Amnesty, Criminality and Rule of Law

BY ONIKEPO BRAITHWAITE

Last week, the three incidents which caught most of Nigeria’s attention, were the arrest of fugitive from justice, Nnamdi Kanu, and his repatriation to Nigeria to come and continue his trial (and possibly face additional charges); the raid/excessive attack on Yoruba secessionist, Sunday Adeyemo aka Sunday Igboho’s residence in Ibadan, and the passing of the Petroleum Industry Bill after almost 15 years in the National Assembly cooler. We are yet to get the full details of this new Bill, but from the snippets we have heard, the host communities will be given 3% compensation, to the chagrin of Senators from the South South region who were demanding 5%.

Nnamdi Kanu’s Arrest, the Ensuing Drama and Tribalism

The arrest of Nnamdi Kanu which came as a surprise to all, has already been enmeshed in the usual Nigerian drama and controversy. I even saw a videoclip of his Lawyer saying something to the effect that as a British citizen, Kanu should not have been arrested in another country, and brought back to Nigeria. Tah! I am a British citizen by birth. Pray tell, when did British citizenship start to confer immunity from suit and legal process in a foreign land, especially for one who has been charged to court for a criminal offence and jumped bail? Though the Government has been silent about where Kanu was arrested, his brother claimed that his arrest was effected in Kenya. Kenya, Nigeria and the UK are all member countries of Interpol (International Criminal Police Organisation) whose Parent Agency is the UN; an international Police outfit, which helps the Police Forces of its member States collaborate to apprehend criminals/fugitives from justice. At some point, this ‘million dollar question’ will become pertinent – why did Nnamdi Kanu believe that he had to abscond?

As for me, let me start by saying that my heart’s desire is a one, united Nigeria, but certainly based on the sacred principles of equity, equality, justice and secularity. Unfortunately, as is the norm these days, the issue of tribalism has not been left out of Kanu’s drama. Many Nigerians (in the South), even the Governor of Benue State, believe that if the Government can arrest Kanu in a foreign land, and launch such an attack using what seemed like excessive force on Sunday Igboho and his residence (killing two people and unnecessarily destroying his property)(similar to what was done in Nnamdi Kanu’s residence in September, 2017), they certainly have the wherewithal to arrest Boko Haram insurgents and other bandits/kidnappers in the Northern parts of the country, like Dan Karami and Dogo Gide who have for one, terrorised and brutalised the Katsina and Zamfara people for years. Why hasn’t this been done? Is it that the Federal Government is only interested in vanquishing Southern secessionists so that power does not devolve and remains in the centre as it does now, while not caring too much about ‘ordinary’ Northern criminals who do not pose a threat to this Unitarianism?

Again, the failure to pursue these Northern criminals with the same gusto and aplomb that Kanu was pursued and arrested, has been attributed to tribalism and partiality. The attack on Sunday Igboho, is also being used as another example of how Government is clamping down on the Southern sections of the country, while others are ostensibly left to run riot, terrorise the people and are mollycoddled and offered amnesty instead. Dan Karami even boasted that the State Government came to ‘beg’ him to allow people to go to their farms, while Gide who was granted amnesty under former Zamfara Governor, Abdul’aziz Yari, recanted, returned to the forest and resumed his old criminal ways. A criminal suspect is exactly that – a criminal suspect; no matter where he or she hails from, and must be treated as such.

The debate is already raging, as to why Nnamdi Kanu should be treated like a criminal and be facing charges, when he is exercising his right to self-determination, a right which is recognised under international law (but obviously becomes criminal, when it turns to insurrection), and even indirectly in our Constitution by virtue of Sections 38, 39 & 40 (freedom of thought, expression and association); while people like Sheik Gumi are asking for amnesty for bandits/criminals of Northern origin, maybe even foreigners too (non-Nigerian Fulanis)! Sheik Gumi has been seen at various times in videoclips, parleying with Northern bandits, many of them slinging AK 47 rifles on their shoulders like handbags – why were they not arrested? Why was Sheik Gumi not ‘tailed’ to the criminals’ hideouts, so they could be arrested? The answer is obvious – Government did not want to. Has culpability for criminality now been reduced to an issue of tribalism, and not law and evidence? Many are saying that, if Sheik Gumi is seeking amnesty for known armed Northern criminals – kidnappers, rapists and killers, why should anyone be looking for Sunday Igboho so vehemently? What crime was Igboho alleged to have committed, before the authorities laid siege to his residence? We would like to know.

Amnesty

Amnesty is overlooking or absolution, the act of forgetting an offence, usually one that relates to offences against the political order of a State like treason and sedition. Amnesty must be distinguished from Pardon, which means forgiveness. The difference is that for Amnesty, the culprit may not have been charged before a court of law or convicted, while for Pardon, the culprit has been found guilty of an offence, convicted, and is then forgiven by the President or Governor. Amnesty can be given after a major event, like how the Biafran soldiers were granted amnesty after the civil war.

Is granting amnesty to anyone in Nigeria, constitutional? In 2009, President Yar’Adua granted amnesty to the militants, to quell their insurgency against Nigeria and the oil installations. Should he have? Sections 175 & 212 of the Constitution allows the President and Governors respectively, after due consultation with their Councils of State, to grant a Pardon to a convict, or respite of the execution of a sentence, or substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed. Some proffer the argument that Sections 175(1)(a) & 212(1)(a) which use the words ‘concerned with any offence’, as the basis for asserting that pardon as provided in the aforementioned sections, can also be used interchangeably as amnesty for non-convicts (and for any offence), but, my position is that the grant of amnesty is not for pure bandits and criminals.

And, so what, if these bandits are full of complaints about how the system is warped and corrupt, and has failed them and given them a bad deal? I’m sure if we went to Kirikiri Prison, practically every inmate there will have one pathetic story or the other to tell, about why they were constrained to turn to crime to eke out a living, possibly because of chronic unemployment and its accompanying starvation. Should the gates of all the Prisons in Nigeria then be thrown open, and every inmate forgiven and allowed to go home because they have repented? This suggestion sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Where do we draw the line? It is as ridiculous as saying that those who have kidnapped the little Islamiyya children of Niger State, of which one was reported to have died, or those who killed the five innocent Greenfield University, Kaduna State students should be allowed to go scot free because the system has failed them. The system has failed us all – admittedly, some more than others; should we all then resort to crime, to show our discontent and make our point?

Rule of Law

As far as I’m concerned, whether Nnamdi Kanu, or anyone who is suspected to have committed a crime – Government must follow due process and abide by the rule of law. Was there a proper invitation issued to Sunday Igboho to visit the authorities? Did he refuse to honour the invitation? Was an arrest warrant subsequently issued? On what grounds? The fact that the DSS went to his house in the dead of night, shows that they were not there for a friendly chat or invitation. Was there a search warrant issued, before his residence was ransacked and destroyed? Who was present from Sunday Igboho’s side when his house was being denuded, to ensure that no evidence was planted against him by the DSS, like weapons or drugs, just to incriminate him? Did anyone sign a document on Mr Igboho’s behalf, to confirm that the weapons which were allegedly found in his residence, were already there and not planted? I think not, since they were all running for dear life. After all, it will not be the first time that Nigerian law enforcement will tell lies, or cover up (the #EndSARS Lekki Tollgate incident of October 2020, readily comes to mind).

I do  agree that no harm should befall Nnamdi Kanu while he’s in the custody of the State, as was the fate of Mohammed Yusuf, the leader of Boko Haram who was killed extra-judicially by the authorities at the time, as a result of which a full fledged Boko Haram monster was facilitated, in launching a revenge mission against the Nigerian State for this injustice.

Section 42(1)(b) prohibits discrimination and according privileges not accorded to all, based inter alia, on ethnicity and religion. Suspects must all be charged for offences which are known to law, presumed innocent until proven guilty, and given fair hearing (Section 36(9), 36(5) and 36(1) of the Constitution). Their right to life, except in the execution of a sentence, must be upheld (Section 33(1) of the Constitution), while they must not be subjected to indignities, torture and inhuman treatment (Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution). See the Anti-Torture Act 2017. Suspects are all entitled to legal representation, which if they cannot afford, counsel must be appointed for them via legal aid. The proceedings against them should be guided by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA). All these rights are applicable to Nnamdi Kanu, Sunday Igboho, Dan Karami, or any other persons who may be facing criminal charges.

Applications for bail must be entertained, the grant of which is at the discretion of the Judge. For someone like Nnamdi Kanu who jumped bail and failed to appear in court for his trial for the last few years, will his claim that he jumped bail in order to preserve his life because his life was in danger at the time his home was attacked by soldiers in 2017, avail him a defence against one of the main criteria for an individual not being eligible for the grant of bail – that such individual may jump bail? Will his inciting statements on social media while he was a fugitive from the law, even threatening the life of the Governor of Rivers State, be enough proof that he has breached another element that is considered in the grant of bail – whether the individual will commit another crime while on bail? See the cases of Chedi v AGF 2006 13 N.W.L.R Part 997 Page 308 at 322 and Ojo v FRN 2006 9 N.W.L.R. Part 984 Page 103 at 115-116; both cases per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JCA ( as he then was).

In the case of Sunday Igboho, was his house raided because of his secessionist tendencies and Government’s wish to truncate the rally which he was to be a part of in Lagos last Saturday? The fact that Nigeria has sunk into a state of anarchy, is indisputable. Will Sunday Igboho’s quest to defend his people in the face of attacks allegedly by Fulanis, instead of leaving them as sitting ducks like those in Benue and Zamfara States for example, the Nigerian State having failed to protect them, be a viable defence or mitigation for whatever crimes he may be accused of (self defence)?

Conclusion

My advice to Government (whether they want it or not), is to perish the thought of granting amnesty to bandits. Aside from the fact that the concept may be unconstitutional, most of these people do not qualify for amnesty – they are perpetrators of pure criminality, and should be made to face the consequences of their actions. However, in so doing, the rule of law must be observed, and every suspect given a fair and transparent trial. I watched a videoclip of Senator Ali Ndume, in which he spoke vehemently against granting amnesty to insurgents, citing the example of how a number of clerics in his village were rounded up and slaughtered by insurgents like rams in an abattoir. Should those who kill innocent farmers in Benue State, raping their women in the bargain, not be apprehended and punished for their cruel crimes? Or those that killed seven villagers in Kaduna State over the weekend, be let go if they are apprehended? What genuine cause are they fighting for, that warrants amnesty?

When the lines of the clamour for self-determination, or discontent or disillusionment cross into criminality, my humble view is that, these cases must be treated with the seriousness they demand, with absolutely no sacred cows. The threat that the State will burn if the law is allowed to take its course, is cheap blackmail, and unfortunately, this blackmail is being fuelled by Government’s soft treatment of Northern criminals, and seemingly harsher treatment of those from the South. This is no way to run a country, whose essence should be based on the principles of equity, equality and justice; and, as long as such injustice is seen to be perpetrated in favour of some over others, we will see many more Nnamdi Kanus and Sunday Igbohos, as we have seen that the silencing of Mohammed Yusuf did not end his movement. In fact, it expanded it.

I urge Government to tread carefully, fairly, constitutionally and lawfully in all that they do to handle these security, and indeed, all other challenges. For one, at least 60% of Nigeria’s population comprises of Youths, many of whom are lending their support to the various clamours for secession, because they too feel hopeless and hard done by the system. President Buhari is absolutely correct in his assertion that, many of the Youths have not experienced the trauma of war, like those in his generation have. Therefore, their tolerance for injustice and its siblings, reduces with each passing day, and their frustrations are acted out by means of joining the clamour for secession and insurrection (as if this is the magic wand that will make everything beautiful). A word, they say, is enough for the wise. Government, take heed.

Quote

“Has culpability for criminality now been reduced to an issue of tribalism, and not law and evidence?”