Sahara Reporters Latest News Today Saturday 19th December 2020

Sahara Reporters Latest News Today Saturday 19th December 2020

Sahara Reporters Latest News Today and headlines on some of the happenings and news trend in the Country, today 19/12/20

Amotekun Officers Open Fire In Oyo, Two Killed, Scores Injured

No fewer than two residents of Asaka area in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital were killed by the newly inaugurated South-West security outfit, codenamed Amotekun.
The incident happened at Ike-Olu junction, Asaka area of Ibadan on Thursday.

Eyewitnesses told SaharaReporters that one Afeez Lotto and Akin Owoaga were shot dead by a member of Odua people Congress, who was recruited into Amotekun, Sikiru Apanpa.
Our correspondent gathered that the incident started when youths in the area disagreed on a certain issue, and Saheed had invited the Amotekun personnel to control the situation.
SaharaReporters learnt that when Amotekun personnel arrived at the scene of the incident with their vehicle, Apanpa did not ask questions before he shot at the two.
It was gathered that the two victims died instantly.
While going out of the community, the men of the Amotekun also shot at an old man, Matthew Owolabi, at Ike Olu junction who later reported at Mapo and Babaganku Police Stations.
Following the development, the men of the Nigeria Police Force, Mapo Area Command, Ibadan, arrested Saheed who invited Amotekun to produce the killer of the two victims.

News

AddThis

Featured Image

Original Author

Saharareporters, New York

Disable advertisements

E2%80%94garba-shehu I’m Sorry For Saying Only 10 Students Were Kidnapped—Garba Shehu

The Senior Special Assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, has on Friday apologised for incorrectly stating that only ten boys were kidnapped at the Government Science School in Kankara, Katsina State.
Gunmen, who came on motorbikes, had last Friday invaded the school’s premises around 11 pm, shooting indiscriminately to scare away the residents.

E2%80%94buhari Efforts Of Service Chiefs Not Good Enough—Buhari

President Buhari during meeting with released Kankara schoolboys in Katsina State today

President Muhammadu Buhari has said he is worried over the high rate of insecurity in the country.
According to News Agency of Nigeria, Buhari disclosed this while speaking in Daura, Katsina, shortly before addressing students of Government Science Secondary School, Kankara, on Friday.

President Buhari during meeting with released Kankara schoolboys in Katsina State today

The President said a lot needed to be done to improve security, adding that his government is aware of its responsibility to secure lives.
He added that the effort of service chiefs is not good enough for him.
Most Nigerians have called for the sack of the service chiefs owing to the worsening security situation in the country, especially in the Northeast region but the President has refused.
Buhari said, “On the issue of insecurity, I’m extremely worried about it, and I hope next year it will be different. Those among the law enforcement agencies that would remain in charge would be extremely busy.
”We have a lot of work ahead of us and some of these things we may not say because I don’t want to compromise the security and efforts being put by the law enforcement agencies.
“But we are accurately aware of our responsibilities. Our responsibility is to secure the country – so we have a lot of work to do.
“Armed forces know their job. I meet them; we have security meetings from time to time, they must be very clear of my instructions, and their effort is not good enough for me.
“It is our responsibility to secure this country for all the citizens to do their businesses without any problem. We haven’t achieved that yet, but, we will keep on trying.”

Politics

News

AddThis

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

Gridlock As Petrol Tanker Explodes In Ibadan

A petrol tanker has exploded at the Iyaganku area of Ibadan, the Oyo State capital.
The Punch reports that the fuel-laden tanker fell close to a petrol station on Friday, thereby causing panic among road users and residents of the area.

The fallen tanker was said to have eventually exploded but some okada riders told our correspondent that there were no casualties.
Roads leading to the scene of the explosion were said to have been cordoned off causing gridlock along the Dugbe, Ring Road, and Iyaganku areas in the state capital.
An okada rider, who identified himself as Suraj Adewale, told our correspondent that the tanker fell around 12noon, but it eventually caught fire about two hours later.
The Oyo State Sector Commander of the Federal Road Safety Corps, Uche Chukwura, confirmed the incident to our correspondent on the telephone.
The sector commander said, “A tanker fell this afternoon, and it eventually caught fire. Our men are there to control the traffic.”

News

AddThis

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

E2%80%94-lai-mohammed Why Buhari Did Not Visit Kankara— Lai Mohammed

The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said on Friday that although President Muhammadu Buhari did not visit the Kankara school nor meet with the affected parents, he was busy in Daura coordinating the abducted boys’ rescue.
The minister noted that the coordinated rescue efforts produced the release of the over 300 pupils of the Government Senior Secondary School, Kankara, who were abducted last Friday.

Buhari had come under intense criticism from several quarters over his failure to visit the affected school and community, which is only three hours by road to Daura, despite having time to visit his cattle farm.
President @MBuhari Appears In New Video Visiting His Cows In Katsina After Refusing To Visit Families And School Of Kidnapped Katsina Students | Sahara Reporters pic.twitter.com/PVveM3OF52— Sahara Reporters (@SaharaReporters) December 14, 2020

Speaking at a press conference in Abuja on Friday, Mohammed played down the dust generated by Buhari’s action.
He said, “Yes, the president did not visit the town but he was busy coordinating the entire operation to ensure the safe return of the students within the fastest time possible.
“The release of these schoolboys is a testament to the importance that this administration attaches to the security and safety of all Nigerians.
“There is no government in the world that will not face the challenges of security at one time or another. No government in the world is immune to terrorist attacks.
“What stands any government out is the way and manner it responds to such challenges. For example, school shooting has been a recurring challenge in the United States. Between 2010 and 2020, almost 200 school children were killed and many more injured in various school shooting incidents.
“Needless to say is the fact that the world’s most powerful country suffered a tragic terrorist attack in September 2001 that claimed almost 3,000 lives. In France, between 2010 and 2020, 286 people were killed in various terrorist incidents. And in New Zealand, in March 2019, 49 people were killed in shootings at two mosques in Christ Church, New Zealand.
“I have given these instances to support the fact that no nation, no matter how powerful, is immune to security challenges.”
The same minister had in March 2014 as the All Progressives Congress’ spokesman lambasted former President Goodluck Jonathan over the rising insecurity.
He had said the Boko Haram insurgency and other crises in the country were as a result of Jonathan being “backed by a greedy, vision-less and crooked cabal, both within his government and his party.”

Politics

News

AddThis

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

Obiano Dethrones Three Traditional Rulers, Reinstates Five Others

Governor Willie Obiano of Anambra has withdrawn the certificates of appointment of three traditional rulers in the state and also reinstated five others.
Chief Greg Obi, Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs announced this on Friday in Awka.

Obi in a statement dated Dec. 17 and entitled: “Update on Suspension of Igwes in Anambra’’ said the governor acted according to the powers vested on him by the Anambra State Traditional Rulers Law, 2007.
He gave the names of the traditional rulers who had their certificates withdrawn as Igwe Chijioke Nwankwo of Nawfia Town, Igwe Anthony Onyekwere of Owelle and Igwe G. B. C. Mbakwe of Abacha.
The governor announced the lifting of suspension on five traditional rulers including, Igwe Simon Chidibem of Umumbo, Igwe A. N. Onwuneme of Ikenga, Igwe Mark Anthony Okonkwo of Alor, Igwe Chukwuma Orji of Ezinifite and Igwe S.O. Obiora of Ezira.
Obi said the withdrawal and reinstatement of the certificates were with immediate effect. According to the statement, the government is also reviewing the suspension slammed on Igwe Kelly Nkeli of Igbariam, Igwe Dr Emeka Iluno of Ifitedunu and Igwe Peter Uyanwa of Ukwulu.
Obi said all the affected traditional rulers have one month to submit the certificates of recognition to the Secretary of the Local Government of their communities from the day of the announcement.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the Anambra government on Aug. 11, 2020, suspended 12 traditional rulers for alleged gross misconduct.
According to Obi who announced the suspension, during the sanction period, the suspended traditional rulers are required to stop holding court as traditional rulers and to desist from discharging traditional rulers’ functions in their communities or anywhere in the state and beyond.
“This sanction may be lifted at the end of one year or renewed or upgraded in the intervening period depending on the government’s review of your conduct.
“By this sanction, membership of Anambra State Traditional Rulers Council is hereby revoked, also, any appointment in other government committee is hereby rescinded,” he said.

Politics

Tradition

News

AddThis

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

NIMC Unveils 15 Centres Abroad For National Identity Number Registration

The National Identity Management Commission, the body issuing national identity number, has announced 15 locations abroad to enrol Nigerians in the diaspora.
NIMC said that the firms would obtain and transmit biometric data from the countries which they operate to the commission.

The commission had earlier stated that without a NIN, Nigerians in diaspora would be unable to renew their passports or take part in some other national programmes, adding that those who already had Nigerian numbers would lose them.
The development had sparked outrage with many Nigerians warning that the policy lacked adequate planning and would worsen the second wave of COVID-19 in the country.
The list of countries and their NIN registration centres as released by the NIMC are:
1. AUSTRIA
Vienna
Embassy/Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Rennweg 25, Postfach (P.O. Box) 183, 1030 Wien, Vienna
Website: br /> 2. GERMANY
Berlin
Nigeria Embassy, Neue Jakobstraße (Jakobstrasse) 4, 10179 Berlin
Website: br /> Frankfurt
VFS Global office, Gutleutstraße 8060329, Frankfurt
Website:
3. SAUDI ARABIA
Jeddah
VFS Global Services office, TasHeel Commercial Plaza, First Floor-Suwaid Bin Sakher Street, Off Jundub Bin Kaab Street, Al Mohammadiyah District 1, Jeddah
Website:
Riyadh
VFS Global office, Shop 2, Zahra Building Umm al Hamam, Opposite Hyper Panda (Dove Plaza), Umm Al Haman Street, Riyadh
Website:
4. UNITED STATES
Atlanta
Online Integrated Solutions office, Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 204, Roswell, Atlanta, GA 30076
Websites: Defcon Systems Limited (DSL) >>
National eAuthentication Limited (NeAL) >>
Chicago
Knowledge Square Nigeria Limited office, Africa International House, 6200 S. Drexel Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637
Website: br /> Houston
Thebez Global Resources/Cox & Kings, 6666 Harwin Drive, Suite 260C, Houston, Texas, TX 77036
Website:
Online Integrated Solutions office, 9894 Bissonnet Street, Suite 745 Houston TX 77036
Websites: Defcon Systems Limited (DSL) >>
National eAuthentication Limited (NeAL) >>
VFS Global office, 2425 West Loop South, Suite 340, Houston TX 77027
Website:
Minnesota
UGS Technologies Limited, 319 Barry Avenue South, Suite 300, Wayzata, Minnesota
Website: br /> New York
Thebez Global Resources/Cox & Kings, 336 W, 37th Street, Suite 550, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10018
Website:
Online Integrated Solutions office, 370 Lexington Ave, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10017
Websites: Defcon Systems Limited (DSL) >>
National eAuthentication Limited (NeAL) >>
5. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Dubai
Online Integrated Solutions DMCC office, 22nd Floor, Silver Tower, Cluster I, Jumeirah Lake Towers
Websites: Defcon Systems Limited (DSL) >>
National eAuthentication Limited (NeAL) >>

VFS Global office, WAFI Mall, level 3, Falcon Phase 2, Umm Hurair 2, Dubai 114 100

Website:
6. UNITED KINGDOM

Leicester

Online Integrated Solutions office, St. Georges House, 6 St Georges Way, Leicester LE1 1SH

Websites: Defcon Systems Limited (DSL) >>

National eAuthentication Limited (NeAL) >>

VFS Global office, Peepul Centre, Orchardson Avenue, Leicester, LE4 6DP

Website:

London

Knowledge Square Nigeria Limted office, 160 Maple road, London, SE20 8JB

Website: br />
Online Integrated Solutions office, 56/57 Fleet street London EC4Y IJU

Websites: Defcon Systems Limited (DSL) >

National eAuthentication Limited (NeAL) >>

Thabez Global Resources Limited/Cox & Kings,169 Old Kent Road, Ground Floor, SE1 5NA London

Website:

VFS Global office, 66 Wilson Street, London, EC2A 2BT

Website:

7. SENEGAL

Dakar

VFS Global office, rez de chausses, Immeeuble atrium centre, km 8 route de Ouakam, Dakar

Website:

8. INDIA

Chennai

UGS Technologies Limited office, 5 & 7, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600081

Website: br />
VFS Global Services office, No 74, 3rd Floor, Fagun Towers, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600008

Website:

New Delhi

UGS Technologies Limited office, 1st Floor, Plot No. 7, 8, Garg Shopping Mall, Opposite Sector 11 (Extension), Rohini, Delhi 110085

Website: br />
VFS Global Services office, Shivaji Stadium Metro Station Mezzanine Level, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001

Website:

Mumbai

VFS Global Services office, Urmi Axis Building, Behind Famous Studio, Opp. E Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West), Mumbai – 400001

Website:

9. BENIN

Cotonou

Satguru Travel & Tours Services, Immeuble Satguru, derriere Espace Dina, St. Michel, Cotonou

Website:

Feu de circulation Stade Matheiu Kerekou, rue pavée d’ Agla, 1ère rue à gauche, Immeuble MSS Sarl, Cotonou (Traffic light at Mattheiu Korekou Stadium, Paved Street of Agla, MSS Sarl Building, 1st street by the left, Cotonou)

Website:

Porto Novo

Rue Tokpota, en face de project Songhai, rue de l’église catholique Charles Ouganda, Immeuble Carrefour le Destin, Porto Novo (Tokpota Street, Opposite Songhai Street of the Catholic Church Charles Uganda; at the edge of Carrefour Destiny, Porto Novo)

Website:

10. IRELAND

Dublin

Knowledge Square Nigeria Limited office, Unit 9, Porters Avenue, Cool Mine Industrial Estate, Dublin 15

Website: br />

11. SOUTH AFRICA

Johannesburg

Thebez Global Resources, 205 Rivonia Road, Morningside, Johannesburg

Website:

VFS Global office, 1st Floor Rivonia Village Office Block, Cnr. Rivonia Boulevard and Mutual Road, Rivonia, Johannesburg

Website:

Pretoria

VFS Global office, Cherry Lane Office Park, 1st Floor, 114 Fehrsen Street, Nieuw Muckleneuk, Brooklyn, Pretoria, 0181

Website:

12. CANADA

Brampton

Knowledge Square Nigeria office, 8 Melanie Drive, Ste. 202, Brampton, ON, L6K 4L2
Website: br /> Edmonton
VFS Global Services office, Scotia Place Tower 2, Unit 531, 10060 Jasper Avenue, T5J 3R8, Edmonton, Alberta
Website:
Ottawa
VFS Global Services office, Suite 505, 294 Albert St, Ottawa, Ontario, ON, K1P 6E6
Website:
VFS Global Services office, 280 Metcalfe Street, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, ON, K2P 1R7
Website:
Winnipeg
Knowledge Square Nigeria office, Unit 104, 1200 Pembina Hwy, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2A7
Website: br /> 13. GHANA
Accra
VFS Global office, First Floor, Atlantic Towers, Airport City, Accra
Website:
14. ITALY
Rome
Interservice Roma, Via Orazio, 17, 00193 Roma RM
Website: br /> 15. TOGO
Lome
Kevonne Consults Limited office, 2073 Jean Paul II Boulevard, Ancien Immeuble, Air Burkina, Lome
Website: br /> The commission noted that for those Nigerians, whose countries of residence are not listed, some forms had been licensed to work with their respective partners across all countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and America to carry out the enrollment of Nigerian adults and children in the diaspora into the National Identity database.

News

AddThis

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

American Bar Association Documents AGF Malami, DSS Prosecutorial Misconduct And Plots To Silence Sowore

Omoyele Sowore in court.

The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Right has declared the detention of human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, illegal under international law.
The declaration comes two months after the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention called on the Nigerian Government to stop the unlawful prosecution of Sowore for his attempts to organise a peaceful protest in August of 2019.

Omoyele Sowore in court.

See Also

Human Rights

UN Panel Declares Sowore’s Arrest Illegal, Asks Nigerian Government To Stop Prosecution

0 Comments

1 Month Ago

ABA Center for Human Rights in a preliminary report on Thursday listed severe rights violations against the human right activist as a result of misconduct on the part of the Nigerian Government, specifically the Department of State Services and the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.
The group said it has been monitoring the proceedings against Sowore as part of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s Trial Watch Initiative.
Read the statement below:
The prosecution of Omoyele Sowore, a political activist and former presidential candidate, has entailed severe rights violations as a result of misconduct on the part of the authorities – specifically, the Department of Security Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation (Nigeria’s Attorney General or AGF). The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights has been monitoring the proceedings against Mr. Sowore as part of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative.1
On August 2, 2019, after making a series of public statements calling for peaceful revolution, including for country-wide demonstrations on August 5 under the tagline #RevolutionNow, Mr. Sowore was arrested and detained. He was subsequently charged with, among other offenses, treason, money laundering, and cyberstalking. The totality of the facts strongly suggests that the charges against Mr. Sowore were levied in retaliation for his political activism, in violation of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and that the prosecution (first pursued by the DSS and then taken over by the AGF) has never possessed evidence on which to predicate allegations of criminal behavior.
First, Mr. Sowore had explicitly stated that his calls for revolution were non-violent and had created a code of conduct forbidding violence at the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Indeed, the protest held on August 5 was entirely peaceful. Second, Mr. Sowore was not notified of the reasons for, or legal basis of, his arrest at the time it occurred. DSS’s statement to the press in the immediate aftermath of the arrest vaguely referenced threats of disorder but did not provide specifics as to Mr. Sowore’s allegedly criminal behavior. Third, following Mr. Sowore’s arrest the DSS sought an ex parte order – a decision made by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present – of detention on the basis of an anti-terrorism statute, arguing that Mr. Sowore should be detained so as to enable further investigation. When Mr. Sowore was charged 48 days later, the offenses alleged were unrelated to the anti-terrorism statute. This shift suggests that the statute was but a vehicle for the prosecution to continue detaining Mr. Sowore until it could figure out what charges to bring.
Fourth, eight months into the proceedings (after the AGF assumed control of the case), the prosecution dropped five of the seven charges without explanation. Notably, the amended charge sheet, which contains the two remaining counts of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, does not set forth any facts to support the allegation that Mr. Sowore had sought to overthrow the government by unlawful means: it simply cites Mr. Sowore’s involvement in the #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Fifth, the conduct of the trial, including the prosecution’s repeated requests for adjournment and refusal to share key materials with the defense, is further indication that the State lacks evidence of anything but Mr. Sowore’s peaceable political activism. In light of the above, the DSS and AGF’s pursuit of the case against Mr. Sowore breaches prosecutorial ethics, which mandate that that the State drop charges once it becomes apparent that the evidence is insufficient. The facts detailed above likewise give rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that the case is based on Mr. Sowore’s exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
Lastly, Mr. Sowore’s due process and fair trial rights have consistently been abused throughout the proceedings, breaching international and regional standards. Among other things, his pre-trial detention – at times in defiance of judicial orders to release him – was unlawful and arbitrary, and authorities denied him access to counsel while in custody. Meanwhile, Mr. Sowore’s criminal trial has been delayed for over a year, largely as a result of the prosecution’s aforementioned failure to comply with court directives to disclose key materials to defense counsel. The prosecution’s conduct in this regard has violated Mr. Sowore’s right to a trial without undue delay.
The delays in the proceedings are in themselves a form of punishment: Mr. Sowore’s bail conditions require him to remain in Abuja – separated from home and family in the United States – until the conclusion of the trial. Given the risk that the proceedings will be prolonged indefinitely, the Center is releasing this preliminary report on the most egregious completed violations to date. Based on the violations (described further below), the AGF should drop the charges against Mr. Sowore, or the Federal High Court of Nigeria should dismiss the case. At the very least, Mr. Sowore should be permitted to return to the United States for the lengthy periods between scheduled hearings.
Background
Omoyele Sowore is a journalist, former presidential candidate, and opposition critic. He is a U.S. permanent resident and lives in New Jersey with his wife and two children. Mr. Sowore founded Sahara Reporters, an investigative online news outlet that covers corruption and political misconduct in Nigeria. He ran as a candidate in the 2019 presidential elections, in which incumbent Muhammadu Buhari was re-elected. After observers documented what they described as “voting irregularities” and “electoral violence,”2 Mr. Sowore called for peaceful nationwide protests with the tagline #RevolutionNow. On August 2, 2019, he tweeted: “All that is needed for a #Revolution is for the oppressed to choose a date they desire for liberty, not subjected to the approval of the oppressor.”3 The demonstrations were scheduled for August 5.
On August 2, at approximately 11 p.m., state security services – the self-styled Department of Security Services (DSS)4 – stormed Mr. Sowore’s home and arrested him.5 The DSS did not have a warrant at the time of the arrest.6 According to defense counsel, agents “seriously hurt” Mr. Sowore’s arm and ankle in the course of the operation.7 On August 4, the DSS announced that Mr. Sowore had been arrested because his proposed revolution would “threaten public safety, peaceful co-existence and social harmony”.8
On August 5, the DSS – relying on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013 – filed an ex-parte application requesting that Mr. Sowore be detained for 90 days.9 On August 8, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted the application, although it only authorized detention for a period of 45 days.10 Notably, Mr. Sowore was not physically brought before a judge until August 8, exceeding the 48-hour time limit established by Nigerian law.11
On September 20, 48 days after Mr. Sowore’s arrest, the DSS filed criminal charges: seven counts total, including charges of treason, cyberstalking, and money laundering.12 Under Nigeria’s Police Act, police officers are empowered to conduct prosecutions – although the DSS is a security agency, it has understood itself to have similar powers.13 The same charges brought against Mr. Sowore were also brought against activist Olawale Bakare, who had joined Mr. Sowore in calls for a nationwide protest.14
On September 24, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of Mr. Sowore conditioned on the surrender of his passport15 (the court had declined to hear any challenge to the 45-day extension order until September 21, when the order expired).16 Although Mr. Sowore surrendered his passport, the DSS refused to release him.17 On September 30, while still detained, Mr. Sowore pled not guilty to all charges against him.18 On October 4, a second judge contradicted the first judge’s release order, setting a higher amount for bail – about 280,000 U.S. dollars (later reduced) – and conditioning release on Mr. Sowore refraining from speaking to the media, from protesting, and from leaving Abuja.19
On November 4, Mr. Sowore was able to make bail under these more stringent conditions and on November 6, the court issued an order stating: Mr. Sowore “has been Released.” For a second time, however, the DSS refused to release Mr. Sowore – as reported by the BBC, “lawyers and activists stormed the facility to take Sowore home but were met with stiff resistance by operatives, who said they had no clearance to let him go.”20 Notably, on October 26 of this year, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion on Mr. Sowore’s detention between his arrest in August and early December 2019, finding it arbitrary because of, among other things, the DSS’s defiance of release orders, violations of Mr. Sowore’s right to due process and a fair trial, and the apparent use of detention to retaliate against Mr. Sowore for his political activism.21
Mr. Sowore’s trial opened on November 6 before the Federal High Court in Abuja, with the DSS serving as the prosecution.22 The court adjourned the hearing because the prosecution had not disclosed witnesses’ written pretrial statements (akin to affidavits) to defense counsel.23 The Constitution of Nigeria entitles every person charged with a criminal offense to adequate time and facilities for preparation of a defense.24 In this regard, Nigeria’s Administration of Justice Act requires that the prosecution provide the defense with, among other things, its list of witnesses, summaries of witness statements, and any other document, report, or material that it plans to use in support of its case.25 In Mr. Sowore’s case, the court ruled that the rights afforded to the defense by the Constitution required the prosecution to share not only summaries of witness statements but the complete written statements (hereinafter “full witness statements”).26 The prosecution’s defiance of this directive would become a recurrent theme throughout the proceedings, to be discussed at length below.
On November 8, Mr. Sowore began a hunger strike to protest his continued detention, with demonstrators gathering outside DSS headquarters to demand his release.27 Four days later, DSS officers “deployed excessive and deadly force” against the demonstrators.28 The next hearing on December 5 was adjourned to December 6 because of the prosecution’s continued failure to provide full witness statements to the defense, with the court ordering the prosecution to pay 100,000 naira (about US$ 265) to the accused.29 At the hearing, the judge directed the DSS to release Mr. Sowore, stating that he had made bail.30 Although Mr. Sowore was finally released in the evening of December 5, his freedom was short-lived.31
On December 6, the prosecution had yet to share certain materials with the defense, including full witness statements.32 At the end of the hearing, which was adjourned to February 2020 to permit the prosecution to both secure the attendance of witnesses and serve witness statements on the defense, members of the DSS stormed the courtroom and re-arrested Mr. Sowore.33 Camera footage of the incident depicted agents forcefully subduing Mr. Sowore.34 In the wake of an international outcry,35 the AGF, Abubakar Malami, took over the prosecution of Mr. Sowore’s case from the DSS.36 Mr. Sowore was released from DSS custody on the orders of the AGF on December 24.37
At Mr. Sowore’s next hearing on February 12, 2020, the prosecution under the AGF informed the court that the AGF had taken over the matter.38 Due to delays in disclosure, the court ordered the prosecution to pay 200,000 naira (about US$ 526) to the accused.39 At the subsequent hearing on February 13, Mr. Sowore pled not guilty to the amended charges – the AGF reduced the number of counts from seven to two40 – treasonable felony (Section 41(a) of the Criminal Code Act) and conspiracy to commit treasonable felony (Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act).41 The trial, however, did not commence because the prosecution had again failed to deliver full witness statements and video evidence to the defense, contrary to previous judicial orders.42 At the next hearing on March 11, the court ordered the prosecution to call its first witness. When the witness began testifying beyond the written summary of the testimony that had been provided to the defense, the judge adjourned the hearing once again.43
Mr. Sowore’s criminal trial has been further delayed because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. His trial was scheduled to resume in October 2020 but did not because of COVID concerns: the court stated that it would be impossible to restrict social distancing measures because too many individuals had showed up to watch the proceedings.44 The trial resumed on December 11, 2020, with the completion of the examination of the witness who had started testifying on March 11.45 The court granted the prosecution’s motion for its remaining witnesses to be heard only in the presence of parties and accredited journalists and for their names to be excluded from the public record.46 The proceedings were adjourned to January 25, 2021.
Since his release from detention in December 2019, Mr. Sowore has been forced to remain in Abuja, where he does not have a home. He appealed his bail conditions on April 30, 2020. The first hearing, scheduled for June 3, was adjourned due to the government’s failure to file a response to Mr. Sowore’s brief.47 When Mr. Sowore’s lawyer arrived at court on the rescheduled date, July 8, he was informed that “the case was not listed and that the court would not be able to hear the case.”48 According to local media, a court official told defense counsel that “only election petition cases would be entertained.”49 On October 29, the court rejected Mr. Sowore’s appeal of his bail conditions on the grounds that Mr. Sowore had filed it jointly along with his co-accused, Olawale Bakare, finding: “in criminal cases, appeals are personal, and each defendant is required to file individual notice of appeal.”50
On November 19, 2019, in response to alleged violations committed by DSS, Mr. Sowore also filed a fundamental rights suit – which individuals can bring to enforce rights guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution (such as the right to liberty and the right to freedom of expression). Like his criminal trial and his appeal on bail conditions, Mr. Sowore’s case seeking redress has faced delays: the case was first adjourned on February 19, 2020,51 adjourned again on July 10 because the court refused to hear the case – despite it being on the day’s docket, and has subsequently yet to proceed.52 The case is now scheduled to be heard in February 2021.
Suppression of Speech
The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.53 The United Nations Human Rights Committee places a high value on “uninhibited expression”, particularly in “circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions.”54 Any restriction on freedom of expression must (i) be provided by law, such that individuals are able to regulate their conduct accordingly, (ii) pursue a legitimate aim, and (iii) be necessary and proportional.55 The only legitimate grounds for restricting freedom of expression are to preserve respect for the rights or reputation of others, to protect national security, to protect public order, to protect public health, and to protect public morals.56
When invoking one of these grounds to justify a restriction on freedom of expression, the State “must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”57 The U.N. Human Rights Committee has warned that restrictions in the name of national security or other ostensibly legitimate aims “may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights.”58
The African Charter imposes similar standards. In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (Declaration), reaffirming the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter.59 The Declaration sets forth a test identical to that established by the U.N. Human Rights Committee: that any limitation on speech must be “prescribed by law; serve a legitimate aim; and be a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the stated aim in a democratic society.”60 Legitimate aims are “to preserve respect for the rights or reputations of others; or to protect national security, public order or public health.”61 With respect to necessity and proportionality requirements, the Declaration asserts that any limitation on freedom of expression must “originate from a pressing and substantial need that is relevant and sufficient; must have a direct and immediate connection to the expression …, and be the least restrictive means of achieving the stated aim; and must be such that the benefit of protecting the stated interest outweighs the harm to the expression”.62 Lastly, in line with the legality principle outlined by the U.N. Human Rights Committee, laws that limit freedom of expression must be “clear, precise, accessible and foreseeable.”63
In the present case, the DSS stated to the press that it had arrested Mr. Sowore because his calls for revolution on social media would “threaten public safety, peaceful co-existence and social harmony”.64 The State further alleged in a court filing that the protest planned for August 5, 2019 “constituted a threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic in members of the public.”65
Although safeguarding national security is a legitimate ground for restricting expression, the DSS failed to establish a “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Sowore’s posts and the alleged threat, as required under necessity and proportionality standards. Mr. Sowore is a public figure whose run for president gained momentum on an anti-corruption platform. He launched the #RevolutionNow movement to call for “nationwide peaceful protest against political corruption and bad governance,”66 declaring that marches and rallies would continue “until we have the Nigeria of our dreams.”67 Mr. Sowore’s demands were consistently non-violent: in one television interview, he emphasized that his call for revolution was a call for substantial change, “not war.”68 He and his fellow organizers specifically forbade any form of violence ahead of the planned protest, as evidenced by a public code of conduct.69 The protest that did take place on August 5 was entirely peaceful. As the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded, “the reference to a revolution in Mr. Sowore’s discourse was not sufficient to categorize his call as other than a peaceful protest.”70
Meanwhile, in the course of the proceedings thus far, the State has yet to put forth evidence linking Mr. Sowore’s #RevolutionNow platform with imminent unrest and violence. The one witness who has testified, DSS officer Rasheed Olawale, stated merely that he had been involved in the arrest of Mr. Sowore and had received intelligence reports that Mr. Sowore was planning to overthrow the government.71 No further specifics were provided. Mr. Olawale acknowledged that the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations were not violent and had in fact not resulted in a revolution.72
Given the evidence that Mr. Sowore’s arrest, detention, and subsequent criminal prosecution were based solely on his comments regarding the need for a peaceful revolution, his right to freedom of expression was violated.
Suppression of Peaceful Assembly
Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter protect the right to peaceful assembly. As stated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the right to peaceful assembly is a “fundamental human right,” which “entails the possibility of organizing and participating in a peaceful assembly … in a public location.”73 No restriction of this right is permissible “unless it is (a) imposed in conformity with the law; and (b) necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”74
According to the Committee, Article 21 requires States to abstain from “unwarranted interference with peaceful assemblies.”75 The provision not only “protects participants while and where an assembly is ongoing but … extends to actions such as participants’ or organizers’ mobilization of resources; planning; dissemination of information about an upcoming event; preparation for and travelling to the event; communication between participants leading up to and during the assembly” – in essence, to activities “associated” with the assembly.76 Under the ICCPR, States are prohibited from treating assemblies in a discriminatory manner, including where they break up or otherwise restrict assembly on the basis of political opinion.77
The African Charter likewise prohibits restrictions of assembly on discriminatory grounds. The Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, assert: “the state shall not discriminate against assemblies on the basis of other illegitimate grounds, including s**, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, migration status, property, socio-economic status, birth, disability, age, sexual orientation or gender identity.”78 As noted by the Commission, “any limitations imposed shall be in accordance with the principle of legality, have a legitimate public purpose, and be necessary and proportionate means of achieving that purpose within a democratic society.”79 The Commission has also emphasized that “an assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have expressed peaceful intentions, and if the conduct of the assembly participants is generally peaceful.”80
In the present case, the Nigerian authorities impermissibly restricted Mr. Sowore’s right to peaceful assembly. Mr. Sowore organized the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstration; his activities in so doing fell under the protection of Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter. As detailed above, the State failed to demonstrate that its intervention was necessary to prevent unrest and violence. Moreover, arresting and detaining Mr. Sowore for months – an extreme incursion on his right to liberty, as well as his right to peaceful assembly – was not the least restrictive measure the State could have employed, in contravention of the proportionality requirement.
On the whole, it appears that the State took action against Mr. Sowore because the demonstration was at odds with the Buhari government’s agenda. This type of discriminatory intervention violates Article 21 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the African Charter.
Arbitrary Detention
Detention Without Justification
Under Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, “everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.” Article 6 of the African Charter contains parallel guarantees.81 The United Nations Human Rights Committee has noted that the concept of “arbitrariness” must be “interpreted broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”.82 Not only should pretrial detention be the exception and as short as possible, but detention must be “lawful” (in accordance with domestic law) and “reasonable and necessary in all circumstances.”83 This means that pretrial detention is appropriate for only a limited number of purposes – namely, to prevent flight, interference with evidence, and the recurrence of crime.84 Furthermore, pretrial detention must be an individualized determinization that takes into account all the circumstances of the case.85 Courts should favor the liberty of the accused to minimize the risk that an innocent person serves a sentence prior to acquittal.
Article 6 of the African Charter imposes similar requirements. According to the African Commission, detention must be a “last resort and should only be used where necessary and where no other alternatives are available”86 and “standard operating procedures shall promote the use of alternatives” to detention.87 The African Commission’s Luanda Guidelines require that there be “reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has been involved in the commission of a criminal offence that carries a custodial sentence,” and a showing that “there is a danger that he or she will abscond, commit further serious offences or if there is a danger that the release of the accused will not be in the interests of justice.”88
Because pretrial detention must be an individualized decision based on review of the reasonableness and necessity of detention pending trial, overly broad, vague, and expansive standards such as “public security” are insufficient justification for detention.89 Correspondingly, that a defendant is a foreigner is not sufficient to establish likelihood of flight.90 As the Human Rights Committee has explained, “the mere fact that the accused is a foreigner does not of itself imply that he may be held in detention pending trial.”91 A State must substantiate any concern of flight and explain “why it could not be addressed by setting an appropriate sum of bail.”92
Throughout Mr. Sowore’s detention, DSS never provided adequate justification as to why detaining Mr. Sowore was “reasonable and necessary.” With respect to its ex-parte application to hold Mr. Sowore for 90 days pending formal charges, the DSS argued that detention was warranted because the agency still investigating his alleged crimes.93 The court approved detention for 45 days on this basis (from August 8 to September 21). Standing alone, completion of an investigation is not a permissible rationale for deprivation of liberty, rendering Mr. Sowore’s detention during this period arbitrary. Correspondingly, that Mr. Sowore is a permanent resident of the United States was not sufficient justification for holding him in custody. As such, the court’s granting of the DSS’s application contravened the requirements that it must favor an accused’s liberty and treat detention as an exception.
Finally, from September 26 to October 4, November 6 to December 5, and December 6 to December 24, the DSS kept Mr. Sowore in custody in the face of judicial orders that he be released (as detailed at more length below), meaning that his detention was without legal basis and thereby arbitrary.
Defiance of Orders of Release
The DSS violated Mr. Sowore’s right to freedom from arbitrary detention by continuing to detain him in the face of multiple judicial orders for his release.
In Moriana Hernandez Valenina de Bazzano v. Uruguay, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 9(1) where the applicant was “kept in custody in spite of a judicial order of release.”94 Similarly, in its opinion on Mr. Sowore’s case, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention emphasized: “any time an order for release, even for release on bail, is made and the detainee is not released, the subsequent detention becomes without legal ground. Maintaining a person in detention after release has been ordered by a court competent to exercise control over the legality of detention is a manifest violation of … article 9 of the Covenant and renders the detention arbitrary, because it lacks legal basis.”95
As noted above, on September 24, 2019, after the 45-day detention order had expired, a Federal High Court judge granted Mr. Sowore bail, ordering his immediate release on the condition that he surrender his passport. Although Mr. Sowore met this condition on September 26 and the court directed the DSS to comply with its order, the DSS refused to release him.96 Subsequently, on October 4, notwithstanding the fact that the first judicial decision on bail had not been amended or overturned, 97 a second judge set a higher bail amount. On October 21, the same judge reduced the bail amount. On November 6, after Mr. Sowore made bail, the judge signed an order for his release from custody. The DSS, however, still refused to free Mr. Sowore. He remained detained until the start of his trial on December 5, when the presiding judge again ordered that Mr. Sowore be released. Mr. Sowore was released that evening.
Between September 25 and October 4, and November 6 and December 5, the DSS held Mr. Sowore in defiance of court edicts and without legal ground: his detention during this time was thus arbitrary.
At the conclusion of Mr. Sowore’s hearing on December 6, the day after he was released, DSS agents stormed the court and violently re-arrested him. Again, this intervention was in defiance of court orders and lacked legal basis. Mr. Sowore remained unlawfully – and therefore arbitrarily – detained for another 18 days, until the DSS finally released him on December 24 on the orders of the AGF.
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Resulting from the Exercise of Rights
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has underscored that “arrest or detention as punishment for the legitimate exercise of the rights as guaranteed by the Covenant is arbitrary, including freedom of opinion and expression.”98 The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention likewise regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary when it “results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms” guaranteed by the ICCPR.99
As noted above, after gaining a sizeable following during his campaign for president, Mr. Sowore began calling for a peaceful revolution via social media. On August 2, the day of his arrest, Mr. Sowore posted a tweet that read: “All that is needed for a #Revolution is for the oppressed to choose a date they desire for liberty, not subjected to the approval of the oppressor.” Later that evening, DSS agents arrested him at his house. Mr. Sowore’s demands, however, were consistently peaceful. As noted above, he had explicitly proclaimed that his call for revolution was peaceful and forbade any violence. The protest that did take place on August 5 was entirely peaceful. On this basis, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Mr. Sowore’s “arrest and detention were designed to sanction him” for exercising his rights to “freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly, and also to participate in the public affairs in his country.”100
The subsequent conduct of the proceedings has only reinforced the correctness of this opinion: the charge sheet fails to set forth facts showing that Mr. Sowore ever called for anything but a peaceful revolution; the allegations against Mr. Sowore have continually shifted, likewise indicating that there is no evidence of criminal behavior; and the prosecution has continually requested adjournments in lieu of producing and/or disclosing such evidence.
The above gives rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Sowore’s arrest and detention were entirely based on his #RevolutionNow platform. Calls for peaceful protests, however, constitute a legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms and do not a criminal case make. Mr. Sowore’s arrest and detention were therefore arbitrary.
Denial of Access to Counsel
Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR guarantees accused persons the right to “communicate with counsel of their own choosing.” Defendants must be granted “prompt access to counsel”101 at all stages of criminal proceedings, including during the initial detention period. In Kelly v. Jamaica, for example, the U.N. Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 14(3)(b) where police officers ignored the complainant’s request to speak to a lawyer for the first five days he was in custody.102 A violation of Article 14(3)(b) was also found in Lyashkevich v Uzbekistan, where the complainant was interrogated without “access to the legal counsel of his choice.”103
Like the ICCPR, Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter provides for the right to defense, which includes access to counsel. The African Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa affirm the right to counsel at all stages of a criminal prosecution: according to the African Commission, “this right begins when the accused is first detained or charged.”104
Throughout Mr. Sowore’s detention, State authorities repeatedly obstructed counsel’s efforts to undertake representation. International and local organizations reported that Mr. Sowore was denied access to a lawyer during his first several days in custody.105 At Mr. Sowore’s trial hearing on November 6, defense counsel stated that the DSS had blocked them from meeting with Mr. Sowore “over 10 times” in the months leading up to the start of trial.106 In yet another instance, defense counsel’s request to meet with Mr. Sowore on December 4 – to review evidence shared by the prosecution earlier that day – was ignored by the DSS.107 Subsequently, Mr. Sowore had no opportunity to meet with his lawyers ahead of his trial hearing on December 5.108
The State’s continuous denial of Mr. Sowore’s access to his lawyers, including at key points in the proceedings, contravened Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.
Undue Delay
The ICCPR and African Charter entitle individuals charged with criminal offenses to be tried without undue delay.109 The calculus as to what constitutes a “reasonable time” between arrest and the conclusion of proceedings entails consideration of factors such as the “complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the administrative and judicial authorities.”110 States carry a heightened burden to expedite proceedings in cases where defendants are detained.111
While the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted judicial proceedings in Nigeria and elsewhere, many of the lags in Mr. Sowore’s trial clearly stem from the actions (and inaction) of State authorities. Mr. Sowore was initially held in detention for 48 days before being formally charged. When his trial started, the prosecution’s failure to conduct disclosure caused delays of approximately five months. At the first hearing on November 6, the court adjourned the proceedings because the prosecution had not shared key documents, including full witness statements, with defense counsel.112
The court ordered the prosecution to share full witness statements, video evidence, and other relevant materials prior to the next trial date, December 5.113 Despite the court’s directive, the prosecution waited until December 4, the day before the hearing, to disclose any materials to the defense, leaving counsel with little time to prepare.114 The prosecution further failed to share the full witness statements.115 The judge found the prosecution’s actions so egregious that she awarded the accused 100,000 naira, to be paid by the prosecution, and ordered the prosecution to share the statements before the following hearing.116 At the next day’s hearing on December 6, the prosecution had still yet to share the statements: the prosecutor averred that they were in the possession of absent witnesses and no further explanation was provided.117 As a result, the court postponed the trial to February 2020.118 At the February 12 and 13 hearings, the court was again forced to reschedule proceedings because the prosecution – now under the AGF – had yet to share the full witness statements. The court thereby ordered the prosecution to pay the accused 200,000 naira.119 The next hearing on March 11 was postponed in part because of the prosecution’s failure to comply with the court’s order.
Since that date, the COVID-19 pandemic has further delayed Mr. Sowore’s trial: all judicial activities in Nigeria were suspended in late March, only resuming in August.120 Mr. Sowore’s trial, however, has only just begun. As noted above, at the hearing scheduled for October 22 the court stated that it could not proceed because of the number of people in attendance. It did not explain, however, why it had not planned for this likely eventuality given public interest in the case, either through using a larger courtroom or livestreaming the proceedings. The trial subsequently resumed on December 11 with the completion of the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness. Proceedings have been adjourned to January 25, 2021, which will be almost a year and a half since Mr. Sowore’s arrest in August 2019.
Throughout this period, the State has been under a heightened obligation to try Mr. Sowore without undue delay. This burden was initially in place due to Mr. Sowore’s months-long detention, as when accused are detained, the State must expedite the proceedings. This burden persists because of the restrictive bail conditions: Mr. Sowore is required to remain in Abuja until the conclusion of his trial. As Mr. Sowore’s home is in New Jersey, he has been prevented from seeing his family for more than a year. The de facto confinement of Mr. Sowore in Abuja (what his lawyers call “Abuja prison”121) underscores the State’s responsibility to mitigate delays.
In light of the factors deemed relevant by the U.N. Human Rights Committee and the African Commission and Court, the prolonged nature of the proceedings thus far violates Mr. Sowore’s right to trial without undue delay.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
In addition to violating Mr. Sowore’s rights, the pattern of behavior described above breaches best practices on prosecutorial ethics. Under the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, prosecutors in criminal proceedings must “not initiate or continue prosecution,” or should “make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charges to be unfounded.”122 Guidelines produced by the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP Guidelines), which complement the U.N. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, require prosecutors to proceed in criminal cases “only when a case is well-founded upon evidence reasonably believed to be reliable and admissible,” and to “not continue with a prosecution in the absence of such evidence.”123
The African Commission’s Fair Trial Principles outline similar standards: “prosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded.”124
The totality of facts suggests that prosecutors never had reliable and admissible evidence that Mr. Sowore had committed a criminal offense. First, Mr. Sowore had explicitly stated that his calls for revolution were non-violent and had created a code of conduct forbidding violence at the August 5 #RevolutionNow demonstrations. Indeed, the protest held on August 5 was entirely peaceful. Second, Mr. Sowore was not notified of the reasons for, or legal basis of, his arrest at the time it occurred.125 In the DSS’s public statement about the arrest on August 4, it vaguely referenced threats of disorder and tumult but did not specify any applicable legislation.126 Third, following Mr. Sowore’s arrest the DSS sought an ex parte order of detention on the basis of an anti-terrorism statute, arguing that Mr. Sowore should be detained so as to enable further investigation. When Mr. Sowore was charged 48 days later, the offenses alleged were unrelated to the anti-terrorism statute; this shift suggests that the statute was but a vehicle for the DSS to continue detaining Mr. Sowore until it could figure out what charges to bring. Fourth, eight months into the proceedings (after the AGF assumed control), the prosecution dropped five of the seven charges without explanation. Notably, the amended charge sheet, which contains the two remaining counts of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, does not provide any facts to support the allegation that Mr. Sowore had sought to overthrow the government by unlawful means. Fifth, the conduct of the trial, including the prosecution’s repeated requests for adjournment and failure to disclose the requisite materials to the defense, indicates that the State – initially under the DSS and subsequently under the AGF – lacked sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges.
As noted above, the dearth of proof of criminal behavior not only indicates prosecutorial misconduct but also gives rise to a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Sowore was arrested, detained, and prosecuted so as to suppress his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
Conclusion
It appears that the prosecution never possessed sufficient evidence on which to predicate a criminal case against Mr. Sowore. Calls for peaceful protest do not constitute treason. The proceedings have violated – and continue to violate – Mr. Sowore’s right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of assembly, and right to trial without undue delay, as well as best practices in prosecutorial ethics. The AGF should withdraw the charges or, alternatively, the Federal High Court should dismiss the case. At the very least, the court should allow Mr. Sowore to return to the United States and reunite with his family pending resumption of his trial on January 25.

ACTIVISM

Human Rights

International

Legal

News

AddThis

Featured Image

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

#ENDSARS: Abba Kyari Men Shot Suspect, Left Him To Die In Custody, Lawyer Says

DCP Abba Kyari
Rapheal Tersoo

Moses Mfe, a robbery suspect, was shot by the police during arrest and left to die with the injury without any treatment at the police custody, according to a lawyer Micheal Utsaha who presented the case on Thursday at the ongoing independent investigative panel on SARS and other units of police in Abuja.
Utsaha told the panel that the murder was committed by Abba Kyari-led IGP Intelligence Response Team who arrested the suspect in November 2019 in Markudi, Benue State on suspicion of conspiracy and armed robbery.

DCP Abba Kyari

He said the suspect died slowly and painfully with the gunshot injuries without medical treatment.
Utsaha said late Mfe was arrested alongside his friend Raphael Tersoo by the police team at different locations in the state, adding that he once visited the two suspects at the Suleja correctional centre.

Rapheal Tersoo

He said that the police had refused to disclose the news of the suspect’s death to his family until the matter was brought before the panel where police admitted that the suspects died in the cell.
Utsaha told the panel that the second suspect had since been in detention and had not been charged to the court.He said an order of the court was obtained to move suspects from police detention to prison when SARS was disbanded.Following the fear and concerns expressed by the lawyer over the status and well-being of the second suspect, chairman of the panel, Suleiman Galadima, ordered the police to produce the suspect before the panel as the matter was stood down for two hours.Upon the arrival of the suspect at the panel and having satisfied that he was still alive, the chairman ordered the police to arraign him before a court of competent jurisdiction in Makurdi where the alleged offence was committed by next Wednesday.Galadima said the bail would be considered by the court and adjourned the matter to March next year.Deputy commissioner of police and leader of the Inspector-General of Police’s Intelligence Response Team, Abba Kyari, was represented by inspector Mohammed Seidu while inspector Vincent Makinde who arrested the suspects was absent.

#EndSARS

Human Rights

Police

News

AddThis

Original Author

SaharaReporters, New York

Disable advertisements

E2%80%A6-revelation-deeper-rots-karl-ogumah Kankara…A Revelation Of Deeper Rots! By Karl Ogumah

Karl Ogumah

Ignore the show of national disgrace and glorification of debasement on the entire events before and after surrounding the kidnap and the whole shenanigans of negotiation and so-called rescue of the KANKARA school boys.
Apart from the degenerate celebration of a compromised and conquered state displaced by the Katsina state government and the presidency, the kidnap of over 333 students from one school, revealed the sorry state of our security architecture! That in a state where there is an existence of over 5,000 security personnel which includes DSS , Custom, Police , Army, Airforce, NCDC etc who on monthly basis collect salaries, nobody was able to get any clue about the attack! That some ramshackle, ragtag boro-haram guys can just walk into a state where the president of the country was even present( The president is on sabbaticals in katsina at the moment) and carry away that number of students dwarf all known logic!
More painful is even that after the kidnap all the security apparatus were helpless until the Katsina state government consulted the service of experts on negotiation – the Miyatti Allah who swiftly launched his arsenals and got the boys released overnight! What a powerful Miyatti Allah!
Every day as a people, we are treated by the clowns in government as if we are as daft as they are! In a not too distant history, we saw the havoc committed by members of the same Miyatti Allah members in the country particularly the massive sacking of villages. I see a grand design to present the Miyatti Allah as a saintly organization where the obvious fact is to the contrary!
Again, how did the Katsina state government knew that the organization could help release the boys? To the blind, it’s now even lucid that our initial fears that Miyatti Allah has a link with boro-haram a terrorist organization is now validated!

Karl Ogumah

More importantly, the entire shameful events that unfold in katsina revealed more in terms of the wack and terrible education those children are exposed to. From the video footages we see, none of the children could speak decent and simple English! Year in year out, the government of katsina state budget millions of naira to education. It’s now clear that the monies are either misapplied or embezzled outrightly! For if what we see is a standard, I am afraid it’s complete failure.
Another more damning revelation from the kankara release yesterday is that the president of the country who incidentally is from katsina state and even currently in the state does not know or aware of the process that led to their release! While the State government and other principal officers revealed that it was through the intervention of the Miyatti Allah organization in the negotiation that led to the release of the boys (even though we are not unaware that millions of naira must have changed hands) , the president was seen a video congratulating the wrong people. He said “ I congratulate the Army for organizing the operation and ‘sackriment’ of the abductors and getting the children…the military is well trained and motivated”.
The above revelations tells us more about how degenerate and pathetic the entire situation is currently! In a 21st century, we should not be tormented by these kind of abysmal leadership!

Opinion

AddThis

Original Author

Karl Ogumah

Disable advertisements

Nigeria News Headlines Today

Nigeria News Today Headlines Update

Sahara Reporters Latest News Today Saturday 19th December 2020

Sahara Reporters Latest News Today Saturday 19th December 2020

Amotekun Officers Open Fire In Oyo, Two Killed, Scores Injured

E2%80%94garba-shehu I’m Sorry For Saying Only 10 Students Were Kidnapped—Garba Shehu

E2%80%94buhari Efforts Of Service Chiefs Not Good Enough—Buhari

Gridlock As Petrol Tanker Explodes In Ibadan

E2%80%94-lai-mohammed Why Buhari Did Not Visit Kankara— Lai Mohammed

Obiano Dethrones Three Traditional Rulers, Reinstates Five Others

NIMC Unveils 15 Centres Abroad For National Identity Number Registration

American Bar Association Documents AGF Malami, DSS Prosecutorial Misconduct And Plots To Silence Sowore

#ENDSARS: Abba Kyari Men Shot Suspect, Left Him To Die In Custody, Lawyer Says

E2%80%A6-revelation-deeper-rots-karl-ogumah Kankara…A Revelation Of Deeper Rots! By Karl Ogumah