Buhari’s actions against Kanu and Igboho are autocratic and unlawful

Aikpokpo-Martins, Vice President, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), has claimed as follows:
1.     Buhari is constitutionally bound to crush secessionists like Kanu and Igboho as he was only defending the constitution that he swore to uphold as president.
2.     Chapter IV of the 1999 constitution does not include right to expression seeking to divide the country.
3.     Section 2(1) describes Nigeria as indivisible country.
4.     The 1999 constitution does not provide the right to self-determination.
 
Nigeria’s 1999 constitution is illegal. The Buhari government is de facto not dejure. Indeed, Nigeria has not had a legal government since January 1966 when officers of the army committed a criminal offence against the state. The fact that citizens have been corralled into elections does not make legal any civilian government since 1966. But even if for one minute we accept the 1999 constitution as a working document, the claims by Mr Aikpokpo-Martins reveal very poor scholarship for someone holding such a high office in the legal profession.
 
There is no article or section of the 1999 constitution that gives Buhari the power to crush secessionists. Indeed, there is no reference to secession anywhere in that document. The 1999 constitution is silent on secession because those who drafted the document in their arrogance believed that the 1967/69 civil war had taught potential secessionists a lesson that they would not dare to repeat. The document drafters loaded the constitution so much in favour of the north in the mistaken believe that the south could never have the political or military will to challenge the north.
 
Mr Aikpokpo-Martins references Chapter IV (Fundamental Rights) 39(1) which says this: ‘Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.’ The right to the freedom of expression is not fettered in any way by this constitutional provision. The document does not prohibit expression seeking to divide the country. There is no provision at all for the exercise of presidential power in respect of the right to the freedom of expression. Mr Aikpokpo-Martins is reading into the constitution what the constitution does not say.
 
Mr Aikpokpo-Martins references Chapter I (General Provisions) 2(1) which says this: ‘Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’. The Bakassi imbroglio rendered this provision legally meaningless, and Mr Aikpokpo-Martins should know this. The Bakassi peninsula was for several years the source of dispute between Nigeria and the Cameroun. The territory was traditionally part of Calabar and thus part of Nigeria. Indeed, 90% of the population are Nigerians. Regardless, based on a review of treaties dating back to 1884, the ICJ determined that the territory was not Nigerian. On 22 November 2007, the Nigeria Senate flatly rejected Bakassi’s transfer to the Cameroun on the grounds that such a transfer violated Section 12(1) of the 1999 constitution. Nevertheless, on 14 August 2008, Nigeria excised the Bakassi peninsula from Nigeria and ceded it to the Cameroun thus negating the constitutional claim of indivisibility.
 
Mr Aikpokpo-Martins ought to know that Nigeria domesticated the African Union Charter on self-determination through the means of Section 12(1), which says: ‘No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly’. Nigeria incorporated the AU Charter in full and unaltered into domestic law through the ‘The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights(Ratification and Enforcement) Act Chapter A9 of 1983’. The African Charter remains the only comprehensive human rights treaty ratified and domesticated by Nigeria. The AU Charter has been incorporated into Chapter 10 Vol 1 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria since 1990. The AU Charter says this: ‘All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen’. The right of the Yoruba and others to self-determination is unqualified as well as sacrosanct.
 
Mr Aikpokpo-Martins is entitled to hate the Igbo and Yoruba, to hate Kanu and Igboho. That is his prerogative. What he is not entitled to do is to use the NBA as cloak of respectability for his hatred. Kanu and Igboho are acting within the UN Charter, the AU Charter, international law, and Nigeria’s domestic law. Neither Kanu nor Igboho has broken any Nigerian law. Since 1983, it has not been unlawful for any group to opt out of, or to secede from, Nigeria. By contrast, the actions that Buhari has taken, that is, kidnapping Kanu and attempting to assassinate Igboho, contravene the UN Charter, the AU Charter, international law, and Nigeria’s domestic law. Any group in Nigeria seeking self-determination is protected by Chapter VII of the UN Charter which prohibits the use of force against a non-member and is availed of the General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which permits the Security Council to intervene to ensure effective protection for a non-member.
 
Thanks for your support for http://chng.it/QJp8yJ6hPs; over 3,000 signatures. Self-determination is coming! We must be prepared!
 
Please sign, if you have not yet done so, and encourage others to sign http://chng.it/QJp8yJ6hPs Please retweet to make this update viral and available to as many as possible.