the driver must get the total picture which is all inclusive; what is in front of him, what is behind him, what is beside him.One big irony of distracted driving is that many drivers see distracted driving as risky when other drivers do it, but never get to recognise when their own driving deteriorates.

    Recently, the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) pronounced aprison sentence for anyone accosted using a mobile phone while driving a vehicle.The recommendation of the jail term by FRSC was predicated on the basis that fines are not achieving the necessary deterrent effect, thus making prosecution the next option to effect attitudinal change amongst motorists. To further drive its seriousness home, the FRSC has teamed up with ExxonMobil and its joint venture partner, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to embark on public enlightenment focusing among other safety measures the dangers of using mobile phone while driving.

    The use of mobile phone while driving mayentail a variety of different maneuvers; searching for a phone in the vehicle, reaching for aphone to initiate or receive a call, dialing, holding a phone near the ear while talking and driving,picking up a phone that has been dropped.

    Even use of a hands-free phone can bedistracting to the driver as conversation consumes mental energy while driving.The varioustasks entailed in using a mobile phone each require a different amount of time, mental energy,and coordination, leading to potentially different complications of the driving task and possibly risking collision.

    Using the mobile phone while driving is not only dangerous to the driver-phone user but to the other road users too. Of all the potential distractions, the conversation takes the prime focus of the driver away from his driving and what is happening around him. His focus becomes the object or subject of his discussion. The hand-held phone detracts from effective handling of the steering wheel or the gear knob.

    Studies have also revealed that even the use of the hands-free phone poses greater risk, because the driver tends to get carried away in the false comfort that he was not holding the phone and this further diminishes attention

  • Drugs: 500 Nigerians in Japanese jail

    Drugs: 500 Nigerians in Japanese jail

    No fewer than 500 Nigerian youths are presently languishing in Japanese prisons over alleged drugs and other related offence, Bishop Enock Adebayo yesterday said and called for immediate action.

    Bishop Adebayo, President of the Nigeria-Japan Chamber of Commerce, said government should do everything possible to save the lives of the youths. He spoke to reporters in Lagos.

    According to Rev Adebayo, who is married to a Japanese woman with six children, said the Chamber of Commerce had tried all it could to save the youths but to no avail, because of the large number of the offenders and the alleged lukewarm attitude of the Nigerian Ambassador in Japan.

    He claimed that the youths must have engaged in the unholy business because of lack of jobs and that they (youths) believed they had no future in their country, Nigeria.

    “But the Chamber has been educating over 3,000 Nigerians among them, the youths resident in Japan that the future of Nigeria is very rosy and bountiful, which will propel Nigeria to become a world power in the next ten years. Nigerian youths should be honest, hardworking, resourceful, faithful and be able to plan ahead. We have been educating them not to cross the ‘red line,’ in order not to fall into the same temptation and mistakes our past leaders found themselves,” advising Nigerian elders and leaders to behave well, because the youths and their children are watching their footsteps, either for good or bad.”

    Bishop Adebayo disclosed that the Nigeria-Japan Chamber of Commerce was working frantically to attract many manufacturing companies, including vehicle manufacturers to Nigeria to set up their industries.

  • Okah to spend 24 years in jail

    •MEND: we’re not surprised
    •My forever guy, says wife

    Militant leader Henry Okah’s controversial life collapsed yesterday at a South African court.

    The leader of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) got a 24-year jail term.

    Mixed reactions trailed the court’s verdict. MEND said it was disappointed but not surprised by the sentence.

    The leader of the Niger Delta volunteers’ Force (NDVF), Alhaji Asari Dokubo, hailed the sentence, saying “justice has been done”.

    He said the verdict was too mild as the court ought to have slammed a death sentence on Okah.

    In an online statement by its spokesman, Jomo Gbomo, MEND accused the South African court of allowing itself to be compromised by the “highly-corrupt” Nigerian government.

    The statement reads: “MEND received with incredulity, the twenty-four year sentence slammed on Henry Okah, after a sham trial in a South African kangaroo court.

    “We are disappointed, but not surprised that the South African judiciary has allowed itself to be compromised by the highly-corrupt Nigerian government.

    “The governments of South Africa and Nigeria should realise that this planned sentencing of Henry Okah would not in any way, shape or form, change our struggle, as we will remain dedicated to our cause, until we achieve full justice and emancipation for the Niger Delta and its people.”

    Dokubo told The Nation that the sentence was even too lenient .

    He said: “Justice has been done now to a man who chose to take the lives of defenceless people. The sentence is even lenient, he ought to have been sentenced to death.”

    The NDVF leader dismissed the possibility of any negative reaction from those sympathetic to the convict, alleging that Okah lacked the wherewithal to rock the boat.

    Dokubo said: “There is no single negative reaction to be expected. Since he was detained, did oil production not increase? He does not have any followership except few criminals who are bent on perpetrating criminal activities. And I can assure you that any acts of criminality in the guise of being sympathetic to this development will be effectively contained.”

    South Gauteng High Court Judge Neels Claassen delivered the sentence in Johannesburg, the South African capital.

    Okah was found guilty of 13 counts of terrorism, including a twin-bomb attack that killed 12 people in Eagle Square, Abuja, on October 1, 2010 during the anniversary of Nigeria’s 50th Anniversary Independence.

    Spokeswoman for the National Prosecuting Authority Phindi Louw announced the sentence in a phone interview, Bloomberg said.

    Okah was found guilty on January 21 of master-minding the 2010 car bomb attacks which occurred in Abuja, three years ago close to where President Goodluck Jonathan was inspecting a guard of honour on Independence Day.

    South African law allows trials of alleged terrorists arrested or resident in the country – no matter where their acts were committed.

    MEND claimed responsibility for the attacks, after President Jonathan had exonerated the Okah-led group from the attack.

    He was sentenced to 12 years for the Abuja bombing and got another 12 years for a March 2010 bombing in Warri, which MEND also claimed responsibility for, Louw said. Okah was also sentenced to 10 years for threatening South Africa and that term will run concurrently with the 12-year sentence for the bombing in Abuja, she explained.

    MEND had threatened to attack the holdings of companies, including MTN Group Ltd. (MTN), Africa’s biggest mobile phone operator, and SacOil Holding Ltd. (SCL), an oil and gas exploration company, saying South African President Jacob Zuma is interfering “in the legitimate fight for justice” in the oil-rich Niger Delta.

    Okah, who denied the charges, declined to testify. He said his trial was unfair because the Federal Government blocked about 20 witnesses from travelling to South Africa to give evidence.

    He said: “The judge made his decision based on what was before him. The problem is that my witnesses were stopped from coming.”

    The government accused Okah of leading MEND, an organisation, which was promoting militancy, to fight for a greater share of oil revenue for the Niger Delta.

    Thousands of militants dropped their weapons to embrace the amnesty programmed introduced in 1999 by the Federal Government under the late President Umaru Yar’Adua.

    Okah, who had earlier denied involvement in the Independence Day bombings , yesterday described the claim that he leads MEND as “ridiculous”.

    According to him, his support was derived from the the various armed groups in the Niger Delta.

    Prosecutor Shaun Abrahams said Okah was not remorseful.

    Abrahams said: “The accused has shown no remorse for his actions throughout the entire trial… He is looking for a political resolution and has taken no responsibility for his actions.

    “There are no mitigating facts that your lordship can take into consideration to impose a lesser sentence… The relevant sentence would be to impose a life sentence and the other sentences to run concurrently.”

    Abrahams said Okah was previously granted amnesty by the Nigerian government to play a role in resolving issues in the Niger Delta and to work with the government to bring peace in that region.

    He said: “Okah was given a second bite at the cherry, what did he do? There is no evidence of what positive role the accused played in the Niger Delta.

    “The accused had his second bite at the cherry after he received his amnesty — he can’t in this regard get another chance.”

    Abrahams told the court that Okah’s intentions in the bombings were to “obtain maximum casualties”.

    On January 21, Okah was found guilty on 13 counts of terrorism, including engaging in terrorist activities, conspiracy to engage in terrorist activities, and delivering, placing, and detonating an Improvised explosive device.

    The charges related to two car bombs in Abuja, in which 12 people were killed and 36 injured on October 1, 2010.

    The court heard yesterday that in the Warri bombings Okah, was fully aware that a school in close to the car bombs.

    “He was not remotely concerned that hundreds of children could die at his hands,” Abrahams added.

    He said the principal of the school had decided to close the school for the day.

    Earlier, Okah, dressed in a red checked shirt and tan trousers, entered the court and waved at his friends. He was flanked by 14 police officers.

    Nineteen police officers took up position inside the courtroom and at the doors ahead of Judge Claassen’s entrance.

    Okah’s wife, Azuka, arrived about 30 minutes into the proceedings.

    When Okah saw his wife he sought to get her attention and gave her the thumbs up as she smiled at him.

    Claassen adjourned proceedings for a tea break and indicated he would hand down sentencing after the break.

    During the tea break, Okah and Azuka spent some time talking with each other. Okah was also seen chatting to the police officers inside the courtroom.

    In January, Claassen said in his judgment that the State had proved Okah’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that his failure to testify meant the evidence against him remained uncontested.

    He found no evidence that Okah did not head MEND, which claimed responsibility for the blasts.

    During the trial, Okah denied any involvement in the blasts and said the charges against him were politically motivated.

    Activist lawyer Festus Keyamo said the conviction was politically motivated and legally incorrect.

    The lawyer sought Okah’s unconditional release from South Africa prison. He said Okah’s offence was his refusal to accept the amnesty offered by the government and his insistence on the Niger-Delta controlling its resources.

    The lawyer urged Nigerians and the international community to condemn the trial and judgment of the activist.

    Keyamo said: “As counsel to Charles Okah and others who are facing the same set of charges under Nigerian Laws, I have been actively involved in coordinating the trials in South Africa and in Nigeria. The fundamental flaw in the trial is that Okah was not given adequate facilities and the opportunity to defend himself.

    “This is because after the prosecution closed its case in South Africa, the defence attorneys and my chambers here in Abuja tried frantically to summon the witnesses of Okah who are based here in Nigeria to testify on his behalf. These witnesses include some government officials.

    “In this regard, we wrote to the Attorney-General of the Federation who replied and directed that Okah’s counsel in South Africa apply to the court there for an order to secure the legal assistance of the Attorney-General of Nigeria. This was only two weeks ago.

    “Without giving Henry’s counsel in South Africa adequate time and facilities to follow the directives, the South African court foreclosed his opportunity to call witnesses and rushed to convict him.”

    Besides, Keyamo claimed that Okah’s conviction breached his fundamental right to fair hearing and an obvious attempt by the South African authorities to please Nigeria at all costs. “Whilst all Nigerians empathise with those who lost their lives and limbs in the October 1, 2010 bombings, it is wrong to convict anybody for it without due process. Henry has been convicted without due process,” he said.

  • Senate seeks life jail for terrorists

    Anybody found guilty of terrorism risks life jail, according to the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Bill being considered by the Senate.

    Nigeria may also pursue terrorists into neighbouring countries should the Bill sails through at the National Assembly.

    Entitled: “A Bill to amend the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 and for other related matters 2012” it scaled second reading in the Senate yesterday.

    It seeks to empower the government to trace and punish any person who commits act of terrorism in or outside the country.

    It will also provide stiffer punishment for terrorism sponsors.

    Senate Leader Victor Ndoma-Egba, in his lead debate, said the Bill seeks to make provisions for extra territorial application of the Act and to strengthen the section on terrorism financing offences.