Why south-south can’t be part of Biafra – Former Nigerian General

As the agitation for the independent state of Biafra continues, Edet Akpan, a retired major-general from Akwa Ibom State, has explained why it was impossible for the people of the south-south region of the country to be part of it.

Nigeria fought a horrendous three-year-old civil war between 1967 and 1970, to stop Biafra, led mainly by the Igbos in south-east, from seceding.

Today’s Akwa Ibom, and other states in the south-south, were part of the south eastern region at the time, and would have formed the breakaway republic if the secession had succeeded.

Pro-Biafra supporters have staged a series of protests lately, resulting in deadly clampdown by security forces.

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra, was arrested in 2015 and has remained in detention for more than one year now, charged for alleged treason.

“Lack of trust has always been on between the Igbo and the minorities,” Mr. Akpan, a former director general of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), told PREMIUM TIMES in an interview in Uyo, Akwa Ibom.

Mr. Akpan said Akwa Ibom and other states in the south-south would prefer to stay in Nigeria, instead of supporting the agitation for Biafra.

Mr. Akpan said the Nigerian state was “a larger entity”, with room for the minorities to maneuver. “It is much better than a region that you don’t feel (that you) belong. If you are suppressed as a minority (in Biafra) where do you cry to?” he said.

The retired general said Biafra lost the war because the minorities in the then eastern region didn’t agree with the Igbo for a separate country because they were not sure that their future was secured in an Igbo-controlled nation.

“I remember one Igbo leader who said, ‘Don’t worry the quarrel between the Igbo and the minorities is that between a husband and wife’. Oh, this place almost went into flame. Then it was asked, ‘Who is the husband and who is the wife?’ You see, the lack of trust is still there.”

Mr. Akpan supports the call for restructuring of the Nigerian state, but not necessarily to go back to regionalism. It was time for the country to practice fiscal federalism, he said.

“You can keep the existing states, so long as you are not going to create states every other year. There was a national conference that took care of the issue of restructuring. The report is available. Some real autonomy for the states. I may not accept state police because of abuse. The autonomy should be more on economic matters.”

Mr. Akpan said the activities of Boko Haram, Niger Delta militants, and the Biafra agitators were indicators that all was not well with the country.

He said what the Igbo want wasn’t really Biafra, but genuine integration into the Nigerian state, after the civil war. “They want to feel that an Igbo man can one day become the president of Nigeria.

“They (Igbos) should seek whatever they want within the framework of the Nigerian state,” he said.

He expressed confidence in the ability of President Muhammadu Buhari to salvage the country.

“I know he (Buhari) has integrity. I know he means well (for the country). The suffering that we see is temporary.

“If he was not the president now, to plug a lot of loopholes that have been in place all along, the money we have been getting now would have been so small. If we had had a president who would have closed his eyes to corruption, it would have been much worse (than what we are seeing),” he said.

Why south-south can’t be part of Biafra – Former Nigerian General - Premium Times Nigeria

 

 

The leadership of the Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly (SNPA) has appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to set in motion, a process for the immediate implementation of recommendations of the 2014 National Conference for restructuring Nigeria.

Leaders of the group made the call at the opening ceremony of a three-day meeting of its Elders Council and Management Committee in Umuahia, attributing the problems currently facing the country to faulty restructuring foisted on the nation by the military.

Welcoming delegates to the meeting holding at Okpara Auditorium, Umuahia Tuesday, Coordinator of the South-South, Chief Edwin Clark, emphasised that restructuring Nigeria at this point in time was a “nationalistic action,” which would strengthen the unity of Nigeria as it “will greatly satisfy the various shades of current agitations in the country.”

Clark, a First Republic Minister Information, used the opportunity to allay fears in some quarters that the clamour for restructuring of the country was anti-North, explaining that “restructuring simply implies providing the platform for states, now the federating units, to explore and utilise their resources and develop, each according to its ability and pace, as the demonstrated by the defunct regional governments.”

“Restructuring has always been part of the fiscal structure of the country, way back before independence, through the First Republic, before the military interregnum that changed it unrecongisably,” the Ijaw leader said, going down memory lane.

According to him, the Richards Constitution of 1950 provided for administrative framework for a federation of three regions – Northern, Eastern and Western, while the federation, which came into being in 1951, provided for the equality of citizens in the country, and for each federating unit to develop at its own pace.

The federation also provided for fiscal federalism whereby each region had 50 per cent of resources produced in its own area, he added.

He further noted that the provision of 50 per cent derivation prescribed by the Richards Constitution was also adopted in the Independence Constitution of 1960, as well as in the Republican Constitution of 1963 and the same fiscal system adopted in both constitutions.

“The military coup d’état of January 1966 and the civil war from 1967 to 1970, led to the abrogation of the provision by the military government of General Yakubu Gowon which said that it needed money to prosecute the civil war, not minding that Peter was robbed to pay Paul,” Clark said.

He said that in present day Nigeria where a zone that produces the resources of the nation and yet benefits very little or nothing, compared to another zone that does not contribute anything significant to the national treasury, yet appropriating and monopolizing lopsided favourable benefits to itself was no longer tenable.

He stressed that inequality and marginalisation in Nigeria manifest in several spheres, including development projects and political appointments, among others.

“For instance, how do you explain that in the constitution of a 9-member NNPC board, only three members are from the South? If there was to be a Groundnut board of nine members and six are from the South that does not produce a grain of groundnut, will it be acceptable to the groundnut producing areas? Certainly not,” Clark argued.

Speaking in similar vein, the Coordinator of the South West, Rt. Rev. Emmanuel Bolanle Gbonigi, said that President Buhari should recognize that the various ethnic agitations, including Niger Delta and MASSOB, were products of the feeling of marginalisation, adding that attempts to minimise these problems formed part of the resolutions of the 2014 Confab Report.

“This is why the report of that conference must not be consigned to the archives. Nigeria needs to be restructured, it is the faulty structure imposed through military intervention that has stymied our progress as a nation since 1966.

“It will serve the President well to begin immediately, the process for the implementation of the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference,” advised Gbonigi who was represented by Senator Femi Okurounmi.

Earlier, the Coordinating chairman of SNPA, former Vice President Alex Ekwueme, represented by Chief Mbazulike Amechi, in outlining the agenda of the meeting, said it would deliberate on the many problems of the country, including restructuring, Niger Delta insurgency, kidnapping and herdsmen clashes, among others.

He said the forum would equally examine whether the government power was for the federation or a section of the country.

Abia State Governor, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu, assured the group that he would ferry its communiqué to any quarters they desired to convey it to.

The SNPA is a platform for leaders from the 17 Southern states for proffering solutions to the challenges bedeviling the nation.

(News Express)

Southern Leaders tell Buhari to commence restructuring of Nigeria now

The leadership of the Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly (SNPA) has appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to set in motion, a process for the immediate implementation of recommendations of the 2014 National Conference for restructuring Nigeria.
Leaders of the group made the call at the opening ceremony of a three-day meeting of its Elders Council and Management Committee in Umuahia, attributing the problems currently facing the country to faulty restructuring foisted on the nation by the military.
Welcoming delegates to the meeting holding at Okpara Auditorium, Umuahia Tuesday, Coordinator of the South-South, Chief Edwin Clark, emphasised that restructuring Nigeria at this point in time was a “nationalistic action,” which would strengthen the unity of Nigeria as it “will greatly satisfy the various shades of current agitations in the country.”
Clark, a First Republic Minister Information, used the opportunity to allay fears in some quarters that the clamour for restructuring of the country was anti-North, explaining that “restructuring simply implies providing the platform for states, now the federating units, to explore and utilise their resources and develop, each according to its ability and pace, as the demonstrated by the defunct regional governments.”
“Restructuring has always been part of the fiscal structure of the country, way back before independence, through the First Republic, before the military interregnum that changed it unrecongisably,” the Ijaw leader said, going down memory lane.
According to him, the Richards Constitution of 1950 provided for administrative framework for a federation of three regions – Northern, Eastern and Western, while the federation, which came into being in 1951, provided for the equality of citizens in the country, and for each federating unit to develop at its own pace.
The federation also provided for fiscal federalism whereby each region had 50 per cent of resources produced in its own area, he added.
He further noted that the provision of 50 per cent derivation prescribed by the Richards Constitution was also adopted in the Independence Constitution of 1960, as well as in the Republican Constitution of 1963 and the same fiscal system adopted in both constitutions.
“The military coup d’état of January 1966 and the civil war from 1967 to 1970, led to the abrogation of the provision by the military government of General Yakubu Gowon which said that it needed money to prosecute the civil war, not minding that Peter was robbed to pay Paul,” Clark said.
He said that in present day Nigeria where a zone that produces the resources of the nation and yet benefits very little or nothing, compared to another zone that does not contribute anything significant to the national treasury, yet appropriating and monopolizing lopsided favourable benefits to itself was no longer tenable.
He stressed that inequality and marginalisation in Nigeria manifest in several spheres, including development projects and political appointments, among others.
“For instance, how do you explain that in the constitution of a 9-member NNPC board, only three members are from the South? If there was to be a Groundnut board of nine members and six are from the South that does not produce a grain of groundnut, will it be acceptable to the groundnut producing areas? Certainly not,” Clark argued.
Speaking in similar vein, the Coordinator of the South West, Rt. Rev. Emmanuel Bolanle Gbonigi, said that President Buhari should recognize that the various ethnic agitations, including Niger Delta and MASSOB, were products of the feeling of marginalisation, adding that attempts to minimise these problems formed part of the resolutions of the 2014 Confab Report.
“This is why the report of that conference must not be consigned to the archives. Nigeria needs to be restructured, it is the faulty structure imposed through military intervention that has stymied our progress as a nation since 1966.
“It will serve the President well to begin immediately, the process for the implementation of the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference,” advised Gbonigi who was represented by Senator Femi Okurounmi.
Earlier, the Coordinating chairman of SNPA, former Vice President Alex Ekwueme, represented by Chief Mbazulike Amechi, in outlining the agenda of the meeting, said it would deliberate on the many problems of the country, including restructuring, Niger Delta insurgency, kidnapping and herdsmen clashes, among others.
He said the forum would equally examine whether the government power was for the federation or a section of the country.
Abia State Governor, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu, assured the group that he would ferry its communiqué to any quarters they desired to convey it to.
The SNPA is a platform for leaders from the 17 Southern states for proffering solutions to the challenges bedeviling the nation. (News Express)

Osinbajo Caught Lying On National Television

By Akosu Emmanuel Lubem

On October 14, 2016, the entire world was greeted with the cheering news of the release of 21 out of the over 200 Chibok schoolgirls abducted in April, 2014 by the Boko Haram sect. The news of the girls’ return, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their release from captivity, generated varied reactions, dominating discussions on both national and international media.

Expectedly, questions about how, where and when the girls were released came up and government officials, at the highest level, promptly and consistently provided answers in a manner indicative of coordinated and well-organized set-up.

The Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo and Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, addressed two separate world news conferences in less than 12 hours that the girls were flown into Abuja from Maiduguri, all in a bid to assure Nigerians and the world of government’s commitment to the release of the girls and that the Chibok girls’ released was not foreclosed as insinuated in some quarters.

In the two news conferences, both the Vice President and the Information and Culture Minister were consistent in their narration and presentation of facts surrounding the release of the 21 girls. This suggests that government had from the onset taken seriously, the issue of communication with Nigerians, on all that had transpired and resulted in the release of the girls. The news conferences were also significant in that frayed nerves were calmed and uncertainties surrounding the girls’ release were clarified.

In spite of these efforts, some persons (perhaps, enemies of the country) have resorted to insulting the personality of the Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, describing his response to questions from journalists at the news conference as blatant lies.

It is pertinent to state at this juncture that such a reckless, hilarious and premature remark about the personality of the vice president constitutes distraction to the main issue of the girls’ safe return.

The fact remains that, from the onset, the Federal Government has stated unequivocally its intentions in securing the safe release of the girls. President Muhammadu Buhari, in particular, had stated at different fora that his administration was committed and sincere in securing the release of the girls, and despite pressure from NGOs, the parents of the girls, members of the Chibok community and some members of the international community, the administration remained consistent on its position about genuine negotiations that would ultimately lead to the release of the girls.

The subsequent release of 21 of the Chibok girls following successful negotiations between the government and its partners, and the Boko Haram insurgents can therefore be said to be consistent with government’s earlier position on the matter.

So, the recent criticisms of the administration in some quarters over the conditions that followed the release of the girls can best be described as cheap blackmail, diversionary and dangerous to ongoing efforts to secure the release of the remaining girls from captivity.

Specifically, MrJojo  Kwebena’s remark about Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s address to the nation on the release of the girls on Friday October 14, 2016, is most incongruous and disheartening. In his comment published in an online medium, Kwebena presented the Vice President as a liar.

Clearly, Mr Kwebena’s interest, as reflected in his hurriedly packaged and baseless conjectures betrays his ignoble effort to first portray the office of the Vice President in a manner most scornful, and not necessarily anchored on a patriotic desire to seek the safe return of the girls like majority of Nigerians and members of the international community had demonstrated since the epic return of these girls.

His concern has rather being on what government was offering to secure their release from Boko Haram captivity. One   wonders if  Kwebena is a hostage negotiator for him to have been so sure in his allusion that the Vice President lied on national television. The Federal Government’s position in the entire episode which was reflected in all its presentations were based on facts and figures and in consonance with what President Buhari had consistently noted in all his comments about the release of the girls. The honourable thing Kwebena or any other `doubting Thomas’ would have done is to have presented a contrary opinion that challenges facts presented by the vice president rather than expose his ignorance on sensitive matters of national security implications.

Contrary to what Mr. Kwebena may want the public to believe, there is no statement, official or unofficial, from the military that contradicts comments made by Vice President Osinbajo or Alhaji Lai Mohammed, and up till now, no organization or individual has come up with any figure that was paid to secure the girls’ release.

The Defence Headquarters, in its usual manner released a statement signed by its spokesman, Brig. Gen. Rabe Abubakar on October 15 which should have cleared doubts conceived in the minds of  Kwebena and his likes, about the military operations and the negotiations for the girls’ release.

According to the DHQ, “the military also want to debunk the baseless and unfounded story that there is disquiet in the military over the condition of release of the girls.’’

Furthermore, such blanket statements meant to castaspersions on the Federal Government’s efforts to get the remaining girls back should be taken with a pinch of salt because such sweeping remarks that are based on vague sources (an international medium and unknown military source)only end up causing disaffection in the society and inciting the public against government.

Cynics like Mr. Kwebena should have been well informed before attempting to mislead an enlightened public and on wits that negotiations are not done on the pages of newspapers or concluded in the press, not to talk of a situation where majority of the hostages are yet to be released.

If information from official governmentsources are unanimous that the girls were released unconditionally then the public, owing to the trust and confidence it had developed on this government, should discountenance whatever falsehood peddled by anyone.

Moreover, about 90 per cent of the abducted girls are still in captivity and that in my opinion remains the central focus of government and one can conveniently draw from the present mood that this is indeed topmost on the minds of Nigerians.

AKOSU EMMANUEL LUBEM
akosumela@gmail.com, 0703857549 sms only

PUBLIC AFFAIRS ANALYST WROTE FROM ABUJA
NIGERIA

Nigeria’s Electoral Reform Stares at the Judiciary

PRESS STATEMENT

SKC Ogbonnia+

Houston, Texas

October 21, 2016

The recent statement by the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to reform the Nigeria’s electoral laws is in order. Any overture with a positive attribute is always welcome. Yet, some might argue, and plainly so, that the idea of electoral reform in the country is hardly novel and therefore far from the solution. After all, despite the fact that Buhari’s immediate predecessors made similar attempts that resulted to Electoral Acts of 2002, 2006, and 2010; the Nigerian experience with election matters has remained a travesty of sorts.

But there is an array of hope. The current reform agenda is developing to be uniquely salutary. In short, it appears our leaders are gradually coming to terms with the pragmatic truth that Nigeria’s leadership problem has never been due to the absence of laws. And it has never been any failure on the part of the Nigerian people to recognize when and where the laws are broken. Instead, it is the abject failure to implement the existing laws.

It is profoundly encouraging, therefore, to read that part of the terms of reference of the present reform committee headed by former Senate President Ken Nnamani is “to review recent judicial decisions on election petitions as they relate to conflicting judgments and absence of consequential orders.”

Clearly, there has been a plethora of conflicting judgments as there is the absence of consequential orders on election petitions throughout the 4^th Republic. The most obvious, of course, is the seemingly lack of consequences for politicians who are found guilty of rigging themselves to power besides the mere replacement with the rightful winners. But no election dilemma is more mindboggling than the degree of inconsistency that exists in addressing the petitions. Ultimately ripe for The Guinness Book of Records is a case that went viral in the media not long ago. Referred to as Obiechina Vs Chime, it has been languishing in the courts for the past 5 years. As if the delay is not enough, instead of meeting it with some sense of finality when it came up at the Supreme Court on 26^th September 2016, the case was pole-vaulted further to 14^th February 2017.

Initiated contemporaneously in 2011 by Dr. Alex Obiechina, an Enugu governorship contestant under the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria (PDP), the petition is against the then State Governor, Mr. Sullivan Chime. The crux of the matter is that the party officially scheduled and held its primaries on 9^th January 2011, and Obiechina was declared the winner. For unknown reasons, PDP jettisoned the result and conducted another election on 12^th January 2011 with Chime as its flag bearer.

Unfortunately, however, the PDP did not give a notice of 21 days to the Independent National Election Commission (INEC), a condition required by the Electoral Act of 2010 for re-conducting party primary elections—and a key omission which the INEC itself openly admitted. Moreover, the PDP failed to give the 7-day mandatory notice to aspirants as enshrined in the party’s election guidelines. Despite various complaints from Obiechina, the then national ruling party proceeded to submit Chime's name to INEC for the governorship election in Enugu State in April 2011. Adding a more bizarre element to the predicament is the audacity of INEC to conduct another election in 2015 to the same Enugu governorship position while there were subsisting pre-election cases before the courts.

Some legal scholars have worried that the stumbling block is ostensibly hinged to the orbit of public perception. First, Obiechina did not stand for the general election to the office he is attempting to assume. Second, INEC has conducted another election in which another person, who is not connected to the original case, has been sworn in as the governor of the same state under review. But such concerns ought not to be. The law is the law. Besides, there is a set of prevailing precedence. Not to play a judge here, for I am not one, but two landmark cases: Amaechi Vs Omehia and Obi Vs Uba might have pointed to a decisive outcome one way or the other.

So why such abnormal delays?

The answer is uncertain. It could be due to any manner of reason, including the typical logistical problems, and so forth. And contrary to popular belief, most members of the Supreme Court are people of virtue, who have shown some level of independence in their careers and remain capable of making bold decisions. Nevertheless, undue delays, regardless of the circumstance, only go to fuel the widespread narrative that favourable court outcomes, especially on election matters, are the sole province of the highest bidders.

The judiciary is definitely not the lone culprit. Individual candidates, the legislature, the executive, and the INEC itself flout electoral laws without restraint. Section 91 of the Electoral Act of 2010, for instance, is explicit on nature of campaign finance while Section 124 is specific with bribery and applicable consequences. Yet, different shades of world currencies, huge gifts, and honorariums from the politicians to traditional leaders, religious leaders, electoral officials as well as the vulnerable voters have defined recent election seasons. Worse still, the INEC is nonchalant about this important issue of campaign money. As a matter of record, its then chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, had to confess that even though the Electoral Act empowers it to monitor sources and nature of funding, the “INEC does not even have a desk that handles campaign financing.”

Still, any meaningful change in the electoral process must stare closely at the judiciary. Envisioned as the beacon of hope for the citizenry in a democracy, this organ of government has a special role to play. Not only is it designed to provide the right ambiance as well as the confidence for the equitable dispensation of justice, but it is also vested with the power to guide the actions of all participants in the electoral process. But I do not need to repeat here that the ordinary Nigerian people view the entire judiciary as a daylight bugaboo. And you cannot blame them for such mistrust. The history with conflicting judgments and the brazen lack of consequential orders, which has cast a stark stain on the courts, does not emit hope.

Reforming Nigeria’s electoral laws is a holy grail, for sure. But the Nnamani-led committee is in a vantage position to make a difference. Instead of being bogged down with an entirely new Act, it ought to focus more on how existing laws could be enforced. After all, a simple review of the latest Electoral Act will show that the document itself sufficiently addresses current electoral experiences, including offenses, and consequences. What is urgent, therefore, is how to restore public confidence in the judiciary, beginning with the courts dispensing the cases brought before them not only in a timely fashion but also without fear or favour. Very essentially, any reform must explore how best to ensure that judges render verdicts that readily translate to serious consequences for electoral malpractices. Anything less is a predictive vain hope.

SKCOgbonnia@firsttexasenergy.com

Houston, Texas

USA

Full Text of Justice Ngwuta’s letter to CJN, Justice Mahmoud Mohammed

18th October, 2016

My Lord, The Hon. the Chief Justice of Nigeria

& Chairman,

National Judicial Council

Supreme Court Complex

ABUJA

My Lord

INVASION OF MY HOUSE IN THE NIGHT, PLANTING OF HUGE SUMS OF MONEY IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES, PURPORTED RECOVERY OF THE MONEY, CARTING AWAY OF MY DOCUMENTS AND OTHER VALUABLE ITEMS AND MY SUBSEQUENT ABDUCTION BY MASKED OPERATIVES OF THE DSS BETWEEN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7TH AND SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, 2016

1.        Some days before Friday, 7th October, 2016 I started feeling symptoms of malaria attack.  Any malaria drug keeps me drowsy and sleeping for days and since I had to go to work I decided to hang on until Friday to take the drug after work.

2.        I returned from work late Friday afternoon, had a meal and took the medication I got from Dr. Ukah of the Supreme Court Medical Centre.  By 7.30 pm I was already in bed having switched off my hand sets.  After a little while my house maid knocked on the door to my bedroom.  I reluctantly dragged myself to the door.  She told me that a group of people wanted to see me.  I told her to inform whoever wanted to see me that night that I do not see visitors in the night, that they could come to see me in day time.  I went back to sleep.  I could not tell how long later that I heard knocks on the door.  I ignored the knocks but when my house girl continued knocking on the door I managed to get up and opened the door.  She told me that some people said that the President sent them to me.  I got out of the room to find that a large number of people some of whom wore face masks and hand gloves were everywhere in the ground floor.  I told my house maid to ask the people to meet me in my study next door to the bedroom.

3.        They rushed into my study, one of them said his name was John.  He flashed a card to me and showed me what he said was a search warrant.  My vision was blurred as a result of the malaria and the drug I took.  They had drawn guns.  I was terrified and I thought they had a more sinister mission than a mere search.  I made to know whether the Chief Justice of Nigeria knew of their mission.  One of them contemptuously spat “Who is Chief Judge of Nigeria”.  I brought out my handset to call the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, they would not let me do so.  Rather they collected my three phones and another phone that I had discarded. I lay down on the seat in the parlour downstairs while they turned everything upside down on the ground floor.

When they finished downstairs they demanded that I should show them the rooms on the next floor.  Again I had to lie down on the seat in the room while they turned everything upside down.  I had to go to another seat when they want to upturn the seat I occupied.  One of them saw the sum of forty thousand naira (N40,000.00)  and one thousand naira notes in one of the drawers. He was excited and called their lead who saw the money and said “This is not the kind of money we came to pick”.  They left the N40,000.000.

4.        In the next bedroom I lay on the bed out of sight of the wardrobe from which they brought some boxes and brief cases and travelling bags.  All the bags and briefcases and travelling bags except one contained only magazines, papers and some old clothing.  Some were empty.  Only one small bag was locked with a padlock and this was the only bag that contained money. They directed me to come over and remove the padlock.  I retrieved the key from the side pocket of the bag and removed the padlock and returned to my bed.  They put the bags together by the toilet door. They called me again and asked me whether the bags were my property and I answered they were my property.  None of the bags were neither opened in my presence nor in the presence of my housemaid who was the only person in the house with me at all material times. 

5.        Some of them stayed in the room while I took them to my study. At this time I became very dizzy and I had to return to lie down on a seat in the parlour and a man with a gun and a face mask stood over me while I dozed.  He followed each time I went to the toilet.  Another one followed my housemaid each time I asked her for water.  There was no way out of the house.  They were at all doors.  Those searching and those outside the house went into the house through the main door, kitchen door and back doors. They went in and out of every room including the room in which the bags were kept.  I dozed intermittently but my house girl was kept sitting on the steps and was able to observe them coming through the kitchen door but she could not see those who came from back doors, took the second steps and went in and out of the rooms on the upper floor. 

6.         After many hours they came down to the sitting room downstairs and told me they were going to bring down the bags.

I was speechless when I saw them bringing out huge bundles of different currencies from the bags that had contained only magazine papers and old clothes and some were empty.  Some were contained in multi-coloured plastic bags which they tore and discarded.  They put the money in different bags and brief cases and then proceeded to count a large amount of N5, N10, N20 and N50 notes which was the change I returned each time I went to shop over the years.  They kept waking me up to ask how I came about the small denomination of naira notes.  No one asked me any question about the huge sums of money they put in the bags.

7.         One of them came to where I was lying down and ordered me to sit up.  One of the gun men who stood a few feet from me came and stood next to me with his gun drawn.  I was ordered to sign a paper which they said contained a list of what they were taking away. Confronted with the life-threatening situation I made an instant mental decision that it was better for me to comply with their orders and stay alive to tell my story rather than get shot and killed on the pretext that I attacked them or that I tried to escape.  I signed the paper and wrote my name as ordered.  No one told me what offence I was alleged to have committed.  No one told me of any petition or allegation against me. 

8.         The only bag that contained money was the small bag i locked with a padlock which I unlocked when ordered to do so.  The bag contained the sum of $25,000, £10 = = and a brown envelope containing the sum of N710,000 which was a monthly allowance paid to me for September 2016.  In the brief case, which I carry to my office daily, I had the sum of N300,000 and some loose change.  The above are the only sums of money taken from me along with my phones, papers and other household items. I do not know how they came about the huge sums of money I saw for the first time in my parlour on the early hours of Saturday, 8th October, 2016.  The various sums of money alleged to have been recovered from me were said to be in the social media in the early hours of Saturday, 8th October, 2016 when the invaders were yet to complete their search.

9.        They took me away in their vehicle but before they drove away they ordered my housemaid to get in and lock the house and not to ever come out

or let anyone into the house.  It was when I saw DSS in the premises into which they drove me that I realized my invaders were agents of a Federal Government Department. Prior to getting into the premises I thought that the invaders were even armed robbers or kidnappers, more so when I was not questioned by anyone about anything.

10.      Then I became much more disturbed not only for myself but for the future of this great Nation, Nigeria.  I could not convince myself that any agency of the Federal Government, in a democratic setting, could for any undisclosed reason violate the rights of a Nigerian citizen, a Judicial Officer and  Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, for that matter with such impunity.  I thought that the democratic government had been overthrown and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) abolished or suspended.

11.      Then the next phase of the ordeal started.  I was taken to a room where I met my learned brother, Hon. Justice John Inyang Okoro, JSC.  He looked spent and so were other Judicial Officers both serving, sacked and retired.  No one told me anything or asked me any question till late in the night when they drove from over one hour to a place they called villa.  They took Justice Okoro and myself into a room that contained only a bed with a discarded, stained old mattress and both of us had to share it for the night.  There was no towel, no soap and worst of all there was no toilet paper.  We slept in our clothes, went under the tap and used our handkerchiefs in place of towels.

12.      The next day, Sunday, we were driven back to the office.  I was taken to a room where two operatives fired questions at me in quick succession.  I answered as much as I could in the circumstances.  I pleaded with them to tell me why I was abducted and detained and subjected to endless questioning.I also asked why everyone kept mute over the huge sums of money allegedly recovered in my house but none of the two men would answer my question.  We were allowed to go homeSunday night only as a result of the intervention of the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Hon. Justice Mahmud Mohammed, GCON.  We were ordered to return on Monday and since then we have been reporting daily to them.

13.      On Friday last week, I was ordered to report by 10 am.  Justice Okoro and I were required to appear before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate.  We told our stories to the Senators and rushed from them to meet our interrogators.  On one particular occasion, I was taken to, and locked up, in their different rooms.  Each room had only a table and a set of chairs and I was kept for about one and half hours in each room.  No one was with me in any of the rooms.

14.      My Noble Lord, I am a victim of my own resolve never to violate my sacred oath of office as a Judicial Officer.  Politicians and their collaborators have been hunting me on that account.  It started in Ebonyi State where I was falsely accused before a panel set up by NJC in August 2000.  It was replicated in 2009 when I was pulled from my Division, Calabar, to preside over a motion filed by Senator Andy Uba seeking to be a Governor without going through the process of election.  In each case I was exonerated.

15.      My present plight started sometime between 2013 and 2014. I represented the then Chief Justice of Nigeria in an event organised in the International Conference Centre.Hon. Rotimi Amaechi came in late and sat next to me at the high table. He introduced himself to me and we exchanged contacts.  A few weeks after, Fayose’s case was determined in the Court of Appeal. Amaechi called me by 6.45 am.  He said he had come to see me but was told I had left for my office. When he said he would return in the evening, I demanded to know what he wanted but he would not tell me. He did not come that evening but came the following morning when I was already prepared to go to work. He begged me to ensure that Fayose’s election was set aside and another election ordered for his friend Fayemi to contest.  I told him I would not help him and that even if I am on the panel I have only my one vote.

16.      After the Rivers State Governorship election was determined by the Court of Appeal, he ,Amaechi,called to tell me his ears were full and he would like to tell me what he heard.  I told him I was out of Abuja at the time.  On my return he came in the evening and even before he sat down he barked “You have seen Wike”.  I asked him whether that was a question or a statement. Then he made a call and asked me to speak with someone.  The man he called said he was a DSS man. We exchanged greetings and I handed the phone to him.  Next, he said “Oga is not happy”.  I asked him who is the unhappy “Oga” and he answered “Buhari”.  I retorted “go and talk to his wife”.  He got very angry, and left, remarking “we shall see” several times.

17.      Your Lordship may recall one morning when I pleaded not be on the Panel for Rivers Appeal.  Your Lordship said I was already on the Panel and asked me to explain why I made the request to be excluded. When I explained what transpired the previous night, Your Lordship told me Amaechi had also attempted to influence other Justices.  My Lord, on the day we heard the appeal with your Lordship presiding, we were allowed lunch break at 4.20 pm.  The moment I got into my Chambers he, Amaechi, called.  When he told who was calling, I said to him, “Your Excellency, you want to issue more threats”?  He replied “Have you been threatened before?”  I replied “I know a threat when I hear one even if veiled.  In any case I will not talk to you” and I switched off my phone.

18.      The people who failed in their attempt to destroy me in Ebonyi in 2000 and in Enugu in Andy Uba’s case in the Court of Appeal, Enugu in 2009 are now supplying Amaechi with information to fight me for my negative response to his demands, especially my answer to his statement that “Oga was not happy”.This infuriated him and as he stormed out he said he would deal with the situation.

19.      The incident I will narrate below may or may not bear on this case.  When the Governorship Election appeal from my State, Ebonyi, came to the Court of Appeal, one Mr. Igwenyi, a Senior staff of Federal Judicial Service Commission came to my Chambers and told me that the former Governor of Abia State, Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu had pleaded with him to convince me to see him, Dr. Onu.  I asked him to call Dr. Onu; he did and I wanted to know why he wanted to see me.  He said it was confidential.  I asked when he wanted to see me and he said he would like me to come in the evening.  I told Igwenyi that he would have to take me to Dr. Onu in his car and bring me back.  I had wanted him to listen to what Dr. Onu had to say but when we arrived, Dr Onu put him in a different room.  He asked me whether I know the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal and I told him that His Lordship was my Presiding Justice in the Court of Appeal, Benin Division.  He asked of my relationship with the PJA and I said it was cordial.  He nodded his head several times in apparent satisfaction.

20.      He told me that the candidate for the Labour Party was ready to switch over to APC if he could help him win the appeal in the Court of Appeal and that in appreciation of the undertaking to come over to his party, he had obtained the services of three Justices of the Court of Appeal to ensure victory for Labour Party.  He said he needed one to convince the PJA to include his three Justices of the Court of Appeal in the five-man panel to hear the appeal.  I told him I would not help him and that I could not in good conscience convey such request even to a Customary Court Judge. He was disappointed and asked me whether I knew the husband of the PJA.  I told him I did not know the man.  I bid him good night and left. Igwenyi joined me in the passage and when he drove me back to my home I told him what Dr. Onu wanted.  Igwenyi apologised to me and assured me that he would not have bothered me if he had known what Dr. Onu wanted me to do.

21.      In addition to the above I have been subjected to visits to the DSS offices.  I was made to stay idle for the whole day, without food or even water.   On 17thOctober, 2016 I went to the DSS office to collect my passports as directed.  I was to be there by 10 am but I arrived by 9.30 am and I was assured that I would return to my office in no time.  I was kept there till3.45 pm before I was questioned on the passports till 5.00 pm.  After that, one of them took the passports to his boss.  He returned an hour later, handed me my passports and told me he had finished with me but that only the man in whose office I was could let me go.  I was only allowed to go about 10 pm with a warning to report at10 am on 18th October 2016.  From 9.30 am to 10 pm I was not given water or food. 

22.      I am on my way to the DSS office and who knows if and when I will be allowed to leave the place.

23.      My Lord, the facts stated here in can be verified.

24.      Attached is an Affidavit deposed by me in the Supreme Court Registry to this effect.

Yours faithfully

NWALI SYLVESTER UNGWUTA

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT