The Nation Newspaper

Tag: travel ban

  • Buhari, travel ban and the Nigerian project

    Sir: One of the issues that dominated the political space in the past few weeks is the travel ban on fifty Nigerians by the federal government.

    This is a fall out of the Executive Order 6 signed by President Buhari recently as part of instruments to tighten the noose on looters of our commonwealth who virtually brought Nigeria to her knees by massively looting her resources.

    Naturally, there has been a lot of noise about the propriety or otherwise of the ban on this group of people who have been most uncomfortable with the policies and programmes of this administration. Curiously, the said list has been a matter of conjecture as the federal government has not made the list public. What it did was to hand it over to the appropriate agencies of government for implementation.

    On such a sensitive matter, it is unsurprising that Nigerians are divided, depending on who is speaking about the development.

    For the PDP, it is natural that they are the wailing wailers because there is no way the sword of Damocles of the anti-corruption fight will not hit them as President Buhari has always blamed the PDP severally for mismanaging the nation’s resources.

    Would it not have been crazy to overlook 16 years of massive corruption that the party was in power, at a time we made so much from oil?

    Didn’t PDP members own up to more than half of the humongous money both in naira and other foreign currencies retrieved from them by this administration?

    Critics may condemn some of the strategies employed by this administration, but the message to all is that this administration remains committed to that which is promised.

    It is even commendable that the court of law has validated what the opposition cried against, which is a pointer that this government is on track.

    Those who feel aggrieved by the EO6 travel ban have also been given a window of opportunity to approach the court if they feel their rights have been trampled upon.

    Thankfully, some members of the opposition some time ago approached the court over the publication of their names on the looters’ list.

    The position of the court on the matter has even vindicated this government of any wrong doing.In our recent history, the war against corruption has never been fought this way it’s been done by the present administration because there is no doubt that the PDP serially raid Nigeria for close to two decades.

    It is therefore an uncommon battle that this administration is fighting in view of the fact that corruption remains our greatest enemy today.

    It is also not an accident that all manner of innuendoes are been thrown at the Buhari government for facing the battle with so much energy.

    This is quite so when considered the quantum of resources in the hands of those whose are been targeted by the government for prosecution.

    Such people will go to any length and use all means to thwart whatever means government is using, not minding the cost involved to keep what they stole from our collective patrimony.

    What is however gratifying is that the Buhari administration has not slowed down a bit despite our closeness to the next elections.

    In the recent past, the anti-corruption agencies are always quick to apply the brakes whenever election is approaching for fear of losing election. This was a major feature of the feeble efforts put into fighting corruption, if any, in the 16 years of the PDP, not so for President Buhari.

    That he has demonstrated that the fight against corruption must go on despite his second term bid is legendary and has shown he is a leader for now and the future.

    This is what separates him from his adversaries who have or would want to rule Nigeria, but would not want to discuss corruption which we either kill or left to kill us and the unborn generation.

    The Buhari we know has taken up the anti-corruption gauntlet and would not drop it for anything, as he has shown since he came on board as President in 2015.

    Thankfully, Nigerian will not allow themselves to be articulated back to the era when stealing is not corruption. Never again.

     

    • Emmanuel Umohinyang,

    Lagos.

  • Buhari defends travel ban on 50 VIPs as row grows

    Buhari defends travel ban on 50 VIPs as row grows

    The Presidency was last night fending off blows over the controversial Executive Order 6, which imposes a travel ban on about 50 prominent citizens facing corruption and money laundering charges.

    Rights will be respected, the Presidency said, adding that the Executive order is neither political “nor is there any political gain behind its activation.”

    The clarification came amid the growing row over the Executive Order which President Muhammadu Buhari ordered Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami to implement to the letter.

    The Atiku Campaign Organisation joined the peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to castigate the action.

    The organisationn said the implementation of the Order could lead to capital flight and return the economy into recession.

    Lagos lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) advised the governmet to withdraw the Executive Order and allow the courts stop suspected looters from travelling.

    Some lawyers have argued that since the court has okayed the Order, a travel ban under it is not out of place.

    The Alliance for New Nigeian (ANN) described the Ordeer as “dictatorial”, adding that there are enough safeguards in the constitution to take care of corruption with the guarantee for freedom of movement for citizens.

    But presidential spokesnam Garba Shehu said “this is the first time any government is taking such a key decision to fight corruption”, adding that “EO 6 is not only revolutionary to the efforts to rid Nigeria of corruption but a manifestation of systemic changes that are required to to make necessary adjustments as we carry on with the war against corruption.”

    He explained that “the very essence of the order is to make for speedy trials and conclusion of graft cases. The order is not political and there is no political gain behind its activation.”

    “These high profile cases we are talking about have been ongoing for between seven and 10 years with no end in sight. These case were mostly originated by administrations other than this one.

    “What is clear is that the access to these resources by the suspects has enabled them to be in a position to sometimes compromise investigation, prosecution and trial. In most of the cases, the courts are held in a helpless position by legal acrobatics paid for from corrupt enrichment by the suspects.

    “The new measures put in place should compel everyone involved to make for a speedy conclusion of these cases. If it is your money, you have it back. If it belongs to the public, it goes back to the treasury.

    “The question of the constitutionality of the restriction order is answered by the fact that a court of the land has given government a clean sheet. The Executive Order is legal and constitutional and therefore implementable.

    “One of the cardinal objectives of the government under our constitution is to fight corruption. Fighting corruption is a responsibility and obligation upon the government.

    On the list of the individuals affected by the ban, Shehu said: “I want to confirm to you that we have not issued any list and we are not doing so.

    “These cases that are well known and to to say this or that name is on it will open the door to further accusations, including trial by media.

    “The Immìgration Service and other security agencies have the mandate of the President to carry out enforcement and they will do so giving due respects to individual rights, in line with the constitution.”

    The Buhari Media Group (BMG) also rose in defence of the EO 6, saying it symbolises the efforts by the Presidency to re-invigorate the war against corruption through judicial process.

    BMG Chairman Niyi Akinsiju, in an interview last night, said: “I have seen a number of responses from the main opposition party. What exactly is the issue? Mr President has made pronunciation through Executive Order in emphasising the judicial process in limiting and containing corruption in Nigeria. The spirit of the Executive Order has a strong judicial intervention.

    “The powers to pronounce forfeiture of assets and to ban suspects under investigation from travelling outside the country are simply within the confine of the court. Banning these 50 individuals from travelling is actually in consonance with the judicial process that is already being undertaken by the relevant agencies of the government.

    “What is apparent is that the corrupt ones have accepted the manipulation of judiciary and the judicial process, but now things are changing.”

    Akinsiju explained that one of the tools to limit the manipulation of the judicial process is the Executive Order.

    “When your assets are forfeited and you cannot travel outside the country, you will opt for a speedy trial instead of delaying it,” he said.

    he Presidency was last night fending off blows over the controversial Executive Order 6, which imposes a travel ban on about 50 prominent citizens facing corruption and money laundering charges.

    Rights will be respected, the Presidency said, adding that the Executive order is neither political “nor is there any political gain behind its activation.”

    The clarification came amid the growing row over the Executive Order which President Muhammadu Buhari ordered Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami to implement to the letter.

    The Atiku Campaign Organisation joined the peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to castigate the action.

    The organisationn said the implementation of the Order could lead to capital flight and return the economy into recession.

    Lagos lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) advised the governmet to withdraw the Executive Order and allow the courts stop suspected looters from travelling.

    Some lawyers have argued that since the court has okayed the Order, a travel ban under it is not out of place.

    The Alliance for New Nigeian (ANN) described the Ordeer as “dictatorial”, adding that there are enough safeguards in the constitution to take care of corruption with the guarantee for freedom of movement for citizens.

    But presidential spokesnam Garba Shehu said “this is the first time any government is taking such a key decision to fight corruption”, adding that “EO 6 is not only revolutionary to the efforts to rid Nigeria of corruption but a manifestation of systemic changes that are required to to make necessary adjustments as we carry on with the war against corruption.”

    He explained that “the very essence of the order is to make for speedy trials and conclusion of graft cases. The order is not political and there is no political gain behind its activation.”

    “These high profile cases we are talking about have been ongoing for between seven and 10 years with no end in sight. These case were mostly originated by administrations other than this one.

    “What is clear is that the access to these resources by the suspects has enabled them to be in a position to sometimes compromise investigation, prosecution and trial. In most of the cases, the courts are held in a helpless position by legal acrobatics paid for from corrupt enrichment by the suspects.

    “The new measures put in place should compel everyone involved to make for a speedy conclusion of these cases. If it is your money, you have it back. If it belongs to the public, it goes back to the treasury.

    “The question of the constitutionality of the restriction order is answered by the fact that a court of the land has given government a clean sheet. The Executive Order is legal and constitutional and therefore implementable.

    “One of the cardinal objectives of the government under our constitution is to fight corruption. Fighting corruption is a responsibility and obligation upon the government.

    On the list of the individuals affected by the ban, Shehu said: “I want to confirm to you that we have not issued any list and we are not doing so.

    “These cases that are well known and to to say this or that name is on it will open the door to further accusations, including trial by media.

    “The Immìgration Service and other security agencies have the mandate of the President to carry out enforcement and they will do so giving due respects to individual rights, in line with the constitution.”

    The Buhari Media Group (BMG) also rose in defence of the EO 6, saying it symbolises the efforts by the Presidency to re-invigorate the war against corruption through judicial process.

    BMG Chairman Niyi Akinsiju, in an interview last night, said: “I have seen a number of responses from the main opposition party. What exactly is the issue? Mr President has made pronunciation through Executive Order in emphasising the judicial process in limiting and containing corruption in Nigeria. The spirit of the Executive Order has a strong judicial intervention.

    “The powers to pronounce forfeiture of assets and to ban suspects under investigation from travelling outside the country are simply within the confine of the court. Banning these 50 individuals from travelling is actually in consonance with the judicial process that is already being undertaken by the relevant agencies of the government.

    “What is apparent is that the corrupt ones have accepted the manipulation of judiciary and the judicial process, but now things are changing.”

    Akinsiju explained that one of the tools to limit the manipulation of the judicial process is the Executive Order.

    “When your assets are forfeited and you cannot travel outside the country, you will opt for a speedy trial instead of delaying it,” he said.

     

  • Falana, SERAP, ANN urge withdrawal of  travel ban

    LAGOS lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) have asked President Muhammadu Buhari to withdraw the travel ban imposed on 50 high profile criminal suspects under Executive Order 6 (EO6).

    Falana, in a statement titled: “Allow the courts to impose travel ban on suspected looters”, said only the courts could impose travel ban on the suspected high profile persons”.

    He argued that since the power of the anti-graft agencies and the courts to place criminal suspects on watch list or subject their passports to temporary seizure has never been in doubt, “the directive to place the 50 high profile suspected persons on watch list and restrict their movement is highly superfluous, completely unwarranted and totally uncalled for”.

    The rights lawyer said the travel ban “is an ingenious design to expose the Buhari administration to ridicule”.

    Falana added that since the high-profile suspects covered by EO6 had been placed on a watch list and their passports  seized by either the anti-graft agencies or the courts, the travel ban slammed on them by President Buhari ought to be withdrawn without any delay.

    Falana said the travel ban was a sad reminder of the placement of political opponents on security watch list and seizure of their passports by the defunct military junta.

    He noted that a Federal High Court last week upheld the constitutional validity of the Executive Order 6 (EO6) issued by Buhari on July 5.

    The lawyer added that the government, acting on the ruling, directed the Nigeria Immigration Service and other security agencies to place no fewer than 50 high-profile persons directly affected by EO6 on watch-list and restrict them from leaving the country pending the final determination of their cases.

    He said even though the names of the “50 high profile persons” have not been published by the Federal Government, they are presumed to be either standing trial in the various high courts or being investigated for corrupt practices by the anti-graft agencies.

    “If the Federal Government had done some background checks, it would have discovered that the names of the 50 VIPs have long been placed on a security watch list while their passports have been impounded by the anti-graft agencies or the courts as one of the conditions for admitting them to bail.

    “It is public knowledge that whenever the defendants wish to travel abroad for medical treatment, they usually apply for the interim release of their passports.

    “Since the courts have taken judicial notice of the perilous state of medical facilities in the country, such applications are usually granted. And once the suspects return from the foreign medical trips, their passports are returned to the registry of the trial courts,” he explained.

    Falana, however, regretted that indigent accused persons standing trial for stealing, fraud or other economic crimes  are not entitled to such a privilege because they have no money to acquire passports not to talk of paying for foreign trips and medical treatment abroad.

    Notwithstanding such judicial indictment of politically exposed persons seeking medical treatment during trial, he contended that the law has not authorised the executive to restrict the movement of criminal suspects.

    He counselled the Buhari administration to wage the war against corruption within the ambit of the rule of law.

    SERAP, in a statement, said Executive Order 6 (EO6) banning 50 alleged high-profile corrupt Nigerians from travelling abroad was illegal and repressive.

    SERAP said the order, “without any legal basis and a judicial authorisation, is clearly arbitrary, repressive and illegal, as it breaches constitutional rights and the country’s international obligations, which protect the rights to freedom of movement, to leave one’s country, to privacy, and to due process of law.

    ”A travel ban by its nature is an interference with the right to leave one’s country. It is neither necessary nor proportionate to prevent dissipation of stolen assets or stop politically exposed persons (PEPs) from tampering with any such assets.”

    In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary Akinloye Oyemiyi, the ANN said:  ”We know that Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution as amended legally guarantees the right to freedom of movement to all Nigerians and this right can only be tampered with by established laws as enshrined in the Section 45 of the same constitution and not by any draconian executive order targeted at political opponents by a president that is scared of electoral defeat.”

    A former Minister of Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, said he was not bothered about a travel ban.

    He said: “I could not give a damn that my name is on the list of 50 members of the opposition and prominent Nigerians that have been placed on a travel ban because nothing that Buhari does surprises me.

    “I have not left Nigeria since 2008 because my passport has been with the EFCC and the courts for the last 10 years and they have refused to give it to me and allow me to travel.

    “Those on the travel-ban list that need to travel abroad for medical attention or to see their loved ones are the ones I feel sorry for.”

  • Trump travel ban suffers new court defeat

    Trump travel ban suffers new court defeat

    A US appeals court has upheld a decision blocking President Trump’s revised “travel ban” on people from six mainly Muslim nations.

    A lower court had issued the injunction on the grounds that the ban was discriminatory after a challenge by the state of Hawaii.

    The 90-day ban was to apply to people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

    It also called for a 120-day ban on all refugees.

    The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewing a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Mr Trump’s order.

    In their ruling, the judges said that “immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show”.

    They said Mr Trump had failed to show that the entry of people from the six countries mentioned in the ban, as well as the refugees, would be detrimental to US interests.

    But the judges said the government was allowed to review the vetting process for people entering the US – something the earlier Hawaii ruling had blocked.

    The administration has said the travel ban is needed to prevent terrorism in the US.

    The latest ruling follows another ruling in May by a different court, the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, that upheld a Maryland judge’s ruling that also blocked parts of Mr Trump’s revised ban.

    Earlier this month the Trump administration filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Maryland rulings and revive the ban.

    Lawyers for Hawaii had described Mr Trump’s executive order as a “thinly veiled Muslim ban”.

    The Supreme Court will decide whether Mr Trump’s comments during his election campaign can be used as evidence that the executive order was intended to discriminate against Muslims, which would be against the US constitution.

    During his election campaign, Mr Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

    An earlier version of Mr Trump’s travel ban, issued in January, sparked confusion and protests and was blocked by a judge in Seattle because it probably violated the due process rights of individuals with valid residency papers and visas.

    The department also said it was unconstitutional to sue the president in his official capacity.

    Mr Trump has not yet commented on the latest move.

  • Trump loses bid to reinstate travel ban

    A United States federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to reinstate his ban on citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.

    The 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not block a ruling by a Seattle court that halted the order.

    Mr. Trump responded with an angry tweet, saying national security was at risk and there would be a legal challenge.

    The BBC says it was unclear whether the President intended to file an appeal to the Supreme Court or keep fighting the case in Seattle.

    In its 3-0 unanimous ruling on Thursday, the appeals court said the government had not proved the terror threat justified reviving the ban.

    The ruling means that people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with visas can continue to enter the U.S, and refugees from around the world, who were also subject to a temporary ban, are no longer blocked either.

    However, the ruling does not affect one part of Mr. Trump’s controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under his predecessor, Barack Obama.

     

  • Trump defends travel ban as Obama backs protests

    Trump defends travel ban as Obama backs protests

    Business giants kick

    1.3m sign petition in UK against president

    Former United States President Barack Obama yesterday gave his backing to the global protests against the travel ban by President Donald Trump.
    Citizens of seven mainly-Muslim countries have been banned from entering the United States for 90 days while refugees have been prevented in an executive order signed by Trump.
    The countries affected are Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan – they have all denounced the order with some of them vowing retaliation.
    In his tweets yesterday, Trump blamed “big problems at airports” on the demonstrators themselves, an airline’s technical problems and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who teared up while discussing the ban. (Delta suffered technical issues Sunday evening — 48 hours after Trump signed the immigration order — that canceled about 150 flights.)
    “Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning,” Trump tweeted. “Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage…..protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer.”
    Business giants are uncomfortable with the ban.
    Ford CEO Mark Fields and Chairman Bill Ford strongly rebuked Trump’s travel ban in a joint statement yesterday, breaking with other major automakers who have largely remained silent so far.
    In the first statement released since leaving the White House, Obama’s new spokesman Kevin Lewis said: “President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country.
    “Citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organise and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”
    Lewis added that Obama “fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”
    He noted that in Obama’s farewell address to the nation earlier this month, he spoke about “the important role of citizen” not just on Election Day, but every day.
    Also yesterday, dozens of U.S. diplomats around the world were set to formally criticise the immigration restrictions, according to U.S. media report.
    A “dissent cable” has been drafted for senior State Department officials, ABC News and the Associated Press reported.
    Draft text seen by the BBC says that the ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries will not make the US safer and is un-American.
    President Trump issued the restrictions on Friday.
    His executive order halted the entire U.S. refugee programme for 120 days, indefinitely banned Syrian refugees and suspended all nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
    The list does not include Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers in the 9/11 attacks came from.
    News of the complaint from U.S. diplomats comes amid a global chorus of condemnation of the new policies. The White House has defended the restrictions as necessary safety measures.
    The statement by Ford’s CEO and chairman, said: “Respect for all people is a core value of Ford Motor Company, and we are proud of the rich diversity of our company here at home and around the world,” Fields and Bill Ford said in the joint statement.
    “That is why we do not support this policy or any other that goes against our values as a company.”
    The travel ban has impacted people with green cards who were previously approved to travel freely.
    The fourth American automaker, electric-vehicle maker Tesla Motors, denounced the Trump immigration policy on Saturday. CEO Elon Musk has pledged to pursue a consensus among fellow Strategic and Policy Forum members on needed changes to the plan to propose to the president.
    Other major automakers have not spoken but a group of other majr form’s CEOs have lashed out at the order.
    Goldman Sachs Group Inc Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein became the first major Wall Street leader to speak out against the order.
    .In a voicemail to employees on Sunday, Blankfein said diversity was a hallmark of Goldman’s success, and if the temporary freeze became permanent, it could create “disruption” for the bank and its staff.
    “This is not a policy we support, and I would note that it has already been challenged in federal court, and some of the order has been enjoined at least temporarily,” Blankfein said, according to a transcript seen by Reuters.
    Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, wrote to employees with “deep concern and a heavy heart” about the executive order from the U.S. president two days earlier.
    Schultz said he would hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years at Starbucks businesses worldwide.
    “We will start this effort here in the U.S. by making the initial focus of our hiring efforts on those individuals who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel,’’ he said.
    Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to twitter to voice his concern.
    “The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges.
    “Many people negatively affected by this policy are strong supporters of the U.S. They’ve done right, not wrong and don’t deserve to be rejected,’’ he added.
    CEO Travis Kalanick said Uber would be supporting all of its drivers who are citizens of the countries named but who were currently stuck outside the U.S. because of the president’s “unjust immigration ban”.
    And Jamie Dimon, the company chairman of America’s biggest bank JPMorgan Chase, also said that employees would be supported if they were affected.
    Dimon, Kalanick and Musk are all members of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a group of business people called together by the president to advise him on economic policy.
    The CEOs of the top three advertising holding companies also issued statements vowing to protect their employees.
    “We are a talent business and we’ve long been committed to making diversity and inclusion a core part of our company’s DNA,” said Interpublic Group Chairman and CEO Michael Roth, in a statement. “We therefore remain committed to protecting our colleagues, and will provide whatever assistance is necessary to keep our employees and their families safe and a valued part of our organisation, no matter their nationality or religious beliefs.”
    While IPG is based in New York City, the holding company has agencies and employees in more than 100 countries worldwide. Though Roth made no specific mention of the ban in his statement, it was issued in response to requests to address the situation.
    Likewise, John Wren, CEO of Omnicom Group, issued a brief statement emphasising the company’s concern for its workforce. “Our people are our greatest asset and right now, our top priority is to protect and support employees, their families and all those otherwise affected,” Wren said.
    Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP, issued a somewhat more extensive statement that cited his family history and a longstanding distaste for such measures.
    Regarding the effect of the ban on WPP employees, Sorrell said there had been “no immediate impact we are aware of in the first few days of the ban.”
    He added that WPP is “concerned about the impact it may have on our people and their families both inside and outside the USA and on innocent people generally.
    “As the grandson of Eastern European grandparents, who were admitted to the UK in the very late 19th and early 20th centuries, I have an instinctive dislike of such measures,” said Sorrell.
    Though prominent industry partners such as Nike, Google, Twitter and Apple made their opposition to the travel ban public over the weekend, the major holding companies and agency leaders had remained silent until Monday morning. Individual agency leaders have still refrained from commenting on the matter publicly.
    On Saturday, a U.S. federal judge issued a stay that forced the administration to release certain travelers being detained in airports. The administration itself revised the ban on Sunday to allow freer travel for U.S. residents in possession of green cards.
    At the DealBook conference hosted by New York Times columnist Andrew Russ Sorkin last week, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said she fielded questions from her employees who were “all crying” after the election. She said: “The question that they’re asking, especially those who are not white: ‘Are we safe?’ Women are asking: ‘Are we safe?’ LGBT people are asking: ‘Are we safe?’ I never thought I’d have had to answer those questions.”

    1.3 million sign petition to stop Trump’s UK visit

    More than 1.3 million people have signed a petition urging the British government to call off President Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK, amid a row over his recent immigration measures.
    Downing Street, however, said Prime Minister Theresa May was looking forward to the visit.
    Mr Trump’s executive order on immigration has caused anger worldwide.
    Protests in response to Mr Trump’s order took place yesterday in London, Manchester, Bristol, Brighton, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Swansea and other UK cities.
    Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the row.
    The Foreign Office said on Sunday the clampdown should not affect UK nationals travelling to the U.S., even if they had shared nationality with one of the countries on which restrictions have been placed.
    But the US embassy in London has issued a statement telling any citizens of the seven countries in question and also those holding dual nationality not to apply for a visa for the time being.
    The petition is now the second-most popular on the government’s website, which was set up in July 2015.
    Downing Street said on Monday that Mrs May “extended an invitation on behalf of the Queen – and she was very happy to do so.
    “The USA is one of this country’s closest allies, and we look forward to hosting the president later this year.”
    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also urged the postponement of the visit.
    “Donald Trump should not be welcomed to Britain while he abuses our shared values with his shameful Muslim ban and attacks on refugees’ and women’s rights,” the Labour leader said.
    State visits are grand occasions requiring an invitation from the Queen, and are distinct from regular visits by heads of state. The Queen usually receives one or two heads of state a year.
    When the petition passed the million mark, it was found that about 30,000 came from outside the U.K.
    It is now second only to last year’s petition signed by more than four million people calling for a fresh referendum on whether to leave the European Union.
    Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the visit should not happen while the executive order was in place.

  • Alleged travel ban: Fayose petitions NHRC, UN, others

    Alleged travel ban: Fayose petitions NHRC, UN, others

    Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose has petitioned the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over a claim that the Federal Government had placed travel ban on him.

    The petition filed on his behalf by the state’s House of Assembly also complained about the alleged refusal of an agent of the Federal Government, the Department of State Services (DSS), to obey a Federal High Court judgment, ordering it to pay N5 million damages on the illegal arrest and detention for 18 days of a member of the House, Afolabi Akanni.

    The National Assembly, Amnesty International, Embassies of the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (UK) were also copied with the petition.

    Fayose, few weeks ago, wrote to Chinese government, urging it to refuse financial aid to the Federal Government.

    The petition signed by the Speaker, Kolawole Oluwawole, was submitted yesterday in Abuja, to NHRC’s Executive Secretary, Prof. Bem Angwe, who assured that his commission would investigate the petition.

    The Deputy Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly, Segun Adewumi, who submitted the petition, was accompanied by the Chairman, House Committee on Information, Gboyega Aribisogan and Chairman House Committee on Health, Dr. Samuel Omotoso.

    The petition reads: “We write to bring to your attention another impending infringement on the rights of the Governor of our state, Mr. Ayodele Fayose and by extension the entire Ekiti by the Federal Government.

    “A few weeks ago, our governor was reliably informed that President Muhammadu Buhari had directed that he should be banned from travelling outside Nigeria. This reliable information was to be confirmed through reports in two major national dailies on Sunday, May 29, 2016 titled: ‘2 govs under watch, face travel ban’.

    “From our findings, one of the governors being referred to is our own governor, and we wish to state like we have always done that we, the members of Ekiti State House of Assembly are with the governor on everything that he does.

    “Even ordinary Nigerians do not require clearance from the Department of State Services (DSS) or any security agency to travel outside Nigeria unless in compliance with court order, and as at today, there is no court order placing travel restriction on our governor. Issues concerning Governor Fayose cannot even be entertained in any court by virtue of the immunity he enjoys as provided in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “We however know as always that this latest plot is as a result of our governor’s critical stance on President Buhari’s government and its anti-people’s policies, and we make bold to say that no amount of intimidation, harassment and oppression will cowed the governor from exercising his fundamental rights to freedom of expression and to hold opinions as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).

    “We are aware that this is coming as a result of the failure of the President Buhari-led APC government’s plot to use the DSS to coerce the House of Assembly members into the plot of removing the governor.”

    The lawmakers said it was worrisome that the Federal Government would consider the idea of compelling a sitting governor in Nigeria that enjoys Constitutional Immunity like the President to obtain clearance from the Director General DSS, who is an appointee of the President before travelling out of Nigeria.

    The letter noted  that in 1984 when President Buhari was a military Head of State, late Chief Obafemi Awolowo was prevented from travelling outside Nigeria for medical treatment, “thereby leading to his (Awolowo) untimely death in 1987”.

    It added: “The international passports of late Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade; late Emir of Kano Alhaji Ado Bayero and late Obi of Onitsha, Ofala Akulalia Alphonsus Ogugua were also seized and they were restricted to their palaces just because they travelled to Israel for business.

    “We therefore wish to state on behalf of Governor Ayodele Fayose that as an opposition figure, he cannot be cowed by this pettiness from the presidency.”

    Angwe commended members of the House of Assembly for their commitment to the sustenance of rule of law in the country and cooperation with the executive arm of government in Ekiti State.

     

     

  • Alleged travel ban: Fayose petitions NHRC, UN, others

    Alleged travel ban: Fayose petitions NHRC, UN, others

    Ekiti State governor, Ayodele Fayose has petitioned the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over claim that the Federal Government has placed travel ban on him.

    The petition filed on his behalf by the state’s House of Assembly also complained about the alleged refusal of an agent of the Fed Govt, the Department of State Services (DSS) to obey a Federal High Court judgment, ordering it to pay N5 million damages on the illegal arrest and detention for 18 days of a member of the House, Afolabi Akanni.

    The National Assembly, Amnesty International, Embassies of the United States and the United Kingdom were also copied with the petition.

    Fayose had recently written to Chinese government, urging it to refuse financial aid to the Nigerian government.

    The petition signed by the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Kolawole Oluwawole, was submitted Tuesday in Abuja, to NHRC’s Executive Secretary, Professor Bem Angwe, who assured that his commission will investigate the petition.

    The Deputy Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly, Segun Adewumi who submitted the petition, was accompanied by the Chairman, House Committee on Information, Gboyega Aribisogan and Chairman House Committee on Health, Dr Samuel Omotoso.

    The petition reads; “We write to bring to your attention another impending infringement on the rights of the Governor of our State, Mr Ayodele Fayose and by extension the entire Ekiti by the Federal Government.

    “A few weeks ago, our governor was reliably informed that President Mohammadu Buhari had directed that he should be banned from traveling outside Nigeria. This reliable information was to be confirmed through reports in two major national dailies on Sunday, May 29, 2016 titled; ‘2 govs under watch, face travel

    “From our findings, one of the governors being referred to is our own governor, Peter Ayodele Fayose and we wish to state like we have always done that we, the members of Ekiti State House of Assembly are with the governor on everything that he does.

    “Even ordinary Nigerians do not require clearance from the Department of State Services (DSS) or any security agency to travel outside Nigeria unless in compliance with court order, and as at today, there is no court order placing travel restriction on our governor, Ayodele Fayose. Issues concerning Governor Fayose cannot even be entertained in any court by virtue of the immunity he enjoys as provided in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “We however know as always that this latest plot is as a result of our governor’s critical stance on President Mohammadu Buhari’s government and its anti-people’s policies, and we make bold to say that no amount of intimidation, harassment and oppression will cowed the governor from exercising his fundamental rights to freedom of expression and to hold opinions as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).

    “We are aware that this is coming as a result of the failure of the President Buhari led APC government’s plot to use the DSS to coerce the House of Assembly members into the plot of removing the governor.

    “We are also aware that plot to out-rightly take the governor ‘out of circulation’ cannot be ruled out as those advising President Buhari are said to be of the opinion that our governor has become a threat to his (Buhari) re-election bid and that everything must be done to ‘whip the governor to line’ before 2018.

    “Going by the antecedents of the President Buhari-led Federal Government of Nigeria and the DSS under the President’s kinsman, Alhaji Lawal Daura, it is certain that there is nothing that cannot be attempted, no matter how unlawful.

    “It should be recalled that this same DSS invaded the hallowed Chamber of the House of Assembly in our State, abducted our member, Hon Afolabi Akanni and kept him in detention for 18 days without access to anyone. Even when the court ordered that he should be released, the order was ignore. Up till today, no explanation was given for this arrest and detention.

    “It should also be recalled that on April 20th, 2016, the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti, in Suit No. FHC/AD/CS/7/2016 ordered the DSS to pay a sum of N5 million to Hon Afolabi Akanni as damages for what the court termed unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional infringement of his fundamental rights. Up till today, that judgment has not been obeyed by the DSS.

    “It is therefore on the premise of display of arrogance and contempt for the laws of the country by the DSS under President Buhari that we elected to bring this latest plot to place Governor Ayodele Fayose on travel ban to your attention.

    “It is worrisome that the federal government will consider the idea of compelling a sitting governor in Nigeria that enjoys Constitutional Immunity like the President to obtain clearance from the Director General DSS, who is an appointee of the President before travelling out of Nigeria.

    “This to us is an affront on the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) more so that States, as federating units in Nigeria are not under the Federal Government, which itself is also a State and not superior to other federating units.

    “Section 35 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that; ‘Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty,’ Section 39 (1) provides that; ‘Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impact ideas and information without interference,’ while Section 41 (1) provides that ‘Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom.’

    “Article 13 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Nigeria is a signatory provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of each State while Article 13 (2) provides that ‘Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country,’ ditto Article 12 (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

    “By provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria, ordinary Nigerians do not require clearance from the DSS or any security agency to travel outside Nigeria unless travel restriction is placed by an order of the court, not to talk of State Governors that enjoy immunity just like the President and are not under the control of the President.

    “Our question is; if Governor Fayose has become a threat to the security of Nigeria just because he criticises President Buhari and says the truth about his mis-governance of the country, what happens to Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), which provided for freedom of expression and freedom to hold opinions?

    “Most importantly, under a federal system of government, the states and national government both enjoy some autonomy, with sovereign power formally divided between the national government and the States such that each State retains some degree of control over its internal affairs.

    “However, it appears that the laws of Nigeria are not important to the President Mohammadu Buhari led government and it has become once again necessary that webring your attention to yet, another plot to subvert our rights as a State.

    “We wish to recall that in 1984 when President Buhari was a military Head of State, late Chief Obafemi Awolowo was prevented from travelling outside Nigeria for medical treatment, thereby leading to his (Awolowo) untimely death in 1987.

    “The international passports of late Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade; late Emir of Kano Alhaji Ado Bayero and late Obi of Onitsha, Ofala Akulalia Alphonsus Ogugua were also seized and they were restricted to their palaces just because they travelled to Israel for business.

    “We therefore wish to state on behalf of Governor Ayodele Fayose that as an opposition figure, he cannot be cowed by this pettiness from the presidency.”

    Angwe commended members of the House of Assembly for their commitment to the sustenance of rule of law in the country and cooperation with the executive arm of government in Ekiti State.

  • Ghana president bans first class travel for public officials

    Ghana president bans first class travel for public officials

    Ghana’s President John Mahama has banned public officials from first class air travel in a renewed effort to cut wasteful spending.

    The ban has come into effect as the country implements an International Monetary Fund (IMF) aid deal to revive state finances, the government said on Tuesday.

    Ghana is preparing to hold presidential and parliamentary elections next year and, with the opposition accusing government ministers of inflating contract sums, inappropriate spending will be a top campaign issue.

    The presidency issued the directive this week asking all ministers and other top officials to avoid “unwarranted” foreign trips on the public purse, Communications Minister Edward Omane Boamah told media.

    Ghana, a major producer of cocoa, gold and oil, began a three-year program with the IMF in April to fix its economy.

    The country’s economy has been dogged by high deficits, a widening public debt and unstable local currency.

    Finance Minister Seth Terkper told media on Tuesday the cabinet is also discussing a financial accountability bill.

    The schedule would impose penalties such as dismissal or jail time for public officials who are found to violate it.

    “It is expected to be clear enough to enable the general public to see malfeasance if there is any and hold the agency involved accountable,” he added.

  • No travel ban on Nigeria, says NCAA 

    No travel ban on Nigeria, says NCAA 

    The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) clarified yesterday that there is no travel ban that could lead to possible closure of the nation’s airspace.

    The clarification was sequel to speculations that some aviation unions including the Air Transport Services Senior Staff Association (ATSSSAN) were planning to shut the airspace on account of issues bordering on the welfare of NCAA’s workers.

    NCAA’s spokesman, Sam Adurogboye, in an interview yesterday said the airspace remains open to flight operations at all times.

    He said the NCAA cannot be closing the airspace it is meant to guard.

    Adurogboye said: “We learnt that aviation unions have been circulating some information alleging a travel ban to Nigeria with effect from tomorrow midnight.

    “I hereby declare to the whole world that it is not true. Nigerian airspace is open to flight operations at all times.

    “NCAA cannot be closing airspace it is meant to guard. Our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of air travellers.

    Such information should be disregarded. We are investigating the source. The issue we had with our workers union is being resolved.”

    He said a peace meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow between the warring unions and management.

    “As a prelude to that meeting, the union has on Friday October 23, 2015 suspended their planned strike action,” Adurogboye stated.