BIAFRA: RULING; DOES IPOB AS A LAWFUL SOCIETY PUT AN END TO NNAMDI KANU’S CASE WITH FG?
By Ifeanyi Chijioke | Writes for TBP
March 4, 2017
On 1st of March; Federal High Court Abuja presided over by Justice Binta Nyako took a bold step after a long period of time to put to rest the tag that IPOB is an unlawful society. The federal government has deliberately shot to kill; arrest, kidnap aimed at forcing the Indigenous People of Biafra to disappear. They have mostly perpetrated these crimes on the basis that IPOB is an unlawful organization seeking for self determination but in their vile manner, they say “Seeking to divide Nigeria”. The ruling that IPOB is not unlawful society puts Nigerian government to tight corner that they must diplomatically or politically address the aim or purpose of the society. It is therefore time to shield the sword; withdraw the military, release Nnamd Kanu and stop guns from talking.
If the Federal High Court made the ruling which was in company of the quashed six charges to enable them decisively handle this matter to their illegal aim, then it is very clear that they have shot their selves on the legs. The ruling made on 1st of March declaring that IPOB is not an unlawful society is a fundamental issue. For IPOB to have gained the satisfaction of the trial Judge to be declared lawful means IPOB has abstained from illegal activities. If IPOB is declared lawful society; it must have lived up the demands or possessed the ingredients needed to be lawful. This is where the Trial Judge nailed the matter; for if IPOB has been found wanting or in any unlawful activities; then the ruling was impossible because it would amount to clearing it of every issue before the Court. But as the case appears; further trial opposes the ruling (IPOB a lawful society) which was borne out of clear assessment of the society, if the society is lawful, what then will be established as unlawful in the purported trial?.
I am yet to observe why some charges were not quashed alongside other charges because it is a gross contradiction for a people fundamentally declared lawful to suddenly or continue to stand trial for (unlawful) treasonable felony. It is most contradicting that an organization declared lawful at the same time is tried on particularly treasonable felony- an organization involved in treasonable felony cannot be lawful at the same time- unless the Judge in question is not true to herself. If IPOB is to be tried of treasonable felony; then there is no way it should or can be declared lawful. Recall that treasonable felony is a crime involving groups and strictly considered unlawful groups. Treasonable felony should be entirely quashed because it has no basis in this very situation should we be consistent with the ruling.
If conspiracy is attainable then IPOB as declared not unlawful by the Judge is inconsistent; the fundamental thing the prosecution had fought for was to avoid or argued that IPOB is not a lawful society by virtue of the conspiracy it was found involved or the treasonable felony. The major reason a Prima Facie could not be established and why IPOB was declared lawful was because treasonable felony and conspiracy charges bear no evidence and the question is- why continuing with the charges that contradicts your ruling? If there was established Prima Facie on treasonable felony and conspiracy; then there is never a time IPOB which is the group involved will be declared lawful, it was declared lawful because it was not involved in treasonable felony or conspiracy which could have made it unlawful society. We must be consistent with the ruling or else the trial Judge is not free or consistent with her judgment. By virtue of declaring IPOB a lawful society; it has killed the treasonable felony and conspiracy charges. By virtue of declaring IPOB a lawful society; it also means that no Prima Facie could be established against Nnamdi Kanu, going on with the trial is inconsistent or rather not justified.
Defamation and importation charges lack what it takes to make a case that could keep the accused in detention for a year plus. FG arrested Nnamdi Kanu on the basis that IPOB is an unlawful society but the Court has proved otherwise after critically assessing its activities. There is no rational to continue to try Nnamdi of treasonable felony and conspiracy when IPOB after criticisms and trial could not be found unlawful. IPOB could have been an unlawful society had it carried arms or aimed to usurp the government of Nigeria (Treasonable felony). It had been declared unlawful group had it been found in conspiracy to usurp the government but the trial Judge in her wisdom examined everything brought to her and confirmed that there was no crime IPOB is involved in; she was able to confirm that IPOB is whiter than white and that propelled her to rule that IPOB is not an unlawful society. The trial Judge must as well consider the treasonable felony and conspiracy retained as opposition to this ruling made on 1st of March.
Finally, the trial Judge must ensure that in the next Court hearing, Nnamdi Kanu is discharged and put an end to the executive clamp down on the judiciary. The executive must be discouraged from illegally using the judiciary to pursue a cause. Nnamdi Kanu as a lawful society details that his activities are lawful as well. If the executive is not okay with it, they should pursue it politically or address it wisely than using the judiciary to suppress lawful people of Biafra.
Editor/Publisher: Chinwe Korie
Twitter: @ckorie17
Facebook: facebook.com/ckorie17
Email: ckorie17@gmail.com
By Ifeanyi Chijioke | Writes for TBP
March 4, 2017
 |
| Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; IPOB Leader; in white Jewish spiritual attire |
If the Federal High Court made the ruling which was in company of the quashed six charges to enable them decisively handle this matter to their illegal aim, then it is very clear that they have shot their selves on the legs. The ruling made on 1st of March declaring that IPOB is not an unlawful society is a fundamental issue. For IPOB to have gained the satisfaction of the trial Judge to be declared lawful means IPOB has abstained from illegal activities. If IPOB is declared lawful society; it must have lived up the demands or possessed the ingredients needed to be lawful. This is where the Trial Judge nailed the matter; for if IPOB has been found wanting or in any unlawful activities; then the ruling was impossible because it would amount to clearing it of every issue before the Court. But as the case appears; further trial opposes the ruling (IPOB a lawful society) which was borne out of clear assessment of the society, if the society is lawful, what then will be established as unlawful in the purported trial?.
I am yet to observe why some charges were not quashed alongside other charges because it is a gross contradiction for a people fundamentally declared lawful to suddenly or continue to stand trial for (unlawful) treasonable felony. It is most contradicting that an organization declared lawful at the same time is tried on particularly treasonable felony- an organization involved in treasonable felony cannot be lawful at the same time- unless the Judge in question is not true to herself. If IPOB is to be tried of treasonable felony; then there is no way it should or can be declared lawful. Recall that treasonable felony is a crime involving groups and strictly considered unlawful groups. Treasonable felony should be entirely quashed because it has no basis in this very situation should we be consistent with the ruling.
If conspiracy is attainable then IPOB as declared not unlawful by the Judge is inconsistent; the fundamental thing the prosecution had fought for was to avoid or argued that IPOB is not a lawful society by virtue of the conspiracy it was found involved or the treasonable felony. The major reason a Prima Facie could not be established and why IPOB was declared lawful was because treasonable felony and conspiracy charges bear no evidence and the question is- why continuing with the charges that contradicts your ruling? If there was established Prima Facie on treasonable felony and conspiracy; then there is never a time IPOB which is the group involved will be declared lawful, it was declared lawful because it was not involved in treasonable felony or conspiracy which could have made it unlawful society. We must be consistent with the ruling or else the trial Judge is not free or consistent with her judgment. By virtue of declaring IPOB a lawful society; it has killed the treasonable felony and conspiracy charges. By virtue of declaring IPOB a lawful society; it also means that no Prima Facie could be established against Nnamdi Kanu, going on with the trial is inconsistent or rather not justified.
Defamation and importation charges lack what it takes to make a case that could keep the accused in detention for a year plus. FG arrested Nnamdi Kanu on the basis that IPOB is an unlawful society but the Court has proved otherwise after critically assessing its activities. There is no rational to continue to try Nnamdi of treasonable felony and conspiracy when IPOB after criticisms and trial could not be found unlawful. IPOB could have been an unlawful society had it carried arms or aimed to usurp the government of Nigeria (Treasonable felony). It had been declared unlawful group had it been found in conspiracy to usurp the government but the trial Judge in her wisdom examined everything brought to her and confirmed that there was no crime IPOB is involved in; she was able to confirm that IPOB is whiter than white and that propelled her to rule that IPOB is not an unlawful society. The trial Judge must as well consider the treasonable felony and conspiracy retained as opposition to this ruling made on 1st of March.
Finally, the trial Judge must ensure that in the next Court hearing, Nnamdi Kanu is discharged and put an end to the executive clamp down on the judiciary. The executive must be discouraged from illegally using the judiciary to pursue a cause. Nnamdi Kanu as a lawful society details that his activities are lawful as well. If the executive is not okay with it, they should pursue it politically or address it wisely than using the judiciary to suppress lawful people of Biafra.
Editor/Publisher: Chinwe Korie
Twitter: @ckorie17
Facebook: facebook.com/ckorie17
Email: ckorie17@gmail.com
Post A Comment:
0 comments: