The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgement

  • Supreme Court judgement and Orji’s vindication

    The recent Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the election of Victor Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the duly elected governor of Abia State has shamed the enemies and restored peace in the state. Victors in the judgment are the Nigerian judiciary, Governor Ikpeazu, Abia people and Ikpeazu’s predecessor and senator representing Abia Central zone, Senator Theodore Ahamefula Orji. The latter had stood his ground alongside the party leadership in the state to ensure that governor emerged from the Abia South in 2015.

    In the face of the coordinated propaganda, attack and pressure, the Nigerian judiciary especially the Supreme Court justices refused to be cowed or compromised in the matter. Ikpeazu had continued undaunted with his government’s massive infrastructural development even when the Appeal Court declared his main rival in the election, Alex Otti of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), winner of the election.

    Ahead of the 2015 governorship poll in Abia State, almost all the governorship aspirants had desperately wanted to fly the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state. Their desperations were hinged on the fact that PDP is the dominant party and with Governor Orji’s sterling performance in the office coupled with his liberation of the state from the grip of the desperate and notorious godfather in the state, that the people will vote massively for the party.

    In their bid to confuse and convince the people, some of the aspirants fabricated all sorts of lies which include that they have been endorsed by Governor Orji; that they have agreement with Governor Orji brokered by the presidency and other lies. While these aspirants engaged in all these political subterfuge to whip up sentiment, create undue tension, Orji had maintained that at the appropriate time the party leadership in the state would meet, decide and conduct primaries in line with party’s constitution. He had further emphasized and advised the party leadership that their choice of his possible successor should be in line with principles of equity, fairness, and everlasting peace in the state.

    When the party leadership decided that Abia South zone mainly of Ngwa people that had not produced governor in the state since its creation would produce the next governor, Orji and other party stakeholders applauded and backed the decision. Orji personally appealed to other aspirants including Otti who hails from Arochukwu in Abia North zone to support the Abia South to produce the governor.

    Orji’s argument was hinged on the need to ensure the zoning of the governor seat among the three senatorial zones in the state of which Abia North and Central had produced governors for eight years each. While majority of the aspirants accepted the logic, the likes of Otti and his co-travellers in a desperate bid to grab power jumped into APGA with their huge resources where they dislodged the initial APGA members in the state led by Chief Reagan Ufomba. The APGA governorship ticket in the state was quickly handed over to Otti by the APGA national leadership which Ufomba would later accuse of compromise.

    With Ikpeazu’s emergence as the PDP governorship candidate in the state in line with the state PDP’s zoning principles, Otti and his cohorts not only became upset, they came up with all kinds of intrigues and scheming to decieve the public and paint Ikpeazu, Orji and PDP in bad light. Embers of war were fanned with impunity in the state during electioneering campaigns. Otti and his supporters bragged of their connections at the seat of power, Aso Rock Villa. Abia which was one of the most peaceful states in the country before the polls, suddenly became a flash point state. APGA supporters including internet warriors and hatchet writers called Orji, Ikpeazu, and others names, threatening to pull down the state if Otti did not win the election.

    In the face all these grandstanding and provocation by APGA’s candidate and its supporters in the state, Governor Orji remained unperturbed and strongly supported Ikpeazu and the PDP. After the National Assembly elections, PDP won all the senatorial and House of Representatives seats in the state with the exception of Aba North/South Federal Constituency that was won by APGA. The result was a clear indication that APGA was not on ground in the state, despite all the media hype and noise about its potency or followership strength in the state.

    During the governorship election, APGA and its supporters allegedly induced crisis, probably to pave way for them to rig the election or engender declaration of state of emergency in the state. But Governor Orji who doubled as chief security of the state applied political sagacity to handle the situation. Ikpeazu was declared the winner of the election to disappointment of Otti and cohorts.

    Otti rebuffed all entreaties from prominent personalities within and outside the state to sheathe the sword and embrace Ikpeazu’s government in interest of peace. Otti went to court to challenge Ikpeazu’s victory. Immediately Otti got temporary victory at the Court of Appeal which affirmed him the winner of the election, he carried himself around like a governor already.

    At this point, some men and women of little faith and character in the state who were supportive of Ikpeazu before began to shift loyalty to Otti, with perhaps confidence that he will be declared governor by the Supreme Court. Majority of them had worked and benefitted immensely from the government of Senator Orji and were part of the decision-making process that enthroned Ikpeazu as the party candidate. They threw caution into wind in a bid to please Otti, thinking that Ikpeazu had no chance in Supreme Court. They had sharpened their swords to deal with Senator Orji by fabricating all sorts of lies to drag his name and that of his family members in the mud.

    While the people awaited the Supreme Court verdict, the political atmosphere in the state was tensed like never before. There was uncertainty, but Senator Orji was never moved. Having fought such electoral battles in the past and having absolute confidence in judiciary, Orji believed that the truth would prevail at last and he would be vindicated.

    With the Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the election of Ikpeazu, Senator Orji has been finally vindicated and would be surely remembered for standing on the path of truth, equity, fairness and justice in power sharing in Abia State when it mattered most.

     

    • Omenegor, a system analyst wrote from Toronto Canada.
  • Appeal Court declines Ondo PDP’s request to reverse judgement

    Appeal Court declines Ondo PDP’s request to reverse judgement

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State has dismissed the application of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate for Akoko Southwest Constituency II, Abiodun Ogunbi seeking to set aside the final Judgment on its petition.

    The Court had earlier dismissed the petition filed by the PDP and Ogunbi.

    The All Progressives Congress (APC)’s Counsel, Charles Titiloye had challenged the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear the said application after delivering its final judgment in the petition.

    He further argued that Appeal Court ceased to have Jurisdiction over the appeal after the expiration of 60 days within which it can hear the appeal under section 285(7) of the constitution.

    The PDP’s Candidate in Akoko Southwest Constituency, Ogunbi had approached the Court of Appeal to set aside its final judgment dismissing their petition.

    On September 22, the Court dismissed Ogunbi’s petition and affirmed the election of Felemu Gudu Bankole of the APC as the winner of Ondo state House of Assembly Election for Akoko South West Constituency.

    At the hearing of the application Tuesday, the Appeal Court upheld Titiloye’s objection on behalf of APC and held that having delivered a final Judgment in the said petition, the Court is ‘funtus officio’ and has no jurisdiction to entertain the PDP application to set aside its Judgement.

  • APGA rejects tribunal judgments in Anambra

    APGA rejects tribunal judgments in Anambra

    The All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Anambra chapter, has rejected the election petitions tribunal judgments involving their candidates in the last general elections in the state.

    Mr Tony Ifeanya, APGA’s Secretary in the state, said at a news conference in Awka on Monday that the party would contest the judgments at the Appeal Court.

    He said that the party was dissatisfied with the tribunal judgments.

    “We are surprised that the prayers of all our candidates at the tribunal were not granted on mere technical grounds.’’

    Ifeanya claimed that the party won all the National Assembly elections on March 28, adding that it had resolved to seek redress at the Appeal Court.

    “We are proceeding to the appellate court to defend the mandate given to us by the people with the confidence that the Nigerian judicial system can still protect us.

    “We cannot reconcile the outcome of the National Assembly elections with the 27 out of the 30 state constituency seats in the house of assembly won by APGA.

    “We, therefore, condemn the spurious judgments delivered by the National Assembly Elections Petitions Tribunal.

    “Our quest for justice remains on course and our passion towards redressing the travesty of justice meted out to Anambra people is ever resolute,’’ he said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that apart from Mr Dozie Nwankwo who won his tribunal case against PDP’s Dr Nnamdi Eze for Anaocha /Dunukofia /Njikoka Federal Constituency, other candidates of APGA including Chief Victor Umeh, who contested Anambra Central Senatorial District lost.

  • Ibinabo to appeal court judgement

    Ibinabo to appeal court judgement

    The President of the Actors Guild of Nigeria (AGN), Ibinabo Fiberisima, has challenged the ruling which nullified her election into the office. This is coming a few hours after the judgment handed over by Justice James Tsoho of the Federal High Court, on Monday.

    According to information, Ibinabo has given order to her lawyers to file an appeal on the judgment. The National Secretary of the AGN, Abubakar Sanusi Yakub, made this known when he said; “Ibinabo is challenging the judgment since she believes that the judge did not understand the case before making his judgment. That case has been backdated twice since 2011. There is no validating in the case and the judgment. Moreover, she has nothing in common with Emeka Ike and his proxies. She did not contest any election with him, so how could he have the right to challenge her election?”

    Meanwhile, a cross section of the Nigerian movie industry practitioners have started to drum up support for the Ibinabo-led AGN government. As early as 9am on Tuesday, some members of the AGN could be seen around the guild’s headquarters at Surulere voicing their unflinching solidarity for the present leadership under Ibinabo.

    One of those chanting solidarity songs at the guild’s Ajao office was the former Chairman of the AGN Lagos chapter, Emeka Rising Ibe. Rising said that his decision for leaving the camp was for the good of the AGN and movie industry in Nigeria.

    The trouble between Emeka Ike and the AGN dates back to six years ago when he went to court to lay claim to the presidency of the actors’ guild after its former president, Segun Arinze, was made the body’s interim president.

  • A Daniel has come to judgement

    Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah? I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you and that you have insight, intelligence and outstanding wisdom.
    –Daniel 5:13,14.

    THERE was nothing they did not do to paint them as villains after slaughtering them like rams in an uncompleted building in Apo, Abuja last September. According to the State Security Service (SSS) and the Army, the deceased were Boko Haram elements. This, they explained, was why these menial job workers were killed in cold blood. In their characteristic manner, they alleged (or is it lied?) that the deceased were harmed. Were they? According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), they were not.

    The SSS and the Army came up with that lie to justify their extra judicial killing of the eight men, who were said to be squatters in the uncompleted building. The SSS, in particular, was vehement in its claim that the deceased were armed. Its spokesperson, Marilyn Ogar, was always on air and in the papers, vilifying those slain. There was nothing she did not say about them. With such a mindset, it was obvious why they had to kill those tricycle operators (Keke NAPEP) without giving them a chance for fair trial.

    The SSS was the mastermind of the mission to flush out the so-called Boko Haram element from the uncompleted building following what it described as intelligence report. It brought the army into the matter in line with the agreement among security agencies to work together when the need arises. What is this intelligence that the SSS was referring to? It claimed to have received a report that Boko Haram members were hiding in the uncompleted building. From what later transpired, it seemed it did not bother to verify the claim before swinging into action.

    The SSS, it seemed, was carried away by the claim that it had Boko Haram so close to it and yet it did not know all this while. The way out, it thought was to storm the ‘sect’s hideout’, wipe out the dissidents and be applauded for doing a good job. But, it did not go that way because it acted on a faulty premise. The SSS did not distil the information it got. It took it at its face value because it chose to believe its informant, who perhaps, might have sold it a dummy in order to get himself off the hook.

    That is the problem of our security agencies. They tend to believe the first person, who brings a report to them without digging into that person’s motive. From all that we now know, the informant may not have told the SSS the entire truth. He may have given the agency wrong information in order to save his own neck. In the process, he did not care a hoot if innocent people were put in trouble. This is why the SSS should have been circumspect in using his information.

    As a security outfit, the SSS should know better. It is a well known fact that some people can go to any length in getting others into trouble. But security men are expected to check and cross check information that comes to them to avoid the kind of thing that happened in Apo last year. It is good, we are told, for 99 criminals to go scot free than for an innocent man to be convicted. In this case, the SSS turned this altruism upside down.

    We are not writing this because we hate our security agencies. No, not at all. How can we hate them when without them we are not safe. All what we are saying is that they should be more careful in the discharge of their duties to avoid the shedding of innocent blood. For sure, nobody is happy with the way Boko Haram is terrorising the country, but that is not to say that our security operatives should be given the latitude to kill anybody under the guise that he is a member of the sect. If they do that they won’t be different from the Boko Haram that we are all condemning.

    Although the Senate cleared the SSS and the Army of any wrong doing in the killing of Apo 8, it was obvious that it did not do a good job of investigating the incident. The ”Distinguished Senators” were more concerned with ensuring that Apo, where they live, does not become a theatre of Boko Haram’s operation. So, it had to come up with a report endorsing the SSS and the Army action. They were not bothered that people were killed for no just cause. And these were some of the people that voted them into power.

    The Senate was not thorough and painstaking in its investigation. You cannot compare what it did with that of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Some of the flaws in the SSS/Army operation as highlighted in NHRC’s report should not be discountenanced by our security operatives to avoid making the same mistakes in future. The SSS and the Army need to study this report to see where they went wrong and make amends. It is in our collective interest that they do not treat the report with levity.

    Contrary to the claims that weapons were hidden in the uncompleted building, no arms and ammunition were shown to have been recovered from those killed, the report said. It also indicted the SSS and the Army for forcefully moving some of those arrested in the building to their states of origin, with a warning that they should never return to Abuja. By so doing, they were exercising the power that they do not have. Neither the SSS nor the Army has the power to bar any Nigerian from any part of the country.

    They did that with those who do not know their rights and because they also had something to hide. They were afraid that those arrested will talk and what they will say will not be palatable. Most importantly, NHRC held that the Apo 8 were not Boko Haram members, adding that they were killed in cold blood. ”There is no credible evidence to show that the victims were members of Jama’atu ahlus sunnah lid da’awati wal jihad (JALISWA) also known as Boko Haram or involved in direct participation in hostilities. They were, therefore, protected, civilian non-combatants.

    ”The defence of self defence asserted by the the respondents (Federal Government, SSS, Chief of Army Staff and Attorney-General of the Federation) is not supported by the facts…the application of lethal force was disproportionate and the killing of the eight deceased persons as well as the injuries to the 11 survivors were unlawful”, NHRC said. Sadly, those we voted into office did not see it this way. It is unfortunate that our lives do not matter to them. Our votes do and after getting those votes, they dump us just as they dumped the Apo 8. Thank you, NHRC for affirming the innocence of these innocent souls. May they get justice no matter how long it takes.

  • ‘Executive, legislature quarrel over budget is uncalled for’

    ‘Executive, legislature quarrel over budget is uncalled for’

    The executive and legislative arms of government have always been at daggers drawn over the budget. What is your advice for the government to avoid a reoccurrence?

    I am using the family as an example of the nation. For many of us, we know that when issues that are important are on the table, we expect our parents and to go into their room and discuss the matter particularly when it affects the welfare of the family and the children. Very serious matters are not what you start throwing all over the place, like the children going back to school, like provision of food in the kitchen, these are not something that you discuss in the open. Rather, these are issues that require you to go into your room, discuss and then you come out with a proposal. So, I think the presidency and the Senate arguing about budgetary things, more or less in the public is worrisome. There has to be a certain level of dialogue that is not exactly necessarily in the open, because there are fundamental needs to be met. Without the budget, the country doesn’t run.

     

    So, what is the way out?

    I think because of the welfare of the whole nation, all that the businessmen will tell you is that business is not good because government is the biggest spender, yet there is no money around. So, for that reason there is mass suffering and the economy is not moving. There has to be a take-a-little, give-a-little to get the nation moving. And generally when there is an issue of disagreement, if both parties are willing to trade off a little bit of their positions, you find out it is more easier to find a middle line that will actually take care of the bigger picture, which is the well-being of the people in the nation. That is what I really recommend between the leadership of the executive and the legislative arms of government. Dialogue are not necessarily to be done in the open but you look at the greater cause of moving the nation forward and the people, not being static and let that drive the agreement that is  necessary to move the nation forward.

    There was outrage when the president urged the governors to sign the death penalty in order to decongest the prisons. Where does the church stand on this?

    You have to realise that I am a man of God and the law of God is superior to the law of man. Every human law that we have evolves from the word of God. And that is very true, every human law derives from the living oracles  of the word of God, whether the law of Moses, ten commandments etc. The question now is, when did we get capital punishment? But the law of God sanctifies human life. Nobody is really allowed to take human life, except in times of war and that is really a different thing entirely. I will say that from the word of God, you cannot justify capital punishment. A life you cannot create, you cannot destroy. The value of a human life is immeasurable. I can tell you for sure that life imprisonment is okay but I struggle honestly with capital punishment. If the governors don’t want to sign, I am sure you know the reason why they don’t want to do that. They struggle with taking the responsibility to have somebody executed and I am sure a lot of us here if you are governor, and you can avoid signing the warrant, you will avoid it.

    It doesn’t mean somebody who kills somebody else, that that person should be killed. The question again is, who wants to kill that person? If they give you a gun and say kill this man because he has killed somebody, you will struggle to do that except maybe when your passion is very high. When you think about it and also I think also for the reason that there could be miscarriage of justice, there is no way to change the fact, if you kill somebody for an offence and evidence now show later on and you now find the real killer, yet somebody had been killed for an offence he knows nothing about. That doesn’t leave room for any correction. I think the church will struggle with capital punishment.

    The church, in spite of its proliferation, has been accused of misplaced priority by preaching prosperity instead of morals, thereby encouraging corruption. Do you agree?

    It is an honest question though one that will make all of us feel really uncomfortable. But it has been said that Nigeria is the nation with the most churches in the world and yet corruption continues to grow. We have a question we have to address. I can’t tell you I have all the answers but I agree that if churches are increasing, corruption should be reducing and the moral values should be increasing. I think that perhaps the church should preach and teach more about values not necessarily for prosperity because if you have prosperity and you have no values, it is not really worth it. I think the churches will need to go back to some fundamentals, by that I am not saying every church is not doing that. A lot of churches are doing that but I think that maybe we should do a lot more in that regards.

    What is your take on same sex marriage and the decision of the Senate to ban it?

    The Bible tells us that towards the end, men will be lovers of themselves, they will be heartless, reckless, they will be haters of good, and they will be disobedient to parents, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. Again the Bible says it will be very bad towards the end. So some of things we are seeing today are actually prophetic and not the fault of the church. Things are going to get worse and worse till the day of the Lord and there is definitely nothing the church can do to change that. It is a definite mark of the end. For instance, you have to also thank the church that Nigeria is one of the largest nations of the world standing against same sex marriage. Every other nation that we say that their corruption is less than us, they actually shut down churches that will not marry people of same sex. So, in that regard, we still have fundamental values that we are not celebrating homosexuality  in the churches. It happens all over the place so you can’t just measure the state of the nation in terms of financials corruption. There is also moral decadence and for me, I wonder maybe that is one of the reasons why Britain is taking a shot at Nigeria with this entire 3,000 pounds sterling visa bond. They have promised to come against Nigeria for outlawing same sex marriage and immediately they are telling us that if you want to come to England, you have to deposit 3,000 pounds and withdrawing all kinds of support from Nigeria. So, in a way I think that puts Nigeria ahead of the rest of the world at least in that regard.

     

  • Ondo election dispute: Court delivers judgement tomorrow

    Ondo election dispute: Court delivers judgement tomorrow

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State will tomorrow deliver judgment in the appeal filed by the Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN) and its governorship candidate, Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) against the judgment of the Governorship Election Tribunal.

    The lower tribunal headed by Justice Andova Kaka’n upheld the election of Dr Olusegun Mimiko as the winner of last year’s poll. Counsel to ACN and Akeredolu, Titiloye Charles, confirmed the receipt of judgment notice from the Court of Appeal over the weekend.

    There had been anxiety over the delay in notifying the contending

    parties on the judgement date in the last days.

    The main issue for determination before the Court of Appeal is the validity of 2012 voters’ registers used for the conduct of the election allegedly injected with more than 100,000 names by the

    Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] without complying with provisions of the Electoral Act on procedure for updating the voters’ registers.

    INEC admitted the injections but the lower Election Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter on ground that it was a pre-election matter.

    Political analysts said the decision of the Court of Appeal would affect the conduct of future elections in Nigeria as this is the first

    time the use of an allegedly compromised voters’register will be seriously contested by political parties before the court.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • US, UK, France oppose review of ICJ judgement on Bakassi

    US, UK, France oppose review of ICJ judgement on Bakassi

    • Send solidarity messages to Cameroun

    • Pro-review groups yet to submit fresh documents

     

    Three world powers- the United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK) and France are in solidarity with Cameroun on the Bakasi issue amidst pressure on the Federal Government by some interest groups to appeal against the ceding of the Bakasi Peninsula to Yaounde.

    The three countries, according to diplomatic sources, have assured Cameroun of their continued support on the decision of the International Court of Justice (IJC) on the peninsula and their commitment to the Green Tree Agreement.

    The US, UK and France ambassadors in Cameroun, it was gathered, met that country’s Minister of External Affairs at the weekend to express their strong opposition to any attempt by Nigeria to initiate a review of the ICJ ruling.

    The Western nations are all members of the influential Security Council of the United Nations.

    One source said: “We have got diplomatic report of the closed-door session between the ambassadors of the three countries and the Minister of External Affairs of Cameroun.

    “We are aware that they insisted on the Green Tree Agreement at the meeting. This has justified our decision to weigh all options on the latest demand for a review of the judgment.

    “Beyond sentiments, we are looking at the diplomatic implications especially the likelihood of sanctions on Nigeria by the UN Security Council if we seek a review of the judgment.

    “We have a challenge of not being trusted as a nation that respects agreements or treaties. These are all the sides to the matter.”

    There were indications last night that the government has finally foreclosed filing an application for a review of the IJC ruling because there are no fresh facts or documents to support such.

    Nigeria has up till October 10 to file an appeal based on fresh facts.

    Although President Goodluck Jonathan had said government would not appeal the decision of the IJC, scores of groups and individuals have been piling pressure on government to reconsider its position.

    The President, apparently bowing to the pressure, last Wednesday constituted an eight man committee to strategise on the possibility of an appeal by Nigeria.

    But none of the pro-appeal groups or individuals including the Cross River State government has so far volunteered fresh information or document to the office of the Attorney General of the Federation/Justice Minister as directed by the committee.

    At a session on Thursday night at the residence of the Senate Leader, Mr. Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), the Federal Government committee mandated Cross River State and others canvassing for review to make new facts or documents available to it.

    Members of the committee are the AGF, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Anyim Pius Anyim, the DG of the National Boundary Commission, Senator Ndoma-Egba, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, two members of the House (Ahmed Ali and Nnenna Ukeje) and another Senator.

    Sources close to the meeting said: “Contrary to reports, the meeting was held at Ndoma-Egba’s residence and not at the Office of the Attorney-General as being insinuated. Only the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was absent at the session.

    “When we asked for documents to support new argument for a review of the ICJ judgment, the counsel hired by the Cross River State Government, Mrs. Nella Andem-Rabana (SAN) and the AGF of the state came to make verbal submissions.

    “Mrs. Andem-Rabana even told the committee that the review is being sought based on four factors. But she could only discuss three factors with her argument based mainly on the Anglo-German Treaty Agreement of 1913. It was the same Treaty she had canvassed as a member of the Federal Government Team at ICJ in The Hague in 2002.

    “When asked if the ceding of Bakassi was not caused by negligence, they had nothing to say.

    “We asked them to get all relevant documents and submit these particulars for evaluation by the AGF in line with Article 61 of the ICJ statute.

    “We have been waiting all day for new pleadings and documents without anything from pro-review side.”

    Asked what would become of the agitation, the source said: “It is apparent that the Federal Government will not seek a review of the ICJ judgment because we formally handed over the territory in 2008.

    “It is laughable that nine years, 11 months and 26 days after the ICJ judgment, we are seeking a review. And those agitating for it have not been able to come up with documents to meet the conditions stated in Article 61 of the ICJ statute.

    “What we have is a situation where they are running helter-skelter at the last minute looking for documents.

    “We have also mandated the aggrieved state and groups to come up with a compilation of alleged violations of human rights of Nigerians resident in Bakassi Peninsula.

    “If these violations are established by the committee, we can forward the list to the UN Committee on Human Rights to consider. Yet, they have not given the committee any example.

    “Most members of the committee felt disappointed that there have been noise all over without documents to back up the agitation. We cannot make ourselves a laughing stock before the international community.”

    Article 61 says: “An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

    “The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.

    “The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision. The application for revision must be made within six months of the discovery of the new fact.

    “No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.”

    Meanwhile, the Federal Government was shocked that barely 72 hours after inaugurating the eight-man committee some highly-placed people have personalized the Bakassi issue by sponsoring attacks on the AGF, who is the chairman of the committee.

    A source said: “The President made the AGF the chairman of the committee because the matter involved is directly under his portfolio.

    “Government is surprised to read about personal attacks on the AGF on a matter being looked into with transparency. Members of the National Assembly are in the committee and the AGF has not imposed his views on any person or group so far.

    “We hope that those behind these attacks will allow the committee to do its work without distraction.”