Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) 1st Vice President, John Aikpokpo-Martins, Saturday said any President of Nigeria is constitutionally bound to crush secessionists like Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Adeyemo, alias Sunday Igboho.
Mr Aikpokpo-Martins said under Nigerian law, self-determination agitations are “simply unconstitutional”.
He faulted secessionists’ claim that agitation for self-determination is a fundamental right, noting that Chapter 4 (fundamental human rights guaranteed provisions) of the 1999 Constitution does not include the right to expressions seeking to divide the country.
The NBA official stated this in a post on his Facebook page titled, STIRRING THE HORNET’S NEST; THE MENS REA.
He began his post by differentiating between the agitations of a former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo, alias Tompolo on the one hand, and that by Boko Haram, the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) and Igboho, on the other.
Mr Kanu, the leader of IPOB that is calling for the independence of Biafra from Nigeria, was presented before a federal high court in Abuja last Tuesday, days after his arrest at an undisclosed location abroad.
A team of joint security operatives invaded Mr Igboho’s house in Soka, Ibadan, capital of Oyo State around 1an last Thursday, barely 72 hours to his plan to hold a rally in Lagos to further canvas for the Yoruba nation.
Defending the government’s actions “strictly based on the law”, Aikpokpo-Martins said: “Let it be known that there is a major difference in the agitation of the Niger Delta militants as led by Tompolo etc to the agitations of Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday Igboho.
“Tompolo never agitated for a different country; this is very very significant and must reflect on how he is treated.
“Whereas Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday Igboho are agitating to carve different countries out of Nigeria, Tompolo never did that; he is a Nigerian and advocates for justice and equity albeit as a Nigerian and in Nigeria.
“Constitutionally, no President (whether he is a Buhari, Nnamdi, Babatunde, Ahmed, Osahon, Wike, Aper etc) worth his job will treat those agitating for self-determination with kid’s gloves; he is constitutionally and legally mandated and obliged to crush such people.
“You may mouth fundamental human rights to self-determination etc, but the fact is, the Nigerian constitution described Nigeria as one indivisible country; see section 2(1) of the 1999 constitution.”
He explained that Buhari took an oath to defend the constitution, “so how can a President who swore to defend the constitution which contained a clause providing for the indivisibility of the country turn around to condone agitations for self-determination whether by peaceful and or violent agitations, when such agitations are directed at the core of the validity/legitimacy of the constitution he swore to defend?”
According to him, such agitations are “simply unconstitutional and the President is constitutionally bound to crush same.”
He contended further that Chapter 4 (fundamental human rights guaranteed provisions) of the constitution that many rely on to defend protests, agitations and rallies to demand a division of Nigeria into different countries “did not guarantee such expressions when such expressions or assemblages are directed at the validity and/or legitimacy of the constitution itself ie seeking a divisible Nigeria!
“It is a legal, ideological and philosophical absurdity to rely on a constitution to which you seek to destroy to protect a right to destroy the same constitution!
“The constitution must inherently and naturally protect and defend itself by denying any person or agitator any right that is inimical to its existence.
“So, those agitating to divide Nigeria cannot seek the protection of the constitution; it will not avail them.
Follow the Neptune Prime channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va74ZvU2v1IqKByXoX3d
Do you have breaking news, interview request, opinion, suggestion, or want your event covered? Email us at neptuneprime2233@gmail.com
There is a point in the life of a lawyer when he or she realizes that his original position or pre-law school understanding of the law has changed either from the legal education or from the practice of law. At that time the lawyer stops sounding like a vigilante and starts to respect the rule of law knowing that the judge is the king, the mom and the dad to whom everything is reported and nothing is extrajudicial unless I this illegal. At that time the lawyer will stop using words like “crush” and “Presidential military power” as though his power comes from the gun and not from the law. Especially when the defendant is in custody awaiting trial. Some lawyers never get it. It is worse in countries where their recent history is marred and attached to a military rule. It is offensive when such careless disregard for the law is coming from a leader of a bar association or one who could be an advisor to a president. Can you imagine a lawyer threatening the crushing of a defendant outside the authority of a judge or a court of law? This can only be a person totally knowledgeable with history but totally out of tune with the law. I am not worried about The President needing to crush anyone because he has taken a legal step and presented the defendant before a court of law. A lawyer who Is so prone to such bad counsel should meet The wrath of a bar association. A dignified and an ethical bar association should remove such a person from the practice of law.