Gen. Boroh sent to tackled Niger Delta Avengers
His comments come as government sources revealed plans for a negotiator to travel to the creeks of the Niger Delta to hold peace talks with aggrieved individuals and groups to the recent spate of attacks.
Although the federal government is not dangling a fresh amnesty for the militants, Gen. Boroh explained that the aim of any negotiations is persuading the militants to stop further assaults on oil facilities and security agencies to prevent a government crackdown.
“The whole aim of my relocation to the Niger Delta creeks is to enable me to identify the aggrieved individuals and groups and hold extensive discussions with them on the need to keep the peace since the government is working hard to put things right in the Niger Delta and other parts of Nigeria,” Gen. Boroh said.
“From available records, the Federal Government has not reneged on its amnesty package to the region and is working hard to improve the infrastructural needs of the Niger Delta, one of them being the Calabar-Lagos Coastal Railway which is already captured in this year’s budget.
“I therefore feel that is wrong for any individual or group to begin to launch attacks on oil installations and military personnel under the guise of fighting the Federal Government. Those who are perpetrating the crime should not that the government will not reward them for that act of destruction.”To this end, Boroh has asked those involved in the renewed acts of economic sabotage against Nigeria to desist or be ready for the consequences.
Boroh drew the attention of those pressing for a new amnesty for the militants that the federal government had consistently kept faith with the implementation of the amnesty it declared on June 25, 2009.
“There is no plan to go back on the Amnesty Programme of the federal government and all men of goodwill in the Niger Delta should do all they can to support President Muhammadu Buhari’s peace and development effort in the region,” he said.
“Let it be made known that no amnesty programme lasts forever and that the one in the Niger Delta cannot be elastic.”
“Any individual or group that engages in criminal destruction of economic facilities in the Niger Delta under the guise of militancy should understand that there are dire consequences for such acts and that the law enforcement agents will not fold their hands and watch them do so.”
The Presidential adviser said that all those who were captured under the Presidential Amnesty Programme were being paid their wages monthly while those undergoing training were also being catered for and asked those causing trouble to sheath their sword.
Gen. Boroh served the Nigerian government as an adviser on amnesty issues in Sierra Leone and Liberia under the auspices of the UN and other international organisations.
Breaking News: A-Court
dismisses Kanu, others appeal
On May 25, 201611:38 amIn NewsComments
22
0
0
0
……….declines defendants’ plea for bail
By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA—–The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed the
appeal that was lodged before it by the detained leader of the
Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin
Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they
termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial before the Federal
High Court in Abuja.
The trio who are answering to a six-count treason charge the federal
government preferred against them, in their consolidated appeal, alleged
bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only declined to grant
them bail, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of
eight witnesses billed to testify in the matter.
Justice Tsoho had equally rejected application praying him to discharge
and acquit the three defendants in line with section 351(1) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Meantime, in a unanimous judgment on Wednesday, a three-man panel of
Justices of the appellate court led by Justice Abdul Aboki, dismissed th
defendants’ appeal as “grossly lacking in merit”.
The appellate court further declined to order the release of the
defendants on bail on the premise that allegations against them are
“grievous and serious”.
Justice Aboki who read the lead judgment, said it was not in doubt the
1st defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship.
He said Kanu’s possession of both Nigerian and British passports
increased the likelihood that he could jump bail if released from
detention.
On the procedure adopted by the trial court, the appeal court panel
maintained that Justice Tsoho had the discretion to decide how the
proceeding should be conducted.
“The lower court has the power to exercise its discretion on the matter
and the exercise of such discretion by the trial judge did not amount to
denial of fair hearing to the defendants.
“The issues are resolved against the appellants. Ruling of the trial
court is hereby upheld”, the appellate court held.
Basically, Kanu and his co-defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks
Muoma, SAN, argued before the appellate court that trial Justice Tsoho
erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of
the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19,
2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March
7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”.
They maintained that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere
oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mohammed
Diri, who had informed the trial court that witnesses scheduled to
testify against the defendants said they would not appear unless they
were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both
lawyers and people observing the proceeding.
“My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from
associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses
said they love their lives and requested that their identities be
shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding”, Diri
told the court.
He said DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made
similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases
and would not want their identities exposed.
Following his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the
witnesses to testify behind a screen, stressing that the decision did
not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the
witnesses from appearing in mask.
The three defendants had earlier opposed FG’s application for secret
trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing
”masquerades” to testify against them.
Though Justice Tsoho maintained that the subsequent order he made in
respect of the trial was in tandem with his ruling on February 9 that
rejected secret trial of the defendants, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN,
yesterday, urged the appellate court to set aside “the revised order
for the identities of the witnesses to be protected”.
Muoma, SAN, argued that the trial court had become functus-officio on
the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the
prosecution.
It was his argument that FG ought to have appealed against the initial
ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar
application.
He prayed the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal
High Court to transfer their case-file to another Judge for trial.
Nevertheless, FG, in a counter-affidavit it filed before the appellate
court, sought the dismissal of the appeal which it said lacked merit.
The DPP argued that the March 7 order of the high court did not amount
to a variation of the February 9 ruling.
FG insisted that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by
Justice Tsoho to warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another
Judge. It opposed their request to be released on bail.
Besides, FG accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous
interlocutory appeals to delay their trial.
Kanu who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television,
has been in detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by
security operatives upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the
United Kingdom.
The defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an
offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
FG alleged that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB
which it described as “an unlawful society”.
Kanu was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into
Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the
“secession of the Republic of Biafra”, from Nigeria.
The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January
20, even as the court ordered their remand at Kuje prison in Abuja.
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/05/breaking-biafra-a-court-dismisses-kanu-others-appeal/
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/05/breaking-biafra-a-court-dismisses-kanu-others-appeal/
Breaking News: A-Court
dismisses Kanu, others appeal
On May 25, 201611:38 amIn NewsComments
22
0
0
0
……….declines defendants’ plea for bail
By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA—–The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed the
appeal that was lodged before it by the detained leader of the
Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin
Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they
termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial before the Federal
High Court in Abuja.
The trio who are answering to a six-count treason charge the federal
government preferred against them, in their consolidated appeal, alleged
bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only declined to grant
them bail, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of
eight witnesses billed to testify in the matter.
Justice Tsoho had equally rejected application praying him to discharge
and acquit the three defendants in line with section 351(1) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Meantime, in a unanimous judgment on Wednesday, a three-man panel of
Justices of the appellate court led by Justice Abdul Aboki, dismissed th
defendants’ appeal as “grossly lacking in merit”.
The appellate court further declined to order the release of the
defendants on bail on the premise that allegations against them are
“grievous and serious”.
Justice Aboki who read the lead judgment, said it was not in doubt the
1st defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship.
He said Kanu’s possession of both Nigerian and British passports
increased the likelihood that he could jump bail if released from
detention.
On the procedure adopted by the trial court, the appeal court panel
maintained that Justice Tsoho had the discretion to decide how the
proceeding should be conducted.
“The lower court has the power to exercise its discretion on the matter
and the exercise of such discretion by the trial judge did not amount to
denial of fair hearing to the defendants.
“The issues are resolved against the appellants. Ruling of the trial
court is hereby upheld”, the appellate court held.
Basically, Kanu and his co-defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks
Muoma, SAN, argued before the appellate court that trial Justice Tsoho
erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of
the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19,
2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March
7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”.
They maintained that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere
oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mohammed
Diri, who had informed the trial court that witnesses scheduled to
testify against the defendants said they would not appear unless they
were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both
lawyers and people observing the proceeding.
“My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from
associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses
said they love their lives and requested that their identities be
shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding”, Diri
told the court.
He said DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made
similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases
and would not want their identities exposed.
Following his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the
witnesses to testify behind a screen, stressing that the decision did
not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the
witnesses from appearing in mask.
The three defendants had earlier opposed FG’s application for secret
trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing
”masquerades” to testify against them.
Though Justice Tsoho maintained that the subsequent order he made in
respect of the trial was in tandem with his ruling on February 9 that
rejected secret trial of the defendants, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN,
yesterday, urged the appellate court to set aside “the revised order
for the identities of the witnesses to be protected”.
Muoma, SAN, argued that the trial court had become functus-officio on
the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the
prosecution.
It was his argument that FG ought to have appealed against the initial
ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar
application.
He prayed the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal
High Court to transfer their case-file to another Judge for trial.
Nevertheless, FG, in a counter-affidavit it filed before the appellate
court, sought the dismissal of the appeal which it said lacked merit.
The DPP argued that the March 7 order of the high court did not amount
to a variation of the February 9 ruling.
FG insisted that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by
Justice Tsoho to warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another
Judge. It opposed their request to be released on bail.
Besides, FG accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous
interlocutory appeals to delay their trial.
Kanu who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television,
has been in detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by
security operatives upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the
United Kingdom.
The defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an
offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
FG alleged that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB
which it described as “an unlawful society”.
Kanu was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into
Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the
“secession of the Republic of Biafra”, from Nigeria.
The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January
20, even as the court ordered their remand at Kuje prison in Abuja.
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/05/breaking-biafra-a-court-dismisses-kanu-others-appeal/
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/05/breaking-biafra-a-court-dismisses-kanu-others-appeal/
Breaking News: A-Court
dismisses Kanu, others appeal
On May 25, 201611:38 amIn NewsComments
22
0
0
0
……….declines defendants’ plea for bail
By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA—–The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed the
appeal that was lodged before it by the detained leader of the
Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin
Madubugwu, had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they
termed “strange procedure” adopted in their trial before the Federal
High Court in Abuja.
The trio who are answering to a six-count treason charge the federal
government preferred against them, in their consolidated appeal, alleged
bias against trial Justice John Tsoho who not only declined to grant
them bail, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of
eight witnesses billed to testify in the matter.
Justice Tsoho had equally rejected application praying him to discharge
and acquit the three defendants in line with section 351(1) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Meantime, in a unanimous judgment on Wednesday, a three-man panel of
Justices of the appellate court led by Justice Abdul Aboki, dismissed th
defendants’ appeal as “grossly lacking in merit”.
The appellate court further declined to order the release of the
defendants on bail on the premise that allegations against them are
“grievous and serious”.
Justice Aboki who read the lead judgment, said it was not in doubt the
1st defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship.
He said Kanu’s possession of both Nigerian and British passports
increased the likelihood that he could jump bail if released from
detention.
On the procedure adopted by the trial court, the appeal court panel
maintained that Justice Tsoho had the discretion to decide how the
proceeding should be conducted.
“The lower court has the power to exercise its discretion on the matter
and the exercise of such discretion by the trial judge did not amount to
denial of fair hearing to the defendants.
“The issues are resolved against the appellants. Ruling of the trial
court is hereby upheld”, the appellate court held.
Basically, Kanu and his co-defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks
Muoma, SAN, argued before the appellate court that trial Justice Tsoho
erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of
the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19,
2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March
7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”.
They maintained that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere
oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mohammed
Diri, who had informed the trial court that witnesses scheduled to
testify against the defendants said they would not appear unless they
were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both
lawyers and people observing the proceeding.
“My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from
associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses
said they love their lives and requested that their identities be
shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding”, Diri
told the court.
He said DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made
similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases
and would not want their identities exposed.
Following his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the
witnesses to testify behind a screen, stressing that the decision did
not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the
witnesses from appearing in mask.
The three defendants had earlier opposed FG’s application for secret
trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing
”masquerades” to testify against them.
Though Justice Tsoho maintained that the subsequent order he made in
respect of the trial was in tandem with his ruling on February 9 that
rejected secret trial of the defendants, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN,
yesterday, urged the appellate court to set aside “the revised order
for the identities of the witnesses to be protected”.
Muoma, SAN, argued that the trial court had become functus-officio on
the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the
prosecution.
It was his argument that FG ought to have appealed against the initial
ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar
application.
He prayed the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal
High Court to transfer their case-file to another Judge for trial.
Nevertheless, FG, in a counter-affidavit it filed before the appellate
court, sought the dismissal of the appeal which it said lacked merit.
The DPP argued that the March 7 order of the high court did not amount
to a variation of the February 9 ruling.
FG insisted that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by
Justice Tsoho to warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another
Judge. It opposed their request to be released on bail.
Besides, FG accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous
interlocutory appeals to delay their trial.
Kanu who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television,
has been in detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by
security operatives upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the
United Kingdom.
The defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an
offence punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
FG alleged that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB
which it described as “an unlawful society”.
Kanu was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into
Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the
“secession of the Republic of Biafra”, from Nigeria.
The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January
20, even as the court ordered their remand at Kuje prison in Abuja.
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/05/breaking-biafra-a-court-dismisses-kanu-others-appeal/
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/05/breaking-biafra-a-court-dismisses-kanu-others-appeal/
No comments