... ... 07/18/21 | IYANDA'SBLOG

Local News, Sport Updates, Politics, Educational News, Religious etc.

07/18/21
Twitter Facebook

8:56 PM

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, on Sunday clashed with the operatives of the Department of State Services and refused to answer their questions during another interrogation session by the secret police in Abuja.

SaharaReporters learnt that Kanu was quizzed by five DSS officers on Sunday in the presence of his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, but he noted that he was fed up with the interviews and would not respond to questions again.

Nnamdi Kanu

SaharaReporters gathered that the DSS panel in turn told him that today (Sunday) was the last interview they would have with him.

“The DSS interrogated him today again with five officers in the presence of his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor. He refused to answer any question and only responded in syllables. He told them he was not going to do anymore of their interviews. The DSS panel in turn said this will be their last interrogation,” a top source revealed.

SaharaReporters had last Wednesday reported that Kanu, for the first time, was interviewed by the DSS officers in Abuja, in the presence of his lawyer, Ejimakor.

It had been reported that it was during that interview that the revelations of what happened to Kanu in Kenya came out.

“Kanu was interviewed by DSS agents today in the presence of his lawyers. He had injuries on his neck and wrist from torture. They said they didn’t know who he was. They chained him to floor for six days but they became nice to him once they found out who he was,” a top source had revealed.

SaharaReporters had on July 7 reported that Kanu told his lawyer that he was “mercilessly beaten and tortured” in the East African country before his extradition to Nigeria.

One of the IPOB leader’s lawyers had revealed this in an interview, noting that the Kenya authorities would be dragged to the International Criminal Court to answer for the brutality.

The lawyer had said, “There was a clear collaboration between the Kenya government and the Nigerian government and I am happy that they are now denying the fact that Kanu was arrested in there.

“But by the time we finish with them at the International Criminal Court, they will never remain the same. He was arrested at the airport there and he was taken to an unknown residence. He was subjected to inhuman treatment.

“Kanu was tortured, maltreated and mercilessly beaten, as confirmed by him to us. After spending eight days in their illegal custody, they now beckoned to the Nigerian government. Kanu was lifeless and unconscious by the time they were bringing him to Nigeria.

“To tell you the level of their conspiracy and the desperation to get him, they brought him here on a Sunday and the federal government is fully aware that I am his legal counsel.

“He was brought into the country and inflicted with several injuries and a he is having a number of medical issues today. It was at the behest of the Federal government that Kenya was doing those things. This is against all international laws. We are going to address an international court at that level.”

Exclusive News AddThis :  Original Author :  SaharaReporters, New York Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/3gf93M0
Twitter Facebook

8:56 PM

The intention of this piece is to examine the long-running notion that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu had jumped bail back in 2017 and thus deserved the extraordinary rendition that recently saw him to Nigeria.

Whether you like Kanu or not, everyone would agree that the only logical way of determining whether he jumped bail or not is to pedal back to the state of affairs before the military invasion of his homestead in September 2017. Here we go:

As of September 2017, Kanu was free on bail on a subsisting court order; his bail was not on personal recognizance but on a bond posted by three sureties; Kanu was neither judicially, nor administratively ordered to be re-arrested for breaching his bail or on account of any new charges filed; and his next hearing date was set for the next month, October 2017.

It is beyond argument that the invasion achieved a complete military routing of Kanu's home and caused fatalities of twenty-eight people and injuries to many, including to Kanu and his parents, who were present and trapped at the premises during the invasion.

The invading forces also 'captured' an undetermined number of occupants of the premises, some of whom are now presumed dead as they have not been accounted for to date. Most significantly, Kanu himself was also unaccounted for until he emerged in Israel several months later.

The inevitable question that arises from the foregoing facts is this: What are the natural or foreseeable consequences of such a lethal military action against a defendant who was free on bail?

The following analysis will provide some answers:

At common law, a bail is simply a binding promise by an obligor/surety to produce a defendant in court whenever required to do so. The money paid by the surety to back up his promise becomes the bond that he stands to lose should he fail to produce the accused when required to do so by the State.

In other words, a bail is a written contract in which the State is the promisee, and the surety is the promisor. The defendant is merely the subject matter (or the res) of the contract. And the fundamental purpose or consideration is to have the accused appear in court by compulsion of the bond posted by the surety.

So, just like any other contract, a contract of bail is subject to universal rules of contract, including - in this particular case of Kanu - an implied covenant on the part of the Nigerian State that it will not in any way interfere with or impair the ability of the surety to produce Kanu whenever required to do so. 

This includes the covenant that the State will not take any steps with the the defendant that might increase the risk of his flight from the jurisdiction or constrain the ability of the surety to produce the defendant at his trial.

So, when the Nigerian State which was prosecuting Kanu and thus has an abiding legal interest in his appearing for his trial, ordered her Army to invade Kanu's home, it breached the basic covenant that required the Nigerian State (or the Federal government) not to create a situation that will make it impossible for the surety to produce Kanu in court.

And given that Kanu's death, mortal wounding, capture or flight (escape) are the foreseeable consequences of said military invasion that can impact his availability to appear in court, the contractual doctrines of frustration and force mejeure will come into play.

It is trite that the occurrence of force majeure (or superior force) relieves one or both parties from the duty to perform contract obligations. The rationale is simple and that is: The force majeure event  - in this case, the military invasion - is a supervening event that was beyond the control or contemplation of the surety or even Kanu when the contract of bail was executed.

It is agreed universally that a military invasion is deemed a typical force majeure event that frustrates a contract under every human legal system. Nigeria (and now Kenya and the United Kingdom) are no exceptions. It becomes affirmative when a party to the contract is complicit in the force majeure.

It can also happen that, in certain scenarios such as this case of Kanu, a unique force majeure event will raise the prospects of another contract killer known as the  doctrine of frustration.

Under this time-honored doctrine, a contract (including a bail contract) will be deemed frustrated if its fundamental purpose (assuring appearance of Nnamdi Kanu in court) is destroyed to the point that his appearance in court becomes impossible.

In such event, the the promisor or surety in the bail contract will be discharged from his obligation to produce the accused. Now, you may ask: what is the position of the promisor- the Nigerian State in this whole saga?

A Nigerian State that had Kanu on trial, in the course of time released him on bail posted by another. Then, the same Nigerian State ordered its army to lethally invade Kanu's home. During the invasion, Kanu was confirmed to be on location, trapped and in line of fire.

Kanu is human, so his human instincts to survive will instantly take over and being that the force arrayed against him is greater, that instinct can only be expressed through flight or escape from the immediate scene. And that’s exactly what happened.

And having succeeded in fleeing from the immediate scene of the attack, is it reasonable to expect Kanu not to flee from the broader scene that comprised of the territory of a Nigerian State that controls the Army that invaded his house?

The foregoing are but some of the material factual questions that would have been judicially answered in an adversarial setting, pursuant to an application, before anyone can come to the legal conclusion that Kanu had jumped bail. And such application was made.

But guess what? The very Court that was supposed to calendar the application to be heard refused to do so and instead proceeded to decide, without taking any evidence, that Kanu had jumped bail, whereupon it issued the bench warrant that grounded the instant extraordinary rendition.

Had said application been heard, the Court - in place of its ruling that Kanu had jumped bail - could have ruled the opposite, and that is: That it is the Nigerian government and its Army that destroyed the ability or duty of Kanu to appear at his trial.

In the same vein, the Court could’ve also ruled that the Nigerian government was in contempt of Court by levying a lethal military invasion against a defendant (a ward of court), who was free on bail granted by such Court.

Therefore, it is against the basic canons of equity and fairness to now allow the Nigerian government to profit from its own wrong of causing Kanu to flee and then turn around to declare him a fugitive. A fugitive from what? Justice or death?

It becomes a double whammy when the same Nigerian government, instead of letting sleeping dogs lie or resorting to the due process of extradition, escalated its sins against Kanu by subjecting him to extraordinary rendition. Does two wrongs make a right?
 

Another way of looking at this whole thing is rhetorical and that is: Would any reasonable person have said that Kanu jumped bail if his failure to appear at his trial was because he was killed during the invasion?

Opinion AddThis :  Featured Image :  Original Author :  Aloy Ejimakor Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/3xP2qGh
Twitter Facebook

8:56 PM

The presidency has attacked Catholic cleric, Bishop Matthew Kukah, over his recent address before the United States congress as regards insecurity in Nigeria.

The presidency accused the cleric of spreading falsehood with the intent to discredit the administration.

Kukah had in a virtual appearance before the American lawmakers criticised President Muhammadu Buhari’s handling of the security situation in Nigeria.

He also alleged that Buhari was nepotistic in key appointments and favoured Muslims over Christians.

In its reaction, the presidency in a statement by presidential spokesperson Garba Shehu said Kukah was doing his “best to sow discord and strife among Nigerians” as 234 muslim pupils were still in the captivity of the bandits.

Shehu accused the cleric of falsehood, saying attacks by armed men stand condemned but are not targeted at Christians.

The statement reads, “It is unfortunate, and disappointing, for citizens of Nigeria to bear witness to one of their Churchmen castigating their country in front of representatives of a foreign parliament.

“We are all too familiar with these overseas political tours that opposition politicians take – visiting foreign leaders and legislators in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe. So, the argument goes, if they are heard seriously abroad, then Nigerian citizens back home should surely listen to them too.

“There is no bias in this government when the president is northern and Muslim, the vice president southern and Christian, and the cabinet equally balanced between the two religions. But neither is there anything in our Constitution to state that political posts must be apportioned according to ethnicity or faith. It takes a warped frame of mind for a critic to believe ethnicity is of primary importance in public appointments. It is yet more troubling to hear a Churchman isolating one group for criticism purely on ethnic lines.

“With due respect to the esteemed position he holds, the Bishop’s assertion that only Christian schools are being targeted by bandits or terrorists is not supported by the facts on the ground. It is sad to say but also true that victims of crime, kidnapping, banditry and terrorism cut across all strata of the society. Sad but true that Kankara students in Katsina State were stolen by bandits of the same Islamic faith as those they took away.

“The same may be true of those who are still holding the 134 students of the Islamic School at Tegina in Niger State. The nation witnessed the sad incident of the female students abducted by bandits at Jangebe in Zamfara State and the over 100 predominantly Muslim students of the Federal Government Girls College Birnin Yauri in Kebbi State who are currently in captivity- and the nation’s security agencies are hard at work to release them unharmed.

“The attack on Christian students is sad and unacceptable; so also is the abduction of students of other faiths. The claim that only Christian schools are being targeted is totally untrue. As a nation and a people, we must together define evil as evil. We must not allow our religious differences to divide us. No one gains but the evil doers when we divide our ranks according to ethnicity and religion in confronting them. The bandit, kidnapper and terrorist are the enemies of the people who should be confronted in unison.”  

Politics News AddThis :  Original Author :  SaharaReporters, New York Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2WRdqSG
Twitter Facebook

8:56 PM

The presidency has attacked Catholic cleric, Bishop Matthew Kukah, over his recent address before the United States congress as regards insecurity in Nigeria.

The presidency accused the cleric of spreading falsehood with the intent to discredit the administration.

Kukah had in a virtual appearance before the American lawmakers criticised President Muhammadu Buhari’s handling of the security situation in Nigeria.

He also alleged that Buhari was nepotistic in key appointments and favoured Muslims over Christians.

In its reaction, the presidency in a statement by presidential spokesperson Garba Shehu said Kukah was doing his “best to sow discord and strife among Nigerians” as 234 muslim pupils were still in the captivity of the bandits.

Shehu accused the cleric of falsehood, saying attacks by armed men stand condemned but are not targeted at Christians.

The statement reads, “It is unfortunate, and disappointing, for citizens of Nigeria to bear witness to one of their Churchmen castigating their country in front of representatives of a foreign parliament.

“We are all too familiar with these overseas political tours that opposition politicians take – visiting foreign leaders and legislators in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe. So, the argument goes, if they are heard seriously abroad, then Nigerian citizens back home should surely listen to them too.

“There is no bias in this government when the president is northern and Muslim, the vice president southern and Christian, and the cabinet equally balanced between the two religions. But neither is there anything in our Constitution to state that political posts must be apportioned according to ethnicity or faith. It takes a warped frame of mind for a critic to believe ethnicity is of primary importance in public appointments. It is yet more troubling to hear a Churchman isolating one group for criticism purely on ethnic lines.

“With due respect to the esteemed position he holds, the Bishop’s assertion that only Christian schools are being targeted by bandits or terrorists is not supported by the facts on the ground. It is sad to say but also true that victims of crime, kidnapping, banditry and terrorism cut across all strata of the society. Sad but true that Kankara students in Katsina State were stolen by bandits of the same Islamic faith as those they took away.

“The same may be true of those who are still holding the 134 students of the Islamic School at Tegina in Niger State. The nation witnessed the sad incident of the female students abducted by bandits at Jangebe in Zamfara State and the over 100 predominantly Muslim students of the Federal Government Girls College Birnin Yauri in Kebbi State who are currently in captivity- and the nation’s security agencies are hard at work to release them unharmed.

“The attack on Christian students is sad and unacceptable; so also is the abduction of students of other faiths. The claim that only Christian schools are being targeted is totally untrue. As a nation and a people, we must together define evil as evil. We must not allow our religious differences to divide us. No one gains but the evil doers when we divide our ranks according to ethnicity and religion in confronting them. The bandit, kidnapper and terrorist are the enemies of the people who should be confronted in unison.”  

Politics News AddThis :  Original Author :  SaharaReporters, New York Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2WRdqSG
Twitter Facebook

8:56 PM

A fatal crash has occurred on the Michael Otedola Bridge end of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, killing one motorist while six others were injured.

SaharaReporters was told that the crash involved a “Mack 20 feet containerised truck with two different registration numbers, LSD 973 XM and FKJ 214 XY, the two other vehicles are Toyota Wagon with registration number JJJ 28 FR and Toyota Camry BDG 597 CY.”  

File photo used to illustrate story.

The Lagos State Command of the Federal Road Safety Corps confirmed the crash, adding that the other injured victims were immediately rushed to the hospital for proper treatment.

The spokesperson of the Lagos State FRSC, Olabisi Sonubi, said the command received a distress call at about 11.30am on Sunday and joint operatives rushed to the scene of the accident.

According to a statement by Sonubi, the command has ordered the Sector Commander to investigate the cause of the accident.

The statement reads, “The Federal Road Safety Corps Lagos Sector Command received a distress call at 1130hrs about a crash at Lagos-Ibadan Expressway by Otedola bridge on Sunday 18th July, 2021.

“The crash involved a Mack 20ft containerized truck with two different registration numbers LSD 973 XM and FKJ 214 XY, the two other vehicles are Toyota Wagon with registration number JJJ 28 FR and Toyota Camry BDG 597 CY. 

“The crash involved  six (6) occupants with one killed while two male were confirmed injured, the injured has been taken to the hospital for treatment while the driver of the Mack 20ft containerized truck fled the scene before the arrival of rescue teams. 

“The combined team evacuated all crashed vehicles from the scene.

“The Sector Commander FRSC Lagos Sector Command Corps Commander Olusegun Ogungbemide has directed the investigation into the cause of the crash, while the driver who fled the scene of the crash will be apprehended and prosecuted once the owner of the truck is identified.”

Accident News AddThis :  Original Author :  SaharaReporters, New York Disable advertisements : 
https://ift.tt/2rTunjQ
IYANDA'SBLOG © 2016. All Rights Reserved.

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget