The prominent civil Rights advocacy group – HUMAN RIGHTS
WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (HURIWA) has warned that the proposed bill to
legislate the outright pardon of armed terrorists under the guise of
deradicalization programme could result in civil war either in the short,
medium or long term. The bill is sponsored by Ibrahim Geudam of Yobe East
Senatorial District and was read for the first time on the floor of the Senate.
The bill seeks the establishment of an agency that would ensure the
REHABILITATION, DERADICALISTION; and REINTEGRATION of the so-called repentant
terrorists in Nigeria. But HURIWA has warned that the bill is unconstitutional
and offends all relevant anti-terrorism Laws of the federation.
“Let us from the HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF
NIGERIA (HURIWA) caution the section of the National legislators who are
actively conniving with armed terrorists to introduce a satanic legislation
that will overlook the mindboggling crimes of genocides committed by terrorists
and the killings of over 30,000 innocent Nigerians in the last ten years with
the view to appease terrorists even when the victims of terrorism are scattered
in different internally displaced people camps in Nigeria and are external
refugees in so many nearby Countries.”
HURIWA has categorically warned thus: “If this bill to
legalize the freeing of arrested terror suspects under any guise succeeds, then
the nation should be prepared for the consequences of their unconstitutional
action because the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of the terrorists
attacks in the last decade will definitely not fold their hands whilst those
who killed their loved ones are pardoned through roguish means by the passage
of this criminally minded bill that is meant to legalize belonging to terror
cells and participating in mass murders.”
“This bill before the senate is not only satanic and
unconstitutional, but will paint the picture of a rogue nation because in all
civilizations, those who declare war against innocent citizens and participate
in genocide are rounded up and prosecuted and made to face the full weight of
the law. History is replete with a plethora of trials of persons who have
joined terror gangs and carried out mass killings. The plot by the National
Assembly to therefore permit the wanton defecation of the constitution of Nigeria
by forgiving mass murderers must never be allowed to succeed,” HURIWA affirms.
In the statement endorsed jointly by the National
Coordinator Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko and the National Media Affairs Director
Miss Zainab Yusuf the Rights group said that: "The government must engage
in a law based war by enforcing anti-terrorism laws. Section 1A (4)
of the TPA (as amended) empowers “the law enforcement agencies” to “enforce all
laws and regulations on counter–terrorism in Nigeria”. Prior to the
TPA, Section 46 of the EFCC Act 2004 defines “terrorism” to mean a violation of the Criminal Code or the Penal Code and
with likelihood of endangering life, integrity or freedom, or causing serious
injury or death with the intent to force the person(s) or body or government to
do or not to do certain things or disrupt and includes financing or aiding
terrorism. The punishment for the crime by Section 15 of the EFCC Act is imprisonment for life."
"Section 1(3) of the TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT (TPA)
(as amended) defines an ‘act of terrorism’ as that deliberately done with
malice aforethought and which may seriously harm or damage a country or an
international organization. Any act also amounts to terrorism when it is done
deliberately with malice aforethought and intended to unduly compel a
government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing
any act. A terrorist act is committed when done with the requisite intent; it
seriously destabilizes or destroys the fundamental political, constitutional,
economic or social structure of a country or international organization by
intimidation or coercion. It also amounts to a terrorist act where it involves
an attack upon a person’s life that possibly results in serious bodily harm or
death. Intimidating or coercing a government or international organization is a
terrorist act where it involves or causes: the kidnapping of a person, or
destruction of a government public facility, or private property etc. This is
particularly so where the act is likely to endanger human life or result in
major economic loss. By section 2 (b) (I), which defines terrorism as acts done
to unduly compel a government or international organization to perform or
abstain from performing any act the definition of terrorism is confined to
non-state actors thereby excluding state terrorism from the ambit of its definition.
There is an omnibus provision which criminalizes and treats as terrorist act
‘any act or omission’ in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an offence within
the scope of a counter-terrorism protocols and conventions duly ratified by
Nigeria"
HURIWA has also stated that even before the Senate came
up with this bad piece of proposed legislation to pardon terrorists, It is
difficult to dismiss the general notion that the Nigerian State has not shown
political will and commitment to the war on terror. "It seems that
not only have the real brains behind it not been prosecuted but are also being
shielded. An ideology based crime does not end with the incarceration of the
“foot soldiers”. Unfortunately usual extra judicial killing of high profile
suspects suggests a pattern of cover up. Both Mohammed Yusuf
and Alhaji Buji Foi, Boko Haram leader and the financier respectively, suffered
the same fate while in police custody."
"Closely related is the manner of enforcement of
the law on the subject; enforcement must be within the arm bit of general sense
of legality. This implies that government
should be conducted within the framework of recognized rules and principles
which restrict discretionary power as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord
of discretion as held by the Court in the cases of Miscellaneous
Offences Tribunals v. Okoroafor (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.
745) P. 310 and All Nigerian Peoples Party v. Benue
State Independent Electoral Commission (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 992) p.
597. "
"In
the English case of Arthur Yates & Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Vegetable
Seeds Committee9, Herring C.J held thus in this regard:
“It
is not the English view of the law that whatever is officially done is law … On
the contrary, the principle of English law is that what is done officially must
be done in accordance with the law.”
HURIWA argued further that: "Nations which have
achieved stability and national security are those which have elevated law
above political, religious, ethnic sentiments. The present federal government
must be compelled to advocate national security on the basis of respect of not
only individual rights but also the rule of law but definitely not the
appeasement of terrorists."
No comments:
Post a Comment