Tag Archives: Inibehe Effiong

DSS Vs Apostle Suleiman: Let The Truth Be Told – By Inibehe Effiong

Posted on by
2

It is politically correct and simplistic for anyone to demand the arrest and prosecution of Apostle Johnson Suleiman, the outspoken and controversial Founder and General Overseer of the Omega Fire Ministries over his recent belligerent utterances against those said by the Nigerian government to be aliens from Mali, Niger, Chad and other neighboring countries; the so-called Fulani herdsmen.

That is what is expected of any die-hard supporter of President Muhammadu Buhari who may be motivated either by ethnic, religious or political sentiments and considerations. It perfectly fits into the narrative of those seeking to divert attention from the unabated mass murder of Nigerian citizens by ‘’foreigners’’ in Southern Kaduna and other parts of the country and the troubling silence of the Nigerian state.

For me, it is Nigeria first. Loyalty to our nation and its Constitution should always take precedence over political, ethnic or religious affiliations. Are we not ashamed as Nigerian citizens that the State Security Service (SSS) is taking action against Apostle Suleiman, a citizen, for making inciting statements in response to the Southern Kaduna massacre when no single person is on record as having been arrested and prosecuted for the killing of defenseless Nigerians, whether Christians or Muslims, in Kaduna State by ‘’foreigners’’?.

I refuse to join the mob calling for the head of Apostle Suleiman, not because I am a Christian or a Southerner but because of my spirit, soul and body presents, detests and rejects hypocrisy, injustice and oppression in every form. If Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State could shamelessly use taxpayers money to settle or compensate alleged murderers who he also claimed are foreigners in his unserious attempt to dissuade them from their murderous and satanic proclivity, what justification does anyone have to demand the prosecution of Apostle Suleiman for basically calling for self-defense, though in a rather bellicose language?

Governor El-Rufai who is on record for issuing divisive, irresponsible, inciting and dangerous threats and statements in the past without being arrested or prosecuted, further legitimized the insane culture of appeasement of criminals in Nigeria by seeking a truce with alleged murderers instead of bringing them to justice and compensating the victims. If there is no other person that knows those who take senseless pride in shedding innocent blood of human beings because their cows have been attacked or killed, Governor El-Rufai knows them, by his own admission.

The Nigerian state and the SSS or DSS cannot be strong with those calling for self-defense and weak with those who are the real perpetrators of violence and mass murder. It is an unprovoked assault on the intelligence of patriotic Nigerians for the SSS to swiftly go after Apostle Suleiman when the alleged murderers who instigated his bellicose and unfortunate statements are walking freely. That is not just a case of a double standard but an audacious and tragic statement that in Nigeria under President Buhari, the criminal justice system is skewed to protect the killers and hunt those calling for self-defense or revenge against the alleged killers.

Is there any self-respecting and truthful person in Nigeria today that will deny the complicity and utter nonchalant disposition of the Buhari’s administration to the killings and destruction by the so-called Fulani herdsmen? Why are we pretending as if we are oblivious of the conspiratorial inaction of the federal government to the mass killing of Nigerians across the country by the herdsmen?

Who has been prosecuted for the Agatu massacre in Benue State? Who has been prosecuted for Nimbo massacre in Uzo-Uwani of Enugu State? Who has been prosecuted for the serial murder of protesting Shiite Muslims in the North? Who has been prosecuted for the continuous killing of Pro-Biafra agitators in the East? Do the lives of our people really matter to President Buhari?

Like many Nigerians, I was outraged by the statements made by Apostle Suleiman after watching the video. Religious leaders should foster the bond of unity, preach peaceful co-existence and not be the instigators of anarchy. Not all Fulani herdsmen are murderers. They are criminal elements in every tribe and religion. We should never submit to the temptation to stigmatize or label an entire religion or tribe for the criminality of its disgruntled members.

The herdsmen have their grievances which should be attended to. Similarly, the host communities and farmers also have their grievances. The bottom line is that no person or group of persons should be excused and protected by the Nigerian state for embarking on mass murder because his or their cows or farmlands or crops have been killed or destroyed, as the case may be.

A deeper and dispassionate introspection on this matter evinces the fact that many commentators and public intellectuals are shying away from. The fact that if the President Buhari-led administration had fulfilled her primary purpose under Section 14 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by prioritizing the security and welfare of its citizens, there would have been no calls for self-defense and revenge against the continuous attacks by the herdsmen.

Mr. Buhari failed, refused or neglected to act responsibly when the crisis between the herdsmen, their host communities and farmers reared its ugly head at the inception of his administration. The apparent inaction and seeming complicity of the President and other leaders like Governor El-Rufai allowed the crisis to fester and emboldened the herdsmen to continue to kill people indiscriminately at the slightest provocation.

It is because the Nigerian state under President Buhari is confused as to whose life is more important; between that of a human being in Southern Kaduna, Nimbo, Agatu or any other part of the country and a cow, that we now have a situation where those accused of mass murder are protected and compensated while the victims are abandoned and left unprotected and those who react fiercely or irresponsibly to the shameful and pathetic dilemma of the Nigerian state like Apostle Suleiman, are speedily targeted by the institutions of the state.

Get this clear: Apostle Suleiman is not above the law. He is not immune from arrest and prosecution. What we are saying is that it is unacceptable for the SSS to go after him over his bellicose utterances when the killers of innocent Nigerian Christians and Muslims are walking freely. This is not the time for anyone to pretend to love the rule of law more than others. Let justice be done and the law enforced without ethnic, religious or political bias.

Self-defense is a fundamental right recognized and guaranteed by Section 33 (2) (a) of the Nigerian Constitution. There is nothing unlawful in calling on those whom the Nigerian state has failed to protect and rescue from the murderous grip and attacks of bloodthirsty criminals to defend themselves. If Apostle Suleiman went beyond the constitutional allowances of self-defense and freedom of expression, let the law take its course.

However, it will be an aberration for Apostle Suleiman to be punished or persecuted over his utterances when the real perpetrators of the violence and the mindless killings that he complained of are left to go unpunished. Justice should be blind to all persons irrespective of their race, religion, sex, ethnicity or political leaning.

 

Inibehe Effiong is a Legal Practitioner and Convener of the Coalition of Human Rights Defenders (COHRD) and can be reached at: inibehe.effiong@gmail.com

Legal Implications of the Senate’s Rejection Of Magu’s Nomination, By Inibehe Effiong

Posted on by
1

The fight against corruption in Nigeria is being trivialised. President Buhari should bear in mind that if he fails in his anti-corruption campaign, he has failed in everything. It is indeed a tragic irony that the very infamous Senator Bukola Saraki-led Senate, with all its scandals and embarrassing pedigree, is lecturing President Buhari on corruption.

On Thursday December 15, 2016 the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held an executive session during which it rejected the nomination of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) by President Muhammadu Buhari based on an adverse “security report” authored by the State Security Service (SSS).

Unsurprisingly, the decision of the Senate has triggered controversy on whether Mr. Magu can validly continue in his capacity as the Acting Chairman of the EFCC in the light of the disapproving decision of the upper legislative chamber. This intervention seeks to offer clarification on the issue based on the enabling and relevant legal authorities.

On the mode of appointing the Chairman of the Commission, the relevant statutory provision is Section 2(3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act Cap. E17 LF, 2004. It provides thus:

“The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and the appointment shall be subject to the confirmation of the Senate.”

The above provision subjects the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission by the President to the concurrence and confirmation of the Senate. We submit that the EFCC (Establishment) Act does not expressly provide for the position of an Acting Chairman of the Commission, it only provides for a substantive Chairman.

Flowing from the above, two issues necessarily arise for determination:

1. Where does the president derive the power to appoint an acting chairman of the Commission?; and

2. Can Magu continue to act as the acting chairman of the Commission despite the rejection of his nomination, having regards to Section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act quoted above?

In resolving the twin issues formulated supra (above), the provisions of Section 11 of the Interpretation Act Cap. 123, Vol. 8, LFN, 2004 are apposite. For clarity and ease of reference, the said provisions are wholly reproduced infra (below):

11. Appointment

(1) Where an enactment confers a power to appoint a person either to an office or to exercise any functions, whether for a specified period or not, the power includes ?
(a) power to appoint a person by name or to appoint the holder from time to time of a particular office;
(b) power to remove or suspend him;
(c) power, exercisable in the manner and subject to the limitations and conditions (if any) applicable to the power to appoint?
(i) to reappoint or reinstate him;
(ii) to appoint a person to act in his place, either generally or in regard to specified functions, during such time as is considered expedient by the authority in whom the power of appointment in question is vested.

(2) A reference in an enactment to the holder of an office shall be construed as including a reference to a person for the time being appointed to act in his place, either as respects the functions of the office generally or the functions in regard to which he is appointed, as the case may be.

…we submit that the decision of the Senate to reject the nomination of Magu for the position of substantive chairman of the EFCC has no upsetting consequence in law on his earlier appointment as the acting chairman of the EFCC by President Buhari on November 9, 2015.

Before proceeding to examine the ramifications and effect of the elaborate provisions above, it should be borne in mind that the Interpretation Act is a special piece of legislation that gives direction on the meaning of words, expressions and interpretation of the provisions of all other laws enacted by the legislature. Where there is an interpretative lacuna or controversy in a statute regarding the meaning and application of certain words, expressions and or provisions, the Interpretation Act is usually resorted to by the courts for succour.

It is our firm contention that the president has the requisite vires (powers) to appoint an acting chairman of the EFCC. We reference Section 11(1)(c)(ii) of the Interpretation Act in support. The said provision has clothed the president with the authority to appoint another person to act in the place of a substantive Chairman of the EFCC. Unlike the appointment of a substantive chairman which requires the confirmation of the Senate, the president does not need the confirmation of the Senate to appoint an acting chairman of the Commission.

On the second issue, we submit that the decision of the Senate to reject the nomination of Magu for the position of substantive chairman of the EFCC has no upsetting consequence in law on his earlier appointment as the acting chairman of the EFCC by President Buhari on November 9, 2015.

The Interpretation Act does not specify the term of office or period for which the acting chairmanship is to subsist. Section 11(1)(c)(ii) of the Interpretation Act seems to give the appointing authority the discretion to determine how long the acting or temporary appointee is to serve. This reasoning appears inevitable given the use of the expression “during such time as is considered expedient by the authority in whom the power of appointment in question is vested” in the cited provision.

It is an elementary principle of statutory interpretation that where the words and expressions used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their natural and ordinary meanings unless to do so would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the statute. See the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Okoye v. C.O.P. (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1488) 276 at 320. The expression “during such time as is considered expedient by the authority in whom the power of appointment in question is vested” is clear and unambiguous.

In the instant case, the president is the appointing authority under Section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act. He is the person vested with power under Section 11 of the Interpretation Act to appoint an acting chairman in lieu (in the absence of) of a substantive chairman. Accordingly, Mr. Magu will continue to act as the chairman of the EFCC if his retention is considered expedient by President Buhari. It does not lie in the mouth of the Senate to say what is expedient in the circumstance. The parameters for determining the expediency of Magu’s continued acting leadership of the EFCC belongs to President Buhari.

However, we submit that there are two identifiable limitations or exceptions to the power of the appointing authority under Section 11 of the Interpretation Act to determine the duration or tenure of a person appointed in an acting capacity based on what is considered expedient by the appointing authority. These exceptions will be shown using the present case of Ibrahim Magu.

First, we submit that Magu cannot legally serve in an acting capacity BEYOND the term permissible for a substantive chairman of the Commission. Section 3(1) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act states that “the Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall hold office for a period of four years and may be re-appointed for a further term of four years and no more.” It would be absurd for anyone to suggest that a person who is appointed in an acting capacity can serve in that capacity beyond the statutorily allowable tenure for the substantive appointee. The president’s power to appoint an acting chairman of the EFCC under Section 11 of the Interpretation Act is derivable from and only incidental to his power to appoint a substantive chairman under Section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act. Therefore, Magu cannot continue in his acting capacity beyond the four years term (in the first instance) allowed for a substantive chairman.

The fact that the alleged indicting security report, which formed the fulcrum upon which the Senate acted in rejecting Magu’s nomination was authored by the SSS, an agency under the presidency, loudly evinces the apparent lack of coordination and effective leadership in the country. It is either President Buhari is not in charge of his government or he is trying to use corruption to fight corruption.

Second, it is our humble view that Magu’s tenure as the acting chairman of the Commission MUST BE LESS THAN the four years period stipulated for a substantive chairman. The gravamen of this contention is that the words ‘act’ and ‘acting’ when used in relation to a position, by their ordinary grammatical and juristic meaning presupposes a state or status of temporariness as opposed to permanency. Few dictionary definitions will suffice. The Interpretation Act does not define ‘act’ or ‘acting’. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 6th edition, page 11 defines ‘acting’ as “Doing the work of another person for a short time…”. Law Guide, (www.thelaw.com) an online legal source, defines ‘acting’ as “Temporary performance. Frequently referring to a temporary position performing and carrying out the duties of an office without actually holding the position.” Lastly, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online version, variously defines ‘acting’ as “performing a job for a short time” and “holding a temporary rank or position”.

Does the law give recognition and effect to dictionary definition of words in the interpretation of statutes? The answer is in the affirmative. Reference is made to a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Alechenu v. University of Jos (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 333 at 361, paras. C-D, where the appellate court, per BDLIYA, J.C.A., held inter alia: “Where words used in a Statute are not defined therein, a resort to the dictionary meaning of such words is permissible…”

The totality of the above exposition is that a person who is appointed into a position in an acting capacity cannot exhaust or complete the full term of that office or position. A person can either be appointed in an acting capacity to complete the remainder term of the substantive appointee whose office has become vacant either by reason of death, resignation, removal or for other cause OR to occupy the position temporarily pending when a substantive appointment is made. Anything other than this is legally indefensible.

The legal implications of the two exceptions espoused above are that Mr. Magu can continue in his position as the acting chairman of the EFCC at the pleasure of President Buhari. However, the president in deciding the expediency for the continued retention of Mr. Magu in an acting capacity must ensure that Magu’s acting tenure does not exceed, but is actually less than the four years period stipulated in Section 3(1) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act.

As a postscript, the president is at liberty to re-submit Magu’s name to the Senate for re-consideration and possible confirmation. The Senate’s decision, whether to accept or reject the nomination, is absolute, provided same is done in conformity with the constitutional requirement for quorum and the Standing Orders of the Senate.

The fight against corruption in Nigeria is being trivialised. President Buhari should bear in mind that if he fails in his anti-corruption campaign, he has failed in everything. It is indeed a tragic irony that the very infamous Senator Bukola Saraki-led Senate, with all its scandals and embarrassing pedigree, is lecturing President Buhari on corruption.

The fact that the alleged indicting security report, which formed the fulcrum upon which the Senate acted in rejecting Magu’s nomination was authored by the SSS, an agency under the presidency, loudly evinces the apparent lack of coordination and effective leadership in the country. It is either President Buhari is not in charge of his government or he is trying to use corruption to fight corruption.

The troubling message from this unsettling scenario is that Nigeria is far from being salvaged. We can only hope that the evil forces in the corridors of power will not completely pollute and destroy our nation.

Inibehe Effiong is a Legal Practitioner and Convener of the Coalition of Human Rights Defenders (COHRD) and can be reached at: inibehe.effiong@gmail.com

Activist rejects Church’s award after request for ‘small assistance’.

Posted on by
1

Inibehe Effiong, a lawyer and human rights activist, has rejected a “Freedom and Justice Award” that was to be given to him by a local branch of the African Church in Akwa Ibom State.

The award ceremony took place on Sunday

, without Mr. Effiong showing up.

Mr. Effiong said he rejected the award from the St. Paul’s Parish of the church, Eket, because of “unnecessary expectation” from the church.

“I cannot accept an award that violates my principles and values,” Mr. Effiong said.

“My work as a human rights lawyer cum activist is totally humanitarian and selfless. I believe that any recognition or appreciation of my modest humanitarian activities by any individual or group should be without a request or expectation of reward.”

The young lawyer explained that he took to Facebook to publish his “Notice of Rejection” because he had previously used the same medium to publicise the church’s decision to bestow the award on him.

Richard Peter, the priest in-charge of St. Paul’s Parish, in his response to Mr. Effiong, explained what the lawyer meant by “unnecessary expectation”.

Mr. Peter said Mr. Effiong and others who were to receive different categories of awards from the church were expected to assist the church complete a “small project”. He did not mention what the project was all about.

“It was never a condition (for the award) or compulsory. But (just) an appeal for support,” Mr. Peter said.

The clergy told PREMIUM TIMES, Tuesday, that he was embarrassed by Mr. Effiong’s action.

He said he had never met with Mr. Effiong before, but that he had followed his activism through the social media, and that his nomination of the lawyer was to encourage him to touch the lives of people.

He said he called Mr. Effiong to brief him in advance that during the award ceremony the awardees would likely raise money publicly to support a church project, and that he did not want the lawyer to be surprised or embarrassed when it happened.

Buying of titles, awards and honours is a common practice among rich and influential Nigerians.

“Though I feel so sad about it, I want us to forget about what happened,” the clergy, Mr. Peter said.

Edo Elections: My View – Inibehe Effiong

Posted on by
9

It is clear from the just concluded gubernatorial election in Edo State that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has devised an intelligent policy in order to uphold the integrity of elections and the Card Reader. INEC has resorted to cancelling results from polling units where the total votes cast exceeded the total of voters accredited by the Card Reader.

This practically leaves those opposed to credible elections with the aid of the Card Reader with a fait accompli. By cancelling such results, the election was determined based exclusively on electronic accreditation.

In any case, the total number of votes cancelled due to non usage of the Card Reader did not impact on the election. The Card Reader has come to stay. While the National Assembly is making efforts to give the Card Reader a definite legislative backing to undo the harsh effects of the Supreme Court judgments on the issue, INEC’s policy is commendable.

My impression is that the Edo election was largely credible. I will give three reasons:

First, the margin between the two leading candidates shows that there was indeed a real contest. The APC scored 319,483 while the PDP came second with 253,173. This is in contrast to the fraudulent and arbitrary culture of allocation of phantom votes as witnessed during the 2015 governorship elections.

Second, the election was generally peaceful and devoid of violence. No single life was lost in Edo State. This is also in contrast to the bloodbath witnessed in Akwa Ibom and Rivers States during the last election. The Supreme Court upheld both elections.

Third, the fact that there was no over voting shows that the election was largely credible. Edo State has 1, 900, 223 registered voters, while 662,039 of the registered voters were accredited with 613, 244 voters casting their votes in the election.

Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have up to October 19, 2016 to file a petition against the election of Mr. Godwin Obaseki of the All Progressives Congress (APC). They should ventilate their grievances in court.

Since they are raising allegations of corrupt practices and violence, they should approach the tribunal with evidence and prove same beyond reasonable doubt.

Obaseki and the APC can conveniently cite recent decisions of the Supreme Court on governorship elections. The precedents are there and known to all.

Only the courts can determine whether an election complied substantially with the law. If the 2015 governorship elections in Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta and Abia States complied with the law I do not know what will invalidate the September 28 election in Edo State.

Though the election was not without flaws, the process was substantially credible, free and fair.

I commend the people of Edo State for their peaceful conduct. This should be a lesson to the people of other South South States and the country at large.

I rise.

INIBEHE EFFIONG