ECOWAS COURT ORDERS REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA TO PAY $200,000 IN DAMAGES TO FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE FOR UNLAWFUL REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND INCARCERATION
The ECOWAS Court on Wednesday 27, February 2019, ordered Republic of The Gambia to pay $200,000 dollars in ‘nominal damages’ to its former Chief Justice, Justice Joseph Wowo, for the violation of his rights to fair hearing, unlawful imprisonment and removal from office on allegation of corruption, false information and the abuse of office.

A three member panel of judges of the Court Presided over by Honorable Justice Edward Amoako Asante ordered that $150,000 of the amount or its equivalent in Dalasi should be paid to the former Chief Justice as restoration mindful of the plaintiff’s claims of inability to secure employment and the time spent in prison after he was wrongfully tried and sentenced although he was subsequently cleared.

The balance of $50,000 will be paid to the plaintiff as legal fees since he has ‘not been working after his removal from office and may be constrained in meeting the financial obligations of his attorney.’  The Court also awarded costs against The Gambia as will be assessed under and by virtue of Article 66 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.

The Court held that the Plaintiff`s trial by a judge who was himself undergoing trial for corruption under the Chief Justice constituted a violation of his human rights to fair trial. The Court also held that the acts of the Defendant relative to the Plaintiff`s removal from office, trial and conviction were biased, lacking in independence, inconsistent with due process, in breach of natural justice and thereby constituted a gross violation of the plaintiff`s right to fair trial.

In suit no: ECW/CCJ/APP/06/18, Justice Wowo, a Nigerian who served as Chief Justice under former President Yahaya Jammeh sued the President for the alleged violation of his legitimate rights as enshrined in the African Charter, Articles 6&7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia.

He claimed that owing to his nationality, he suffered discrimination by most members of The Gambian Bar to the extent that the then President of the Bar, Ms. Ubna Farage and the Minister of Justice, MS. Amie Joof, sometime in 2013, made frivolous allegations of corruption against him which led to his removal from office without prior investigation.

The former Chief Justice, who had asked the Court for $20 million in damages, stated that he contested his removal through the security authority which initiated an investigation in to the matter whose outcome has not been announced.

Consequently, he called a press conference where he denied the allegations of corruption against him as false and noted that the then President erred in removing him from office without due process.

In reaction, he alleged that the then President perceived his action as an affront to his authority and publically threatened to send him to jail and subsequently instructed the then Minister of Justice to file a frivolous case against him alleging the abuse of office and spreading false information.

In this connection the Plaintiff said he wrote a letter in his capacity as the acting Chief Justice to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) which investigated the allegation and exonerated him and surprisingly even commended him while two others who were indicted in the report were never charged.

He averred that during the trial, his Counsel filed a motion urging the trial Judge to recuse himself from the proceeding as he was himself on trial before the Chief Justice for corruption, a motion that was deliberately ignored by the trial judge. He alleged that the trial judge also ignored all the documents and testimonies of witnesses and instead convicted and sentenced him to two years imprisonment until his release under pressure by the governments of Nigeria and the United States.

The plaintiff therefore asked the ECOWAS Court for a declaration that his trial by a Judge who was undergoing corruption allegation proceedings before him is a violation of his human rights and for an order on the government to pay him $20 million dollars (Twenty million US Dollars) in damages and six percent interest per annum for violation of his human rights among others.

The Defendant however denied the allegations of the plaintiff and instead contended that the former Chief Justice was removed from office by the President in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission after investigation and due deliberations pursuant to the petition.

Other members of the Panel are Honorable Justices Gberi-be Quattara and Keikura Bangura

In this season of general elections, we need to enlighten on the three imperative steps that guide ascension to political offices in Nigeria via the ballot box and to posit clearly that it is neither a taboo nor a big deal for anyone or political party who is disatissfied with the outcome of an election to approach the courts by way of election petition or petitions.

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy founded on the sacred principles of rule.

Rule of law presupposes absence of arbitrariness and unwarranted recourse to self help remedy.

Simply explained, under the doctrine of rule of law, no one should take the laws into his or her hands.

Thus, any aggrieved person is reasonably expected to make a complaint to formal authorities (like the Police and or the Courts) for amicable settlement or judicial determination of the alleged wrong or wrongdoings.

With particular reference to seeking public office via elections, Nigeria has a rich array of rules that govern it as extrapolated from the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended and the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and other adjectival laws relevant in this regard.

From the community reading of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the 2010 Electoral Act as amended, the recognised tripod stages in an electoral contest in Nigeria are *nomination,* *election* and or *litigation.*

The Nigerian constitution does not approve of independent candidacy and as such, a candidate in a general election conducted by INEC must be sponsored by an INEC registered political party.

Double or multiple sponsorship of a candidate by parties is also outlawed and translates to disqualification under the Electoral Act.

For purposes of nomination by a party as a candidate in a general election, a person must belong to a political party and participate in the party primary which may be by direct or indirect election or by consensus.

Party primary is intra-party election and involves only party members and must be conducted in sync with the Party Constitution and Guidelines which must never offend or violate the provisions of the Electoral Act and or the 1999 Constitution as amended.

A person who emerges as candidate of the party is subsequently sponsored in the general election for that office by the political party forwarding his or her name and particulars to INEC.

It must be accentuated that in tandem with the hallowed doctrine of rule of law that  forbids self help remedy, any aggrieved aspirant in the Party Primary process is duly authorised, without prejudice to the principle of party supremacy, to approach any High Court of a State, High Court of the FCT or Federal High Court to ventilate on pre-election issues.

Appeals on pre-election matters are entered at the Court of Appeal and terminate at the Supreme Court.

At the conclusion of party primaries, the political parties are expected or required to forward the names and particulars of their candidates for the general  election to INEC.

Thereafter, a general election is declared by INEC as an umpire between the political parties that have sponsored candidates in that election and in the specific positions being contested.

A general election is an inter-party contest with clearly defined rules, guidelines and timelines abstracted from the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Electoral Act 2010 as amended and applicable INEC guidelines for the conduct of such elections.

Only registered voters vote in a general election by way of thumbprinting on the logo of the party of their choices.

At the end of voting, INEC declares the candidate of the party that has satisfied the constitutional requirements and garnered the lawful majority of the votes cast  winner and issues certificate of return to the victorious candidate of the party.

No person is expected or authorised to unilaterally declare the results in a general election other than by INEC.

It is unlawful and a punishable criminal offence to declare election results Suo motu, meaning, on your own accord.

When INEC declares the final result of an election, it becomes functus officio the exercise.

Candidates and or the political parties are at this stage free to accept the result and there will be no need for litigation or legal redress.

Where however the result is  rejected or disputed, the aggrieved candidate and or political party are not left in the lurch as a window of opportunity exists for presenting election petition(s).

In this circumstance, the next and final stage therefore is litigation and that is the exclusive preserve of the courts and more particularly the Election Petition Tribunals.

The various Election Petition Tribunals set up by the Chief Justice of Nigeria have the sole responsibility to entertain petitions arising from the conduct of the elections but have no jurisdiction in pre-election matters.

All State and National Assembly election petitions end at the Court of Appeal on a final appeal while the Governorship and Presidential election petitions terminate at the Supreme Court of Nigeria and these must be within the constitutional timelines allotted for determination of election petitions.

Once the final court delivers the final judgement in appropriate election petition cases and gives a seal of judicial approval to the victory or upturns the victory at the polls or makes preservative or consequential orders, appeals lie no where else because it is in the interest of justice and public policy that there should be an end to litigations and in this case, elections.

Therefore, it is an unfettered constitutional right consistent with the rule of law for a candidate or political party that is disatissfied with the outcome of an election result to present a reasoned petition before the appropriate Election Petition Tribunal in the manner and on grounds clearly suggested by our electoral laws.

With the foregoing, it is clear that Nigeria is not a jungle where humans beings are to be killed or maimed or properties destroyed with reckless abandon because of elections or anything else for that matter.

We are clear headed to unequivocally say to our politicians and all citizens at large that instead of resort to violence, killings and arson attacks over election outcomes or any other issue, they should kindly go to court as it is their unfettered constitutional right.

No party or its candidate should be held in derision or scorn for taking the civilized option of presenting election petitions instead of resort to violence or other self help remedy.

In this same light, no party or its candidate is expected to hold the country hostage because of threat of presenting an election petition as it is a routine and intrinsic part of the reality of our constitutional order consistent with the doctrine of rule of law.

We are optimistic that as the bastion of democracy, defender of the oppressed and the last hope of the common man, our courts are well able, ready and capable to give an aggrieved person the justice of his or her case because our law reckons that for every wrong there is a remedy- ubi jus ubi redium.

Let the rule of prevail while we grow our democracy!


A new normal is possible!



Prof Obiaraeri, N.O. Ph.D (Law), B.L., etc.

The Federal High Court, Warri has delivered Judgement in the case of Darlington Ugo Ehirim v. Federal Road Safety Commission Suit No. FHC/W/CS/90/2017.

The Plaintiff in an affidavit in support of his originating summons stated that he was stopped by FRSC officials while driving along Ajamimogha Road, Warri on his way to court. The Plaintiff had challenged the authority of the FRSC officials to be creating a long queu early in the morning while checking vehicle particulars. Plaintiff further stated that the FRSC officials, out of annoyance told him to park, which he obeyed. They seized his vehicle particulars and charged him to court on a purported charge of not wearing seat belt. The charge aagainst  the plaintiff was withdrawn upon the intervention of Kunle Edun, the then Vice Chairman of NBA, Warri( now the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association).

Mr. Kunle Edun, acting as the Plaintiff's counsel and Chairman NBA Warri Human Right Committee subsequently filed an action against the FRSC at the Federal High Court, Warri seeking the following issues for resolution:
1) Whether the provisions of the Federal Road Safety Commission Act, 2007 ( particularly section 30 thereof that defines "public road") and it's subsidiary legislation; the provisions of section 118 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2004 (which defines "Highway") to the extent that public road and highways are defined to include all roads in States and local governments are constitutional in the face of of the clear provisions of sections 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, regarding the power of the Defendant (a federal agency) to exercise jurisdiction regarding vehicular traffic monitoring and enforcement over Stares and Local Governments roads in Nigeria?

2) Whether by virtue of the clear provisions of sections 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended; the Defendant has the vires, authority and/or power to arrest, detain and/or prosecute the Plaintiff or any person regarding any violation of traffic laws on any road that is not designated as a federal trunk road?

3) Whether there is any provision in the Federal Road Safety Commission Act (Cap F19) LFN 2010 or any subsidiary legislation made thereunder that entitles the officers of the Defendant to mount any form of road blocks (human or otherwise) on public highways in the purported exercise of it's functions under the said Act?

The Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:
1) A declaration that by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the Defendant lacks the vires, authority and/or power to exercise any jurisdiction regarding vehicular traffic, monitoring and enforcement in respect of States and Local Governments roads in Nigeria.

2)  A declaration that by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the Defendant lacks the vires, authority and/or power to arrest, detain and/or prosecute the Plaintiff or any person regarding the traffic violations on a State or Local Government road in Nigeria.

3) A declaration that the definitions of "Public Road" in the provisions of section 30 of the Federal Road Safety Commission Act, 2007 (Cap F19) LFN 2010 and "Highway" as contained in the provisions of section 118 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2004 do not extend to or includes States and Local Government Roads in Nigeria by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended; and therefore, it is ultra vires the power of the National Assembly to make laws regulating traffic on roads other than federal trunk roads.

4) A declaration that the Defendant's operations and jurisdiction are restricted only to traffic on federal highways or federal trunk roads by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

5) A declaration that the stoppage of the Plaintiff's vehicle Reg. No. KJA 502 and the seizure of his driver's licence by the Defendant on the 15th day of June, 2017 along the Ajamimogha Road, by Herismor House, Warri (not being a federal trunk road) is unlawful and a violation of Plaintiff's tight to freedom of movement as guaranteed by the provisions of section 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

6) An order of injunction restraining the Defendant by itself and/or through it's privies, agents, officials, subordinates or under any other guise from further harrasing, arresting, detaining abd/or prosecute the Plaintiff or any motorist in respect of anything done in connection with vehicular traffic and/or the use of States' it Local Giverment roads.
7) The sum of N10, 000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira)as exemplary and general damages.

The trial court agreed with all the issues raised by Kunle Edun, the Plaintiff's counsel and accordingly granted all the reliefs sought. The court also awarded cost of N200,000 00 against the Defendant.

🖕. Know your right my people. I understand these folks constitute a great nuisance in southeast roads

RE: SHOOT AT SIGHT FOR BALLOT BOX
SNATCHERS

(1). UNITED NATIONS BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE USE OF FORCE AND FIREARMS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS

Principle 2 – Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

Principle 4 – Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

Principle 5 – Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment; (d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

Principle 7 – Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

Principle 8 – Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles

Principle 9 – Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

Principle 10 – In the circumstances provided for under principle 9, law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident.

Principle 24 – Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that superior officers are held responsible if they know, or should have known, that law enforcement officials under their command are resorting, or have resorted, to the unlawful use of force and firearms, and they did not take all measures in their power to prevent, suppress or report such use.

Principle 25 – Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that no criminal or disciplinary sanction is imposed on law enforcement officials who, in compliance with the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and these basic principles, refuse to carry out an order to use force and firearms, or who report such use by other officials.

Principle 26 – Obedience to superior orders shall be no defence if law enforcement officials knew that an order to use force and firearms resulting in the death or serious injury of a person was manifestly unlawful and had a reasonable opportunity to refuse to follow it. In any case, responsibility also rests on the superiors who gave the unlawful orders.
From
Nonso Attoh

(2). Hon Justice Onu, J.S.C said in IBIKUNLE V. STATE  (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1019) 546,

“I am in agreement with the respondent that these statutory defences implied in these provisions set out above cannot avail the appellant, more so THAT NONE OF THEM GRANTED HIM A LICENSE TO SUMMARILY EXECUTE THE DECEASED EXTRA JUDICIALLY. Even if the deceased were to be a thief or a person of dubious character, which the evidence on record does not disclose him as one, the provisions of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law (ibid) quoted above DID NOT LICENSE THE APPELLANT TO BE THE COMPLAINANT, INVESTIGATOR, JUDGE AS WELL AS EXECUTIONER, ALL ROLLED INTO ONE… It is a misconception of the provisions of Section 7(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) for the appellant to contend that the use of firearm was reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Even if the deceased were to be a thief or a person of dubious character, a fact not disclosed on the record, the provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law (ibid), did not license the appellant to be the complainant, investigator, as well as the Judge and executioner, all rolled into one… THE USE OF THE FIREARM WAS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, HIGHLY INTIMIDATING AND UNCALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. This is because as found by the court below, the deceased did not pose any scintilla of danger to the appellant. It was mischievous and unreasonable for the appellant to break the window of the deceased’s apartment, threw teargas into the room and then jumped into the apartment to callously release or pump bullets into the deceased.
(capitalization supplied for emphasis)
From
NONSO ATTOH

(3). W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C, stated in IBIKUNKE V. STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (pt 1019) 546

“The law does not permit or license any person, be he a policeman or soldier or otherwise to be the complainant, investigator, Judge and executioner all at the same time. In the circumstance of this case and particularly having regard to the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution and section 7(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure … appellant has no legal right to summarily execute any person who refuses him ingress into an apartment that he believes a suspect is hiding…. I am compelled by the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the now notorious extra judicial killings of innocent people by some members of the Nigeria Police to condemn the inability of some members of the police force to realize that the foundation of the police institution is preservation of life and property.”

From NONSO ATTOH

Source:

https://thenigerialawyer.com/limitations-to-the-right-to-life-and-the-use-of-force-against-violators-of-electoral-law-by-nonso-robert-attoh/

Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and came into force in 1981.
CEDAW is commonly referred to as the international bill of rights for women. It defines what constitutes discrimination against women and girls and sets out a comprehensive framework for tackling gender inequality.

THE ARTICLES
Article 1 - Definition of ‘discrimination against women’
Discrimination against women includes any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex that has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying women’s enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. This is irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women.

Article 2 - Duty of States
States agree to pursue by all appropriate means a policy of eliminating discrimination against women, undertaking to take concrete steps to eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices in the national legal framework.

Article 3 - Equality
States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the full development and advancement of women so as to guarantee them the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. This is in all fields but in particular the political, social, economic and cultural fields.

Article 4 - Special measures
States are allowed to adopt temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality for women until the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved. States are allowed to adopt special measures aimed at protecting maternity.

Article 5 - Stereotyping and cultural prejudices
States shall take appropriate measures to eliminate stereotyping, prejudices and discriminatory cultural practices. States shall also ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the roles of men and women in the upbringing of their children.

Article 6 - Trafficking and prostitution
States shall take all measures to stop all forms of trafficking and the exploitation of prostitution of women.

Article 7 - Political and public life
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men to vote, hold public office and participate in civil society.

Article 8 - Participation at the international level
States shall ensure that women are allowed to represent their governments at the international level and to participate in the work of international organisations.

Article 9 - Nationality
States shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality and also equal rights in respect of their children’s nationality.

Article 10 - Education
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men in education, including equal access to schools, vocational training, curricula and educational resources. States shall eliminate stereotypes of the roles of women and men through revising school materials and teaching methods.

Article 11 - Employment
States shall ensure that women the same opportunities as men in employment, promotion, training, equal remuneration, social security and safe working conditions. Women must also be protected in respect of pregnancy, maternity and marital status.

Article 12 - Health
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men to access to health care services, including reproductive health services.

Article 13 - Economic and social benefits
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men to family benefits, bank loans and other forms of financial credit. Women must also be allowed to participate equally in recreational activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life.

Article 14 - Rural women
States shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas so that they can participate in and benefit from health care, education, social security, development planning etc equally with men.

Article 15 - Equality before the law
States shall ensure that women and men are treated equally before the law. Women have the same legal right to enter contracts, own property and choose their place of residence.

Article 16 - Marriage and family life
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men in relation to marriage and as parents, as well as in respect of other aspects of family life.

Articles 17 - 24
These articles describe the composition and procedures of the CEDAW
Committee, the relationship between CEDAW and national and international
legislation and the obligation of States to take all steps necessary to implement CEDAW in full.

Articles 25 - 30 - Administration of CEDAW
These articles describe the general administrative procedures concerning
enforcement of CEDAW, ratification and entering reservations.

The auguries already favor a decisive Atiku win in the forthcoming February 16 election, and the biggest electoral shock may actually come from the northwest, hitherto Buhari’s impregnable electoral fortress. The silent majority of voters in the region will ventilate their pent-up anger and frustration against Buhari in ways that will signal a tectonic disruption of the habitual voting patterns of the region. At this point, Buhari isn’t a threat to Atiku. INEC Chairman Professor Mahmood Yakubu is actually Atiku’s most potent threat now. Here is why.

A brother of the INEC chairman’s close friend confided in me today that the electoral boss has a deep-seated animus toward Atiku and has made many nasty, unkind remarks about Atiku in private. That, in and of itself, is not the problem. We are all entitled to our personal predispositions and biases as long as they don’t interfere with our judgement on occasions that invite our neutrality and fairmindedness.

However, the same source told me the INEC chairman has a profound personal investment in APC’s electoral successes, like Maurice Iwu had in PDP’s victories. He said the INEC chairman told his friend that he was going to hand victory to APC in the Osun governorship election even though PDP clearly and handily won it. Buhari’s unguardedly candid confession on January 27 at the banquet hall of the Osun State Government House that APC won the Osun governorship election with “remote control” is the biggest corroboration of this previously uncirculated whisper.

The go-to rhetorical strategy to impeach the credibility of uncomfortable, anonymous but veridical revelations like this is to call them “fake” and to dismiss them as ill motivated. Well, I’ve confirmed the INEC chairman’s ill will against and active personal hostility toward Atiku from other credible sources that should know. I’m so sure of my information that I can swear by Allah that Professor Yakubu isn’t neutral toward Atiku and has said unmentionably disparaging things about him in private. I invoke the wrath of Allah upon me if I am making this up. I hope Professor Yakubu, who is a Muslim like me and with whom I have personal familiarity, can do the same.

I concede that INEC has taken many admirable actions in the past few months that point to some degree of independence. It has also conducted a few elections in which APC lost, but that may just be window-dressing to conceal plans for the grand presidential electoral heist on February 16. The world needs to know that the INEC chairman isn’t neutral toward all the presidential candidates. There are many other disturbing things I’ve heard about the INEC chair that I’ll withhold for now because I haven’t independently confirmed them. It suffices to say, nonetheless, that the INEC chairman is NOT a neutral arbiter in the forthcoming election. Domestic and international observers—and Atiku’s agents—should observe him with heightened sensitivity. This is not Attahiru Jega; this is a less evil version of Maurice Iwu.

“The Embassy of the United States is deeply concerned by the impact of the executive branch’s decision to suspend and replace the Chief Justice and head of the judicial branch without the support of the legislative branch on the eve of national and state elections.

We note widespread Nigerian criticism that this decision is unconstitutional and that it undermines the independence of the judicial branch. That undercuts the stated determination of government, candidates, and political party leaders to ensure that the elections proceed in a way that is free, fair, transparent, and peaceful – leading to a credible result.

We urge that the issues raised by this decision be resolved swiftly and peacefully in accordance with due process, full respect for the rule of law, and the spirit of the Constitution of Nigeria. Such action is needed urgently now to ensure that this decision does not cast a pall over the electoral process.”

President Muhammadu Buhari has suspended the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

In his place, he has sworn in Justice Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed in an acting capacity.

He performed the ceremony at the presidential villa, Abuja on Friday.

President’s Special Assistant on New Media, Mr Bashir Ahmad.

In his place, Ahmad said through his twitter handle, @BashirAhmaad, that Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammed, was named by the President.

SUSPENSION OF THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA:

 The Bar resolved the following in a motion moved and seconded by Chief C.C. Onyeagbakor and L.U.N. Nwakaeti, Esq respectively

1. That Owerri Bar rejects in its entirety the purported and unconstitutional suspension of the Hon. CJN by the President of FRN.
2. That Owerri Bar hereby empowers the chairman and executive members of the Bar to attend the NEC meeting of the NBA on Monday 28/01/2019 and insist on the branch position that all legal process must be followed to ensure that this Constitutional breach is reversed.
3. That in addition to (2) above, Owerri Bar resolved that NBA should take all other steps including but not limited to the total boycott of Courts and if the need arises the shutting down of the polity in collaboration with Civil Society Groups.
4. That the Attorney General of the Federation and the Vice President be called upon to resign for being complicit in the Constitutional breach.
5. That in addition to (4), the Attorney General of the Federation and the Vice President should face disciplinary committee of the Bar for disciplinary actions; and
6. That in line with the precedent laid in Abia State, that the NJC should dismiss the purported Acting CJN who presented himself to be sworn in, in circumstances that they are in pari material with Abia State case.