But for the fact that both Boko Haram and the government have warned the media to mind what we write about this their terrorism business, I would probably have written about the furore over the alleged ceasefire between the Islamist sect and the Alhaji Tanimu Turaki-led presidential committee on dialogue with Boko Haram.

I am just shocked that many supposedly reasonable Nigerians – based on the alleged denial by Shekau, actually want Turaki to produce some sort of MOU signed with the terrorists, even when the committee made it clear that it was preliminary agreement, based on exploratory talks. The committee even provided the name of the commander it was in talks with, yet we are doubting their claim, preferring to believe this alleged Shekau.

Some people are even comparing the Boko Haram talks with the negotiation with Niger Delta militants, preparatory to proclamation of amnesty. They quickly forget the different visits made by all manners of people to all manner of militants’ camps – from Anenih, to James  Ibori,  Timi Alaibe to Kingsley Kuku, Godwin Abbe, etc. They forget that it was not a one-off agreement that was signed. That prior to the grand signing in Abuja with Yar’Adua, some people had entered into all manners of agreements with the different warlords, be it Boyloaf, Africa, Tompolo, Ateke Tom or whomever. It was literally done from camp to camp. Some would agree with you at one meeting only for them to get back to their people and repudiate everything agreed upon and return to the trenches.

And just as we thought the comments could not get more ridiculous, some people are now calling for the committee to be disbanded. And I ask, if we disband them, what then do we do? How does peace return? Or do we propose that Borno, Yobe and Adamawa perpetually remain under emergency rule? If, even with the emergency regime in place, Boko Haram is still able to launch the type of attacks they have been launching of recent, what is the guarantee that they would not continue? What is the guarantee that they would not spread out to more states? And when they do, would we also impose state of emergency on all those other states? That means we should return to full war with the terrorists, even when we don’t have one IED or suicide bomber of our own. Why do we think that the exploratory talks with the sect and the military action cannot go hand in hand?

But, like I said, I’d rather stick with my original headline above because,  I am beingcareful of what to say on this matter, lest I find myself on the wrong side of the Terrorism Act – either as enacted by the National Assembly, or as decreed by the Boko Haram High Command. After all, law is law.

And talking about law, it would seem a lot of people have been taking a ride on the law in the last few days. Of course, it is to be expected, since they say the law is an ass. The only problem I have always had with this assertion, however, is that I don’t know which of the two (ass or a*se) to ascribe to the law. But my experience over the years has shown that the law is a little bit of both. Or how else do we explain the situation, playing out both here, in Nigeria and in far away the United States of America, where the citizenry have been thrown into some sort of confusion over two different, but not unrelated court verdicts?

People can’t seem to understand why the judiciary would free two men whom the not-too-dispassionate public had already convicted in the court of public opinion.

In America, a section of the public (mainly African Americans) had pronounced the ‘guilty’ verdict on George Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watch volunteer (much like our local vigilantes here), who was facing charges of second degree murder for the death of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American.

Even before the legal fireworks began in court, many African Americans were convinced that Zimmerman (who had every opportunity to walk away and avoid getting into any confrontation with Trayvon) fell back on his believed biases against Blacks to ‘profile’ the teenager as a criminal and went ahead to confront and eventually shoot him dead. The feeling, at least, among ordinary African Americans, is that Trayvon would not be dead today if he were to be a White boy. It was a throw-back to the beating-to-death incident of Rodney (another African American) by White US police officers, which sparked off riots on the streets of the US some years ago.

So, it is understandable that the citizenry are incensed that the jury would invoke Florida State’s controversial stand-your-ground law, approximate it to mean self-defence, declare Zimmerman not guilty and free him. African Americans have since been protesting the verdict and the protest has become so serious the US Justice Department is now considering bringing civil rights charges against Zimmerman. The poor guy should have been born in Nigeria instead of Florida. For here, without any such thing as stand-your-ground law and gun-liberalisation law, our local neighbourhood watch – Vigilante, OPC, Bakassi Boysand others like them, kill at will without anybody, asking questions. We are all too used to extra-judicial killings by the police and even the security agencies. Or did anybody hear that the Abeokuta vigilante men, who murdered three friends, visiting the town from Lagos have been arraigned?

But, before we stray, while the Americans have taken to the streets, protesting Zimmerman’s acquittal, Nigerians, especially in the Southern part, are blowing hot on the pages of the newspaper and on radio and TV (with several others, muttering and swearing under their breaths) over a similar acquittal of Major Hamza al-Mustapha, former Chief Security Officer (CSO) to former head of state, the late Gen. Sani Abacha, over the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, wife of the late Bashorun MKO Abiola, winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

After a highly politicised trial that dragged for all of 14 years (with al-Mustapha in jail all that while), the once feared goon of Abacha was eventually acquitted on the charges last week – effectively upturning the death-by-hanging verdict handed to him by a Lagos High Court. Al-Mustapha has since returned to a hero’s welcome in his adopted home state of Kano, where he visited both the government house and the Emir’s palace. In fact, the hero’s reception began for al-Mustapha right from Lagos, where friends, family, allies and even the OPC turned the court and prison grounds into carnival grounds.

Meanwhile, all the human rights lawyers are kicking and thrashing about, quoting all the 1830 cases they studied in the England of 1950 to explain a situation in the Nigeria of 2013. Many of them forget that human rights is not a one-way-traffic thing. That just as the Abiolas and their families and friends and allies were crying for justice, so also were the Abachas and the Mustaphas of both Kano and Yobe states, crying for the same justice.

So, while the Abiola camp may feel that justice has been denied them, the Mustaphas would insist that justice has been done. So, even though justice on the same matter does not necessarily have to vary, it is obvious that the ‘justice’ that the Abiolas (and, by extension, the June 12 campaigners) wanted was not the same ‘justice’ that the Mustaphas (and by extension, the Abachas) wanted on the same matter.  I can’t precisely say what each camp wanted but for me, justice would be served when the killers of Kudirat Abiola are brought to book. If al-Mustapha or his hirelings did it, then the last week judgment of the Lagos High Court obviously did not do justice. But if they did not do it, then justice has still not been done because the killers are still out there, moving about free. Meanwhile, we just held an innocent man for all of 14 years – without as much as state apology. Where is the justice?

In all this, however, what comes to the fore again and again is the ass (or a*se), which the law is – and, therefore, allows just anybody to take a ride. Even if we are intuitively convinced that the suspect is as guilty as charged, there is still the need to prove it before a court of law.

In all the national newspapers I have had the privilege of editing in the last 12 or so consecutive years, every time a case (libel or whatever) came up, the lawyers always asked for one thing first: Documentary evidence, either a signed statement, video or tape recording, whatever. They won’t just go to court and start blowing grammar on nothing – even if you and your reporters and lawyer and judge knew your story to be the truth. There must be acceptable evidence, credible witnesses and all of that. If you say the murder weapon was a red bullet, and, therefore, ascribing it to a special type of gun, be sure to bring that bullet to court. If your witness says one thing, he must not change and begin to say something else. It is not always because the judge does not like your face that you lose a case. Sometimes, your legal team may have failed to build a water-tight case. Or there just might not be enough evidence to nail the criminal. That is why many criminals, especially those pretending to be politicians, are roving the street free, when they should actually be in jail or be keeping their date with the hangman. The legal analysts on CNN said so about the prosecution in the Zimmerman case, the lead judge (Justice Rita Pemu) also said that much in the al-Mustapha case.

So, no matter what our emotions, convictions (or, in fact, the reality) are, we still have to scale the hurdle of legal technicalities. That is why they say for every criminal convicted, no fewer than nine other criminals have been allowed to get away. If we add the politicians to the group, the ratio could even go up to one conviction for every 1,000 identified criminals.

And just in case we forget, there are also other Americans who have been defending Zimmerman and the jury in the social media. For these Americans, pronouncing him guilty would have been the worst injustice ever. That is why the law is an ass (and an a*se).