Saturday, January 16, 2016
NIGERIAN PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI IS A DUPE - BRUCE FEIN.
With the glitter of fool’s gold, Nigeria’s recently elected President Muhammadu Buhari arrived in the United States in July uttering time-worn democracy vows to President Barack Obama and his administration. Among other things, he pledged at the United States Institute for Peace to combat graft with procedures that would be “fair, just, and scrupulously follow due process and the rule of law, as enshrined in our constitution.”
Skepticism is in order—a conclusion reinforced by the ongoing persecution of of former National Security Advisor Sambo Dasuki for alleged money laundering and illegal possession of firearms. But first some background.
Mr. Buhari initially tasted power as a military dictator following a coup de tat in 1983. His dictatorship was earmarked by chilling human rights abuses. Take the word of Nigerian Nobel Prize laureate Wole Soyinka.
Among other things, Mr. Soyinka highlights Mr. Buhari’s draconian edicts, exemplified by Decree 20 under which the judicial murders of Nigerian citizens Lawal Ojuolape, Bernard Ogedengbe, and Bartholomew Owoh were authorized. Mr. Obedengbe was executed for a crime that did not carry the death penalty at the time it was committed in violation of the universal revulsion of ex post facto laws.
Soyinka adds that these crimes were executed in defiance of pleas from virtually every sector of Nigeria and the international community—a grisly precedent for subsequent dictator Sani Abasha’s hanging of Ogoni activist Ken Sara-Wiwi in contempt of international opinion.
Mr. Buhari turned the nation into a slave plantation, and forbade the slaves from any discussion of their enslavement—especially a return to democracy. He favored the north over the south, dividing rather than unifying Nigeria after the convulsions of the 1967-70 Biafran War. He lent support to the introduction of Sharia law in the North—a major source of strife and disharmony.
Mr. Buhari’s brutal military dictatorship was overthrown in 1985. Mr. Dasuki played a key role. Dictators do not forget. Fast forward to today.
After celebrating fairness, due process, and the rule of law last July to win the good will of the United States, Mr. Buhari returned to Nigeria to mock all three in a vendetta against the Dasuki, the immediate past National Security Adviser.
He placed Mr. Dasuki under house arrest. He confiscated his passport. He charged him with firearms and money laundering violations. He sought a secret trial to prevent independent scrutiny.
He opposed Mr. Dasuki’s pretrial application to the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja for permission to receive urgent medical treatment for cancer in London, but it was nonetheless granted.
Justice Adeniyi Ademola explained that an accused is presumed innocent before trial, and that a citizen’s health is paramount before the law. Mr. Buhari was ordered to release Mr. Dasuki’s international passport.
Mr. Buhari defied the order. He put Mr. Dasuki’s house under siege, a microcosm of the Bosnian Serb siege of Sarajevo. Mr. Dasuki returned to court. Justice Ademola reaffirmed his order, asserting “My own orders will not be flouted.”
Mr. Buhari has not yet budged. As a military dictator in 1985, he similarly seized the international passport of Chief Obafemi Awolowo to thwart his travel for medical treatment, which caused his death in 1987. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Much is riding on Mr. Dasuki’s case. If Mr. Buhariflouts Justice Ademola’s order with impunity, judicial independence will be fatally compromised and Nigeria’s embryonic democratic dispensation will be stillborn. The judiciary is the only branch capable of checking limitless executive power—the bane of Africa.
Members of Nigeria’s National Assembly and Senate have been reduced to playing the roles of extras in cinematic extravaganzas.
Further, President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration accepted a peaceful transfer of power to President Buhari, a laudable landmark in African politics. If Mr. Buhari is permitted with impunity to destroy his political opponents like Mr. Dasuki with tyrannical methods, peaceful transfers of power everywhere on the Continent will become problematic. The incumbents’ risk of political and personal impalement at the hands of their would-be successors will be too high.
The United States should be insisting on independent human rights observers to monitor Mr. Dasuki’s prosecution and trial, and demanding that Mr. Buhari honor his vow to follow due process and the rule of law. The stakes are too high to remain silent.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND AFRICA, A LEGACY OF NO LOVE LOST?
Icheoku says in less than twelve months, President Barack Hussein Obama would finish his two term, eight years, as American president. The first ever elected America's president of African origin, whose father was from Kenya, literally making him an African-African American president as a matter of factly speaking, is on the verge of completing his presidency. President Barack Obama's eightieth year in office as the president of the most powerful, last remaining super power and richest country on earth is nearly coming to the end. But what has the African continent got to show for this very rare opportunity and privilege of a lifetime, if not forever, of having had an American president who is one of their own, this past eight long years in the White House? Icheoku does not know about the other Joeys and Jackies next door in Africa or at AU, but the verdict is nothing, zilch, nada and at best very insignificant and minimal.
The continent of Africa did not see any special benefit accruing to it by reason of their son being president of America and you ask yourself why? Icheoku says it would appear that Africans did not show much love to a young Barack growing up and now the grown Barack who is president does not have a reason to return a love which never existed; a somewhat a tic for tat situation where there was no love lost between Africa and President Obama. So query, if Africa did not benefit from America largess or know-how now that one of their own is in charge, when? If Africa did not benefit from America now that a son, sired by one of them, is the president of America, is it when Donald Trump or another Ronald Reagan moves into the White House that Africa would be remembered? If Africa's debts were not totally canceled now that their son is the White House to help spur economic development in the continent, when? If all the conflicts in Africa are not resolved now with Obama in charge, when? In short what type of legacy would a President Barack Obama leave concerning Africa, the birthplace of the man who gave him life?
Watching the last State of the Union address, it finally dawned on Icheoku that President Barack Obama has literally told Africans that they are on their own; and the earlier they take their destiny in their hands the better for them. According to him, America cannot be a nation builder to every country; but no country in Africa had its nation built by America under Obama. Not even a general mention of the Boko Haram scourge afflicting Nigeria was in the State of the Union address; but he mentioned ISIS, Al Querida as well as other terrorists cells throughout the world, conveniently forgetting that over sixteen thousand Nigerians have been brutally murdered by the Islamist terrorists Boko Haram. But for the few armored trucks America donated to Nigeria a few days ago, what other significant help did the son of Africa give to an African country in need? Remember that his government also refused to sell weapons to then President Jonathan's government that was fighting Boko Haram? Meanwhile countries like Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia as well as countries of the European Union get all manner of assistance they need from America under Obama, while the African son president usually looked the other way in matters affecting Africa.
Icheoku asks Obama, why? If his father abandoned his mother when he did not know that his spermed child would one day be the president of America, does two wrongs now make right? An eye for and eye makes the world go blind, so said Mahatma Gandhi; so when would Barack forgive Africans for being a debit-dad to him? Did Obama forget so easily that without an African's sperm, that there would have been no Barack who later rose to become president? May be after his presidency, he will explain his actions and oversight of Africa when he writes another book, this time, "Dreams of his unfulfilled Presidency", which never factored in Africa in his scheme of things?
Unfortunately, the fate of Africa seems to be always on permanent doomed state. A matter made worse as their own very son appear to have joined other Africa's traducers in keeping Africa off the grid of continents that need help and needs to be similarly developed like the rest of the world. If a white president of America could declare a Marshall Plan that saved and revamped Europe, why did an African-African president of America not initiate a similar scheme to help Africa pull up its straps? But here we are, long gone into his eight years presidency and on the final rung and we are still discussing how abysmally and disappointingly low his presidency's interest in Africa was. Even in continents visited as president, Africa was visited the least. Equally lamentable is the clueless people leading Africa, who do not know that lobbyists exist to facilitate access and would have reached and/or petitioned Obama via them, to look more closely at Africa, towards helping them solve so many of Africa's militating problems.
Icheoku says regrettably, when Obama's presidential legacy is finally written and the chapter on Africa comes up, it will be literally blank except for the mention that the African-African president of America killed the King of Africa Muommer Gaddafi. None of the conflicts strangulating Africa did Obama find time or considered necessary to devote his full attention to solving? Neither did he assist various African countries battling insurgencies as a son of the soil would in defense of his honor. Icheoku remembers that his then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once termed Boko Haram as Northern marginalized youths agitating against a Christian Southern president? No African army was reinvented under Obama's watch and no African country's economy was revamped as a result of his being president. No African country got any special Free Trade Agreement status and if any, they are not enough. Talkless of industries, roads, rail and airports construction etc?
So was Obama's president a cause celebre` for Africans or a continuing curse of the blackman? What will be his lasting legacy for Africa? What did he do and what did he not do for Africa? If not now, when? If the slave reparations were not paid now, when? If as president he did not on behalf of America, apologize for slavery, when and by who else? If Obama visited every country with the highest concentration of major races in the world but avoided Nigeria, which hosts the largest concentration of black people in the world, more than 25% of black race, how does any person explain this nonchalant indifference to the black race? Anyway, the lot of African Americans in America did not improve much under his watch, talkless of Africans in Africa who were left holding the plate under a presidency they celebrated and heralded as belonging to them by proxy of a son of Africa.
Possibly it might be what some people termed his unforgiven spirit which pitted him against Africa for his father abandoning him at childhood? Icheoku remembers very well that the late Gaddafi once proclaimed Barack Obama his son, an African son; only for the cruel irony that saw the fabled son of Africa turn against his adoptive African father and later killed the father - a case of Oedipus Rex sort of? But hey, Africa survived slavery; Africa survived colonization and continuing exploitation; Africa survived various debilitating diseases; Africa survived evolutionary changes; Africa survived incessant tribal wars, hunger and starvation; and so will Africa also survive their neglect by their own very son and first African president of America, President Barack Hussein Obama.
The continent of Africa did not see any special benefit accruing to it by reason of their son being president of America and you ask yourself why? Icheoku says it would appear that Africans did not show much love to a young Barack growing up and now the grown Barack who is president does not have a reason to return a love which never existed; a somewhat a tic for tat situation where there was no love lost between Africa and President Obama. So query, if Africa did not benefit from America largess or know-how now that one of their own is in charge, when? If Africa did not benefit from America now that a son, sired by one of them, is the president of America, is it when Donald Trump or another Ronald Reagan moves into the White House that Africa would be remembered? If Africa's debts were not totally canceled now that their son is the White House to help spur economic development in the continent, when? If all the conflicts in Africa are not resolved now with Obama in charge, when? In short what type of legacy would a President Barack Obama leave concerning Africa, the birthplace of the man who gave him life?
Watching the last State of the Union address, it finally dawned on Icheoku that President Barack Obama has literally told Africans that they are on their own; and the earlier they take their destiny in their hands the better for them. According to him, America cannot be a nation builder to every country; but no country in Africa had its nation built by America under Obama. Not even a general mention of the Boko Haram scourge afflicting Nigeria was in the State of the Union address; but he mentioned ISIS, Al Querida as well as other terrorists cells throughout the world, conveniently forgetting that over sixteen thousand Nigerians have been brutally murdered by the Islamist terrorists Boko Haram. But for the few armored trucks America donated to Nigeria a few days ago, what other significant help did the son of Africa give to an African country in need? Remember that his government also refused to sell weapons to then President Jonathan's government that was fighting Boko Haram? Meanwhile countries like Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia as well as countries of the European Union get all manner of assistance they need from America under Obama, while the African son president usually looked the other way in matters affecting Africa.
Icheoku asks Obama, why? If his father abandoned his mother when he did not know that his spermed child would one day be the president of America, does two wrongs now make right? An eye for and eye makes the world go blind, so said Mahatma Gandhi; so when would Barack forgive Africans for being a debit-dad to him? Did Obama forget so easily that without an African's sperm, that there would have been no Barack who later rose to become president? May be after his presidency, he will explain his actions and oversight of Africa when he writes another book, this time, "Dreams of his unfulfilled Presidency", which never factored in Africa in his scheme of things?
Unfortunately, the fate of Africa seems to be always on permanent doomed state. A matter made worse as their own very son appear to have joined other Africa's traducers in keeping Africa off the grid of continents that need help and needs to be similarly developed like the rest of the world. If a white president of America could declare a Marshall Plan that saved and revamped Europe, why did an African-African president of America not initiate a similar scheme to help Africa pull up its straps? But here we are, long gone into his eight years presidency and on the final rung and we are still discussing how abysmally and disappointingly low his presidency's interest in Africa was. Even in continents visited as president, Africa was visited the least. Equally lamentable is the clueless people leading Africa, who do not know that lobbyists exist to facilitate access and would have reached and/or petitioned Obama via them, to look more closely at Africa, towards helping them solve so many of Africa's militating problems.
Icheoku says regrettably, when Obama's presidential legacy is finally written and the chapter on Africa comes up, it will be literally blank except for the mention that the African-African president of America killed the King of Africa Muommer Gaddafi. None of the conflicts strangulating Africa did Obama find time or considered necessary to devote his full attention to solving? Neither did he assist various African countries battling insurgencies as a son of the soil would in defense of his honor. Icheoku remembers that his then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once termed Boko Haram as Northern marginalized youths agitating against a Christian Southern president? No African army was reinvented under Obama's watch and no African country's economy was revamped as a result of his being president. No African country got any special Free Trade Agreement status and if any, they are not enough. Talkless of industries, roads, rail and airports construction etc?
So was Obama's president a cause celebre` for Africans or a continuing curse of the blackman? What will be his lasting legacy for Africa? What did he do and what did he not do for Africa? If not now, when? If the slave reparations were not paid now, when? If as president he did not on behalf of America, apologize for slavery, when and by who else? If Obama visited every country with the highest concentration of major races in the world but avoided Nigeria, which hosts the largest concentration of black people in the world, more than 25% of black race, how does any person explain this nonchalant indifference to the black race? Anyway, the lot of African Americans in America did not improve much under his watch, talkless of Africans in Africa who were left holding the plate under a presidency they celebrated and heralded as belonging to them by proxy of a son of Africa.
Possibly it might be what some people termed his unforgiven spirit which pitted him against Africa for his father abandoning him at childhood? Icheoku remembers very well that the late Gaddafi once proclaimed Barack Obama his son, an African son; only for the cruel irony that saw the fabled son of Africa turn against his adoptive African father and later killed the father - a case of Oedipus Rex sort of? But hey, Africa survived slavery; Africa survived colonization and continuing exploitation; Africa survived various debilitating diseases; Africa survived evolutionary changes; Africa survived incessant tribal wars, hunger and starvation; and so will Africa also survive their neglect by their own very son and first African president of America, President Barack Hussein Obama.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
NNAMDI KANU, A MAN OF GREAT COURAGE.
Icheoku says greetings to you because it is not easy. For the sake of others, you are inconveniencing yourself. Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to save mankind and for all your suffering, in keeping the plight of Ndigbo and Biafra on the front burner, we salute you. God's speed and protection shall keep you company IJN.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S VALEDICTORY STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS 2016.
Icheoku says like everything in life, President Barack Obama's presidency is gradually but surely coming to an end. The curtains to one remarkable aspect of a United States' presidential rituals was drawn today with the final State of the Union address delivered by the outgoing president. In his words, the State of the Union is as strong as ever if not stronger as America remains the strongest nation on earth. Apparently this one was meant for the rabble rousing Vladimir Putin and his Russia that America knows but choose to ignore his antics in both Ukraine and Syria. Also Republican presidential candidate wanna be Ted Cruz was not spared either as his puerile comment that he will carpet bomb the Middle East (ISIS) if elected came under the slammer in the address. Ditto Donald Trump and his all white America campaign theatrics?
President Obama seems to also dis Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari by reminding him that commitment to rule of law is not a discretionary exercise, but something that is and should be religiously pursued and always. Icheoku says if only the lean and mean Cassius of Daura has the capacity to decipher the innuendo that was implicit in this particular "commitment to the rule of law" comment by President Barack Obama, may be he will do the needful and release Nnamdi Kanu and Sambo Dasuki forthwith. Icheoku regrets that President Muhammadu Buhari lacks the capacity to similarly stage his own version of the "State of the Amalgamated Nigeria" address and tell Nigerians what his vision and prospect for a dysfunctional Nigeria is? What indeed is actually going on, outside the sing-song 'War on Corruption', that will improve the lot of Nigerians and give them hope for living. Anyway, may be Icheoku seem to be expecting too much from a tyrant who will not respect the rule of law and who flagrantly disobeys courts orders.
Below here now is the president's full address, happy trails:-
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans:
Tonight marks the eighth year I’ve come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it shorter. I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa.
I also understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we’ll achieve this year are low. Still, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform, and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse. We just might surprise the cynics again.
But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. And I’ll keep pushing for progress on the work that still needs doing. Fixing a broken immigration system. Protecting our kids from gun violence. Equal pay for equal work, paid leave, raising the minimum wage. All these things still matter to hardworking families; they are still the right thing to do; and I will not let up until they get done.
But for my final address to this chamber, I don’t want to talk just about the next year. I want to focus on the next five years, ten years, and beyond.
We live in a time of extraordinary change — change that’s reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet and our place in the world. It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families. It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away. It’s change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.
America has been through big changes before — wars and depression, the influx of immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, and movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more and more people. And because we did — because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril — we emerged stronger and better than before.
What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation — our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law — these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.
In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible. It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.
But such progress is not inevitable. It is the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, and turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, what we stand for, and the incredible things we can do together?
So let’s talk about the future, and four big questions that we as a country have to answer — regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.
First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy?
Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us — especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?
Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?
And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?
Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history. More than 14 million new jobs; the strongest two years of job growth since the ’90s; an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. Manufacturing has created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.
Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction. What is true — and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious — is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit and haven’t let up. Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. Companies have less loyalty to their communities. And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top.
All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing. It’s made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start on their careers, and tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot.
For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works better for everybody. We’ve made progress. But we need to make more. And despite all the political arguments we’ve had these past few years, there are some areas where Americans broadly agree.
We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, and boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all, offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one, and we should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids.
And we have to make college affordable for every American. Because no hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We’ve already reduced student loan payments to ten percent of a borrower’s income. Now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year.
Of course, a great education isn’t all we need in this new economy. We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security. After all, it’s not much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package, for 30 years, are sitting in this chamber. For everyone else, especially folks in their forties and fifties, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher. Americans understand that at some point in their careers, they may have to retool and retrain. But they shouldn’t lose what they’ve already worked so hard to build.
That’s why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them. And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage. Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far. Health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.
Now, I’m guessing we won’t agree on health care anytime soon. But there should be other ways both parties can improve economic security. Say a hardworking American loses his job — we shouldn’t just make sure he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that’s ready to hire him. If that new job doesn’t pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills. And even if he’s going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. That’s the way we make the new economy work better for everyone.
I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. America is about giving everybody willing to work a hand up, and I’d welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers without kids.
But there are other areas where it’s been more difficult to find agreement over the last seven years — namely what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations. And here, the American people have a choice to make.
I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy. I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there’s red tape that needs to be cut. But after years of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. In this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them. And this year I plan to lift up the many businesses who’ve figured out that doing right by their workers ends up being good for their shareholders, their customers, and their communities, so that we can spread those best practices across America.
In fact, many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative. This brings me to the second big question we have to answer as a country: how do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?
Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.
That spirit of discovery is in our DNA. We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. We’re Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. We’re every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley racing to shape a better world. And over the past seven years, we’ve nurtured that spirit.
We’ve protected an open internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day.
But we can do so much more. Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade. Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.
Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources.
Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.
But even if the planet wasn’t at stake; even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record — until 2015 turned out even hotter — why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?
Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal — in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy — something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.
Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.
Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy. Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future — especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.
None of this will happen overnight, and yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve — that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.
Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world. And that’s why the third big question we have to answer is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem.
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead — they call us.
As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not because of diminished American strength or some looming superpower. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states. The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds blow from a Chinese economy in transition. Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria — states they see slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.
It’s up to us to help remake that system. And that means we have to set priorities.
Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.
But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. That’s the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, nor do we need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is representative of one of the world’s largest religions. We just need to call them what they are — killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.
That’s exactly what we are doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we are taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, and their weapons. We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.
If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without Congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America’s commitment — or mine — to see that justice is done, ask Osama bin Laden. Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. It may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limit.
Our foreign policy must be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world — in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks; others will fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.
We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately weakens us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq — and we should have learned it by now.
Fortunately, there’s a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.
That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.
That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. As we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war.
That’s how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa. Our military, our doctors, and our development workers set up the platform that allowed other countries to join us in stamping out that epidemic.
That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. It cuts 18,000 taxes on products Made in America, and supports more good jobs. With TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do. You want to show our strength in this century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it.
Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America. That’s why we restored diplomatic relations, opened the door to travel and commerce, and positioned ourselves to improve the lives of the Cuban people. You want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere? Recognize that the Cold War is over. Lift the embargo.
American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world — except when we kill terrorists; or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling. Leadership means a wise application of military power, and rallying the world behind causes that are right. It means seeing our foreign assistance as part of our national security, not charity. When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change — that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our children. When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend upon. When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick, that prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores. Right now, we are on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, and we have the capacity to accomplish the same thing with malaria — something I’ll be pushing this Congress to fund this year.
That’s strength. That’s leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That is why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo: it’s expensive, it’s unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies.
That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.
“We the People.”
Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve come to recognize mean all the people, not just some; words that insist we rise and fall together. That brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing I want to say tonight.
The future we want — opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids — all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates.
It will only happen if we fix our politics.
A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.
But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.
Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.
But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task — or any President’s — alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber who would like to see more cooperation, a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the demands of getting elected. I know; you’ve told me. And if we want a better politics, it’s not enough to just change a Congressman or a Senator or even a President; we have to change the system to reflect our better selves.
We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections — and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution. We’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do.
But I can’t do these things on my own. Changes in our political process — in not just who gets elected but how they get elected — that will only happen when the American people demand it. It will depend on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.
What I’m asking for is hard. It’s easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn’t possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.
We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want, or the security we want, but most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world.
So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. To stay active in our public life so it reflects the goodness and decency and optimism that I see in the American people every single day.
It won’t be easy. Our brand of democracy is hard. But I can promise that a year from now, when I no longer hold this office, I’ll be right there with you as a citizen — inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that have helped America travel so far. Voices that help us see ourselves not first and foremost as black or white or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born; not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word — voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.
They’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention, nor do they seek it, but they are busy doing the work this country needs doing.
I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you. I know you’re there. You’re the reason why I have such incredible confidence in our future. Because I see your quiet, sturdy citizenship all the time.
I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages to keep him on board.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the American who served his time, and dreams of starting over — and the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters, and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe.
I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him ’til he can run a marathon, and the community that lines up to cheer him on.
It’s the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is, and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he’s been taught.
I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count, because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth.
That’s the America I know. That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. Because of you. I believe in you. That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
REFERENDUM ON BIAFRA, A VALID PROPOSITION - MALCOLM FABIYI
I have always been a firm believer that Nigeria should remain one united, indissoluble nation. It is an ideal that stems from a deep awareness of the unique possibilities that Nigeria offers, and an appreciation for the promise that it holds. There is no question that a strong and compelling case can be made for Nigerian unity, and there are many who would agree that there are sound historical, economic, and geo-political reasons why a united Nigeria makes sense both in an emotional and rational sense. The reality however is that from the very beginnings our union is one that has been plagued by doubts and clouded in uncertainty and distrust. In spite of those challenges, Nigeria has soldiered on. Through struggles, and even a brutal civil war, the Nigerian people have managed to take the union of convenience that Lugard consummated in 1914 and turn it into a partnership that is truly and uniquely theirs.
Few people gave Nigeria any serious chance of survival. The death knell on Nigeria’s existence and corporate unity has been sounded very many times. Yet somehow, someway, a century later, Nigeria is still here, and Nigerians have managed to show the world that a nation split down the middle between Christians and Muslims can be united. 250 ethnic nationalities, each with its own unique and proud history, have found a way to call this land home.
Yet, despite these victories, the path to Nigerian unity has come at a great price. Nigerian unity is a complicated matter. It is a marriage, and because of the multi-religious and multi-ethnic dimension to its reality, it is a polygamous one. If monogamous marriages are complicated, then polygamous ones are even more so. History and our unique culture teaches us that even such unions, imperfect as they might be can survive and even thrive.-
I have come to realize now, that to love Nigeria, is to be open to discussing the reality that it is not a perfect union – and that what we must all strive for is to make it such. To love Nigeria is to recognize that questions about marginalization that are raised by any ethnic groups are not necessarily coming from a place of malice or discontent. We must consider and accept the possibility that these yearnings are borne from a deep seated desire by these ethnic nationalities to chart a path for progress for themselves.
None of us was there to negotiate the terms of this polygamous national union in 1914. The reality is that questions about the terms of our union are now new, and they are certainly not without merit. There is a reason why there have been ten (10) different constitutions (1914, 1922, 1946, 1951, 1954, 1960, 1963, 1979, 1993 and 1999), in the life of a nation that is only a century old. Each one of these constitutions came about as a direct result of the never ending enterprise of seeking to enhance the Nigerian union – a step further in the quest for a more perfect union. There has also been at least one far ranging commission that looked into the question of minority marginalization (Willink Minorities Commission 1957) and a number of constitutional conferences whose recommendations were not adopted (e.g., the Abacha conference of 1994, and the Jonathan constitutional conference of 2014).
In all the national dialogues about Nigerian unity held till date, any questioning of the foundational principle of national unity has essentially been a no-go area. It might be time to make an exception to this doctrinal principle that Nigerian unity is sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. I believe the Biafran secession debate is an area that is deserving of this exception.
There are two reasons why a referendum on the Biafran secession case makes sense.
Nigeria must understand how deep the sentiments for separation truly run: Supporters of Nigerian unity (and here we must concern ourselves only with those that are Igbo), contend that IPOB, MASSOB and other entities that are vociferously agitating for secession from Nigeria do not represent the silent Igbo majority. However, no one has ever taken a poll of the Igbo nation to understand how deep the sentiment for separation from Nigeria truly runs. It is in the interest of the Igbo nation and all Nigerians to put this matter to rest once and for all. Are the majority of the Igbo people like other ethnic groups, believers in a united Nigeria, with an enduring interest in forging a more enduring union by seeking more equity in the structure of the Nigerian state, and in its relationship with its composite parts? Or is the idea of a united Nigeria with the Igbo as an integral part of that union a figment of the imagination of Nigerian patriots?
The Igbo nation has earned a right to a referendum: Nigeria must face up to the realities that the civil war did not buy us peace and unity. Peace can never be bought at any price. The only currency that guarantees peace is that of justice and equity. In prosecuting the Civil War, our forebears merely bought themselves time to make the case for, and develop a more perfect union. If in the 45 years since the guns fell silent, Nigeria has failed to make a convincing case for the Igbo nation to feel, know and believe that Nigeria is as much theirs as the Hausa, Ijaw, Efik, Nupe, Tiv, Igala, Yoruba, Kanuri, Fulani and others believe it to be, then it is in the interest of all patriots to know that, sooner rather than later. Much as many Nigerian patriots would prefer that the questions of separation be shelved forever, and that Nigerian unity should remain a sacrosanct matter, such willful ignorance can do the nation no good in the long run. No marriage lasts if one party remains fundamentally opposed to the union. If a family is to build for the future, and make plans for the future, all the parties to the union must believe that their partnership is an eternal one. The Nigerian family will falter and remain locked in dysfunction if this nagging and persistent question of national unity is not answered, once and for all. Only a referendum can provide a resolution to this question, and the Igbo nation has earned a right to a peaceful plebiscite.
Why the Agitation for Biafra differs from other Marginalization struggles.
There are those who would say that the Biafra matter was settled once and for all with the Nigerian civil war, and that the Igbo nation should accept that their secession bid was unsuccessful and get on with being Nigerians. However, majority of Nigerians today, who are from the post-independence or post war generation, did not witness the war, or were too young to appreciate the issues that led to it. What most Nigerians know of that conflict is from the history books and from the stories that our fathers and uncles, our mothers and aunts have told us.
The enduring quotation that Nigerians of this emergent generation hold onto from that internecine conflict was the declaration by General Gowon, the head of state that prosecuted the war for unity, that there was “No victor, No vanquished.”
If there was indeed “No Victor, No Vanquished” then Nigeria must be prepared to give voice to those who claim that their future lies outside the Nigerian nation. To fail to do so will be to tacitly imply that the “Vanquished” have no say in the terms of a post war settlement. This is not a path Nigeria should tow, as it will only keep us bogged down in this seemingly endless cycle of progress and retrogression. How would this referendum work?
Such a referendum would take place in two stages. The first stage would be a simple “Yes or No” question as to whether or not a substantive referendum should hold to determine if the south eastern Igbo states should secede from Nigeria. It should hold only in the south eastern region, and only Igbo Nigerians should be eligible to participate. If the “No” vote prevails by a simple majority, then the matter of the enduring place of the Igbo within the Nigerian nation will be resolved. Should this initial referendum process have a simple majority “Yes” vote, then it would trigger the commencement of a process to set a date and prepare for a substantive referendum on the question of full Biafran secession.
The second stage will need some preparation - from the authorities, from the proponents of National unity and from the advocates of separation and secession. The intervening period between the two referendums will provide some opportunity for the real world implications of separation to be debated. Questions of citizenship, immigration, visa policies and terms of access of Igbo Nigerians to the other five regions post separation will need to be clearly outlined because those would be crucial to the debates that will ensue on the merits or demerits of separation. Guarantees for property rights and economic transfers in the event of political separation will also need to be discussed and addressed as well. Nigeria’s political leaders must be prepared to accept whatever outcomes emerge from this second referendum and it must necessarily be preceded by the passage of appropriate and binding legislative laws.
Postscript
No one can make the case for Nigerian unity to the Igbo nation, better and more effectively than Igbo sons and daughters, who believe in the vision and the promise of a united Nigeria. We must trust in their ability to do this. And if peradventure, Nigeria has failed the Igbo nation so irreparably, that there will be no voices that can sway the case in the favor of Nigerian unity, then we must be ready to accept that separation might be a necessary outcome, painful as it might be.
We have been here before. In 1961, Northern and Southern Cameroon were offered a plebiscite to determine if they wanted to remain in Nigeria or enter into union with Cameroon. Northern Cameroon with its large Fula and Kanuri populations and extensive historical, religious and socio-political ties to Northern Nigeria, opted for union with Nigeria, while the Southern Cameroons opted to join Cameroon. The example offered by the recent agitations for Scottish independence, provides a template for how such a referendum might be handled by people on both sides of the divide.
Every nation must determine its priorities and deal with them accordingly. There are those who would argue that the Biafran question is a secondary issue and that Nigeria has more pressing concerns with security, and with reversing the damage perpetrated by a corrupt political class that has decimated the nation’s resources in decades of misrule. I would argue that the Biafran question is an existential one, and therefore demands to be treated with a fierce urgency. The Igbo nation is a crucial and essential part of Nigeria. Nigerian progress will be accelerated if we can determine once and for all, who the parties to our forward movement as a nation are. I am confident that the Nigerian family of the future, will include names like Okoro, Nnamdi, Kanu and Ngozi.
God bless Nigeria.
Malcolm Fabiyi
Monday, January 11, 2016
PRESIDENT BUHARI SHOULD OBEY ORDERS FOR BAIL - FEMI FALANA.
For 16 years that the Peoples Democratic Party was in power, the federal government exhibited total contempt for the Rule of Law. The Constitution and other laws were breached with impunity while court orders were disobeyed on a regular basis. In the famous case of Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2005) 2 WRN 1 at 150 the Supreme Court held that "In our democracy all the Governments of this country as well as organizations and individuals must kowtow to the due process and this they can vindicate by resorting to the courts for redress in the event of any grievance."
One of the reasons why Nigerians voted for the candidate of the All Progressive Congress, General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd) during the last general election was his promise to fight corruption and end impunity in the country. Upon winning the election, President Buhari further pledged to abide by the Rule of Law. To that extent, he has a duty to ensure that all organs and officials of the Government operate within the ambit of the law. In particular, he should not allow overzealous security personnel to engage in any form of impunity and thereby expose the Government to unwarranted embarrassment.
In July last year, the State Security Service (SSS) searched the private residence of former NSA, Col Sambo Dasuki (rtd) at Abuja. When Col Dasuki alleged that his house was illegally searched, I pointed out that the action of the SSS was justified as there was a search warrant validly issued by a magistrate court in the federal capital territory that authorised the search. He was eventually charged with money laundering and criminal diversion of huge sums of public fund before the Federal High Court and the Federal Capital Territory High Court at Abuja. Notwithstanding the gravity of the offences, both courts have admitted him to bail. But after he had met the bail conditions the SSS decided to rearrest him at the gate of Kuje prisons on the ground that investigations have not been concluded in respect of other criminal allegations.
The decision of the SSS to ignore the order admitting Col Dasuki to bail coupled with the failure to re-arraign him on fresh charges is tantamount to impunity in every material respect. If the federal government were aggrieved by the order admitting Col. Dasuki to bail it should have challenged it in the Court of Appeal. Much as the Nigerian people are fully behind the Buhari Administration in the patriotic move to recover the looted wealth of the nation, the federal government should be advised to ensure that the procedure for the loot recovery meets the tenets of the rule of law. The SSS and other security agencies should therefore refrain from allowing corruption to fight back by playing into the hands of the criminal suspects who have committed crimes against humanity by diverting money earmarked for the procurement of arms and armament to fight the terrorists.
In the same vein, the order admitting the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, to bail should also be complied with. If the federal government has other charges against both suspects it should file them in the court. There is no provision for keeping criminal suspects at the pleasure of security officials. Meanwhile, all valid and subsisting orders made by courts in favor of criminal suspects should be obeyed without further delay.
To ensure that suspects are no longer held in custody in any part of Nigeria without any legal justification section 34 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act has imposed a duty on each the Chief Judges to designate a Chief Magistrate and a Judge of the High Court to visit all police stations and other detention centers within their jurisdiction, at least once a month. During such visits, appropriate directives shall be given while any officer who detains any person illegally will be sanctioned.
Femi Falana SAN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)