By Adeyemi Stephen Adegboye Esq.

Abstract:                                                                                                                                                          

Extra-Judicial killing in Nigeria has become a dreadful nightmare for the entire citizenry. It is ubiquitous and highly pervading within our political system especially those sponsored by grievous politicians and heinous godfathers. The Constitution being the grund-norm and as well the fundamental Law of the Land is very clear in its inviolable provisions as to when a person’s right to life could be deprived of or derogated from. As such, it is to be stressed emphatically that unlawful execution of a person without full recourse to law is not only unlawful but also unconstitutional in its entirety. By the clear dictate of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended via the unambiguous provision of section 33(1) which preponderates in favour of fundamental Right to life. It becomes imperative if not paramount to stress that no one shall be deprived intentionally of his right to life, save in execution of the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.

 

INTRODUCTION

On the 8th day of September 2020, the news about the killing of Terwase Akwasa Agbadu aka Gana came to public notice. It was indeed devastating and horrific, due to the questionable circumstances surrounding the death of the Warlord. Prior to the time the horrendous incident happened, I used to think that Nigeria had advanced beyond that barbaric and imbecilic disposition of despotism and sheer display of autocracy in governance until the news about the death of Gana spread out like wildfire.

This work is poised at discussing in great details the legality, constitutionality or otherwise behind the killing of Gana by members of the Nigerian Army. It is indeed a legal inquest held to fish out the legal issues inherent in and/or deducible from his execution with a view to creating public enlightenment on the circumstances surrounding his death and as well to arrive at a logical conclusion as to whether or not the killing was excusable/pardonable.

This work might be inchoate without treating the background story that culminated to the heinous and callous killing of Terwase Akwasa Agbadu a.k.a Gana.

Gana was an indigene of Gbise community in Kasina Ala Local Government Council of Benue State of Nigeria. The fact can never be gainsaid that he was a renown warlord and fearless warrior. Nonetheless, he was on countless occasions reported to have purportedly carried out several criminal activities including but not limited to banditry, kidnapping, assassination, ritual killings and cattle rustling. By the same token synonymous to the facts enunciated above, Gana who was killed by soldiers in a mysterious circumstance was alternatively reported to be at the fore front of battlefield defending the people of Benue State, especially farmers whenever cattle Herdsmen invaded their territory with a view to making unlawful and unwarranted incursions to destroy farms, farm produce and the most worrisome; the farmers themselves. He was indeed a warrior and an intrepid Samurai save for his criminal tendency and propensity which veiled up his positive side.

Without too much ado, prior to the day he was maliciously killed by members of the Nigerian Army; the Governor of Benue State in the person of His Excellency Samuel Ortom made arrangement with Gana and the boys under him to submit to the amnesty programme of Benue State Government. Having received invitation by the State Government to accept a cease fire and surrender to amnesty; he made up his mind and without wasting time gave way to the privilege he was afforded by Benue State Government. It was more than obvious that this man had already made up his mind to give up his arms and shun other criminal activities that were traceable to him.

As he left Kasina Ala Local Government where he met with some Traditional Rulers and Local Chiefs with a view to creating public fora about his irreversible intention to accept Amnesty as offered by the State Government of which several pictures were taken and subsequently uploaded on social media platforms for people to be aware of the authenticity and verisimilitude of the bold step he was willing and ready to take.

As he left the place where he met with the Traditional Rulers and local Chiefs in order to go and meet the Governor at the Benue State Secretariat, Makurdi, with a view to perfecting every official arrangement for the amnesty to be fully granted and have full force of law. The vehicle conveying Gana, his boys, the local chiefs and other people going to the State Secretariat in Makurdi for the pre-arranged Amnesty were interjected and stopped by members of the Nigerian Army who had already mounted a road block for him along Gbase-Gboko-Makurdi road. Gana was forcefully brought out of the vehicle and taken to an unknown location after which the news came to public knowledge that the soldiers that took him away had murdered him.

In the wake of the confusion enraptured in the news circulating round about the death of Gana; the Commander 4 Special Forces Command, Doma, Nasarawa State, Major-General Moundhey Ali, told Journalists that Gana was killed following exchange of gunfire…

Following this incident, the pictures of his murder that were uploaded on social media platforms speak volume of the most ruthless and heinous manner at which Gana was executed by the Nigerian soldiers who were sent to carry out the horrible and most controversial mission of the decade who indeed carried it out sheepishly and slavishly without any thought of what such pedantic display of lack of knowledge of military strategy, warfare and militarization might bring up subsequently in the Nigerian polity. Such destructive stance maintained by members of the Nigerian Army was an affront on our self-styed and quixotic cohesive democratic federalism. As someone who is attuned with what obtains in the Nigerian polity, I was forced to believe that Gana’s unlawful execution was an order from the powers that be in the country owing to the fact that he was not the first terrorist acclaimed to have wreaked havoc on the polity. How about the repentant Boko Haram Members, who were given amnesty by federal Government? Were they killed on their way to submit to amnesty? As they are even known for consistent incivility and acts occasioning gory and massacre, perusing the northern hemisphere of the country with their destructive and ravaging criminal trajectory. Beyond rhetorics and display of mere elocution, one may begin to ask that with all these indisputable, incontrovertible and weighty evidence substantiating their involvement in the indisputable allegations brought against them and what they are indeed known for. Were they framed up with ill-founded allegations that they attempted to launch attacks on members of the Armed forces on their way to submit to amnesty? These facts speak volumes of the sectional and lopsided nature of our federal system of government. The fact can never be overstressed that Nigeria’s style of federalism is imbued with sectionalism, bigotry and exhibition of ethnocentrism. The system is in favour of one group with a surreptitious intention to traumatize others. A country being ruled by shameless ethnic Jingoists

As a Lawyer who is breasted with the laws that obtain under the Nigerian Corpus Juris (Legal System), especially laws bordering on Criminal Justice Administration; I found no difficulty to arrive at a conclusion that the execution of Gana by members of the Nigerian Army was unjustifiable, unlawful and unconstitutional.

Having laid the above copious foundation, it now becomes imperative to treat the legal issues inherent in the circumstances surrounding the death of Terwase Akwasa Agbadu aka Gana. The legal issues are discussed below in seriatim:

VIOLATION OF GANA’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE                            

Every human being anywhere in the world is born with human rights. Human rights are what make a person a human being; without which a human is robbed and equated to mere animal.

Human rights are what enables a person to continue his humanity. In sort, without human rights, life is meaningless, worthless and a mere shadow.

With the foregoing in mind, I wish to express here with professional confidence that the Nigerian Legal System is replete with authorities both judicial and statutory which reinvigorate and strengthen the fundamental rights of the people.

In Uzoukwu v. Ezeonu II, Nasir PCA expressed the following view:

“Due to the development of constitutional law in this field, distinct difference has emerged between fundamental Rights and Human Rights. It may be recalled that human rights were derived from and out of the wider concept of natural rights. They are rights which every civilized society must accept as belonging to each person as a human being. These were termed human rights.                                                                                                                                                                         

When the United Nations made its declaration, it was in respect of Human Rights as it was envisaged that certain rights belong to all human beings irrespective of citizenship, race, religion and so on. This has now formed part of international Law”.

Drawing adequate and logical inferences from the foregoing, one may conclude that the totality of the above captured reasoning of the court is to the effect that fundamental human rights are basic and inalienable rights that every citizen of every sane country enjoys and for such rights to be accorded the status of fundamental human rights, they must be recognised by the Grund-norm, that is the organic Law of the Land (the Constitution)

By doing both technical and substantial justice to the scenario painted at the opening of this work i.e., the unlawful killing of Gana; one would see that his fundamental right to life was grossly violated by members of the Nigerian Army who shot at him without following due process notwithstanding the fact that he was on Government wanted list.

In consonance with the factual analysis prudently represented above, it behoves on me to discuss at length the legality, constitutionality or otherwise of the killing of Gana.

Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended makes adequate provision for right to life. Section 33(1) provides thus:

“Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria”.

However, before we proceed, it needed to be stressed here that not all offences attract death penalty or death sentence. In Nigeria, only capital offences attract death penalty. Such offences include:

  1. MURDER– defined to be an offence under section 306 and 316 of the Criminal Code Act and punishable under Section 319 of the same Law.
  2. TREASON-This offence is defined by section 37(1) of the Criminal Code Act as

“any person who levies war against the state, in order to intimidate or overawe the President or the Governor of a State, is guilty of Treason, and is liable to the punishment of death.

See the case of R. v. Michael Omisade & ors.

  1. DIRECTING UNLAWFUL TRIAL BY ORDEAL RESULTING TO DEATH OF ANY PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING-The offence is recognized by Section 208 of the Criminal Code Act. It states thus:

“any person who directs or controls or presides at any trial by ordeal which is unlawful is guilty of a felony, and he is liable, when the trial which the person directs, controls, or presides at results in the death of any party to the proceedings, to the punishment of death….”

  1. ARMED ROBBERY – this offence is recognised by section 402(2) of the Criminal Code Act. It therefore states thus:

Section 402(2) …. If__

  • Any offender mentioned in subsection (1) of this Section is armed with any firearms or any explosive weapon or any obnoxious or chemical materials or is in company with any person so armed; or
  • at or immediately before or immediately after the time of robbery, the said offender wounds any person, the offender shall upon conviction be sentenced to death (underlining and italics are mine).

Having sensibly laid out the offences that attract or carry death penalty under the Nigerian Legal System, it is still confusing if the members of the Nigerian Army who carried out Gana’s Murder could link him with any of the above discussed capital offences as at the time he was killed. Even if he could be linked to any of the capital offences discussed above, a fact that never existed, they still didn’t have the right to kill him without recourse to law or following due process, as such position is against the principle of legality. The soldiers constituted themselves into a court and in similar manner made themselves judge in their own case. He was denied the right to be heard, as it was glaring from available facts and compelling evidence at our disposal that he was not afforded fair hearing before he was unlawfully laid to rest. The whole purport of the ongoing analysis is that he should have been tried in a court of competent jurisdiction and the presiding judge must have passed judgment for his conviction to the extent that he has been sentenced to death having heard the case of the prosecution and the defence of the accused person. Surprisingly, nothing of such happened. It was indeed a slap on the face of our cringing and ever heated polity and bedraggled democratic system.

Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended provides thus:

“every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty…”

It follows therefore that in every criminal matter except the accused person/defendant invokes defence of insanity, intoxication etc. which are exceptions to the general rule. The burden of proof in a criminal matter lies and rests on the prosecution and doesn’t shift until same is discharged by him. As such, even if there is any reasonable doubt about the charge brought against an accused person, the doubt is always and not occasionally resolved in favour of the accused person. Suspicion no matter how grave cannot ground conviction. Hence, the Prosecution must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted for the offence he is charged with.

Still on the duty of the prosecution to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt before an accused person can be convicted. The latin maxim affirmanti non neganti incubit probatio is also of great importance to elucidate more on this all-time duty of the prosecution. The maxim means, the burden of proof lies on he who affirms not on he who negates.

In a view to strengthening the above assertion, the Case of Woomington v. DPP will come to mind. Where Lord Sankay had opportunity to express the danger attached to a situation where the prosecution fails to prove a criminal matter beyond reasonable doubt before an accused is convicted. In his landmark and evergreen dictum, he expressed the view that:

However, in continuation of the constitutional provisions strengthening fundamental right to life, Section 33(2) provides as follows:

“A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary: –

  • for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property
  • in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or
  • for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.

The constitution is very clear in the above captured provisions and doesn’t admit of any ambiguity, so a liberal and broad approach would be adopted in interpreting the relevant section of the constitution as it stands as one of the most prudent canons of interpreting the constitution.

The wording of the constitution is very clear and unambiguous nor equivocal. As such, the above constitutional provisions are self-explanatory. In consequence of the above, it is instructive to state that, under the constitution, every person has right to life. Therefore, right to life is not to be deprived unless after due process of law is followed and in the execution of the sentence of a court for a criminal offence for which the person has been found guilty in Nigeria.

However, there is no contravention of right to life, if a person dies as a result of the use, to such extent and such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary for the:

  • defence of any person from unlawful violence (that is self-defence); or
  • defence of property; or
  • to effect a lawful arrest; or
  • the prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or
  • for the purpose of suppressing a riot; or
  • for the purpose of suppressing insurrection; or
  • for the purpose of suppressing mutiny.

In consequence of the above constitutional provisions, which is the only yardstick or parameter to measure the legality, constitutionality or otherwise of the killing of Terwase Akwasa Agbadu aka Gana by men of the Nigerian Army. As such, the circumstances   surrounding his death should be married to what the constitution provides in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion of whether or not his killing by members of the Nigerian Army was justifiable, excusable, pardonable or otherwise.

Premised on the foregoing, it is instructive to state that it was obvious from all indications that the attack that was visited on Gana by the soldiers that murdered him was not in defence of anyone or to prevent him from unlawful violence. In fact, he came out unarmed without gun nor any ammunition. Shortly before he was killed, he had a meeting with some traditional rulers and local chiefs. He took several pictures with them which were subsequently uploaded on social media platforms for people to see and to know the authenticity of his repentance and readiness to drop criminality and embrace amnesty as offered by Benue State Government. It must also be stressed that the killing was not carried out in defence of any property. There was no property to be defended in the bush he was taken to before he was unlawfully killed by soldiers who took him away from the vehicle conveying him to Government Secretariat before he was waylaid enroute.

Another fact worthy of legal scrutiny here is that the soldiers who came and took him away didn’t come to effect any lawful arrest, as the law is very clear on this, to the effect that power of arrest lies within the exclusive preserve of the police by virtue of the power vested on them by the Police Act 2020. The power to carry out lawful arrest of a civilian or someone not subject to service law could only be exercised by members of the Nigerian Army in rare occasions and the circumstances surrounding the death of Gana didn’t come under any of the rare occasions through which the soldiers could have arrested him on the fateful day he was unlawfully killed by them.

We also need to know that Gana wasn’t detained (though might be on Government wanted list) talkless of killing him to prevent his escape from lawful detention. In a similar vein, he wasn’t killed for the purpose of suppressing a riot, as there was no riot whatsoever before he was killed by soldiers, neither was he killed for the purpose of suppressing insurrection; nor was he killed for the purpose of suppressing a mutiny.

Premised on the above synoptic analysis of legality, it was more than obvious that Gana’s case was a case of extra-judicial killing. They carried out his killing in total and utter neglect and disregard of the constitution and other extant laws in the country on this subject. In fact, Section 33(1) of the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended makes it clear and unambiguous that for a person’s right to life to be deprived or trampled upon, it must be in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence which he has been found guilty in Nigeria. Even though Gana had perpetrated a lot of criminal evils, I mean if he was alleged to have committed an offence warranting or worthy of death penalty; the law is still very clear that before his right to life could be denied, he must be taken to court for criminal trial. He wasn’t arrested, nor investigated, neither was he tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, and no sentence was passed by a judge before he was unlawfully killed by members of the Nigerian Army.

Another constitutional provision of sublime importance is the provision of Section 45 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Section 45 provides thus:

45(1) nothing in section 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society……

  • In the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or
  • For the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.

I cannot but tell all and sundry that I am indeed happy at this juncture, reason being that section 45 which is tagged “Restriction on and derogation from fundamental rights” cannot be invoked as a cloak to subvert right to life, as the soldiers that carried out Gana’s killing cannot leverage on this to justify their heinous act. They were indeed refractory and unruly by killing him without going through the hurdles of law.

Having stated the provision of section 33 of the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigerai 1999 as amended, dealing with right to life and the conditions under which the right can be curtailed or deprived. Another way through which a person’s rights can be deprived is under the provision of section 45 thereof and section 33 is excluded in those fundamental rights that can be derogated from or restricted by the constitutional instrumentality of section 45. In fact, the proviso under section 45(2) state thus:

“provided that nothing in this section shall authorise any derogation from the provision of section 33 of this constitution except in respect of death resulting from acts of war or authorise any derogation from the provision of section 36(8) of this constitution.”

Premised on the above constitutional provision, I needed to ask if there was any act of war before Gana was killed by soldiers? The question is very clear and can be answered in the negative. There was no act of war before Gana was dastardly and heinously killed. so, his killing was purely unconstitutional, unlawful and malicious.

The consequence of the foregoing is that the soldiers responsible for his death should be charged and prosecuted for murder.

                                   THE WAY FORWARD

As a constitutional lawyer breasted with legality, I felt there are legal measures to take in order to posthumously redeem the wasted dignity and person of Terwase Akwasa Agbadu aka Gana who was left in the pool of his blood by callous members of the Nigerian Army who carried out his unconstitutional killing.

The family or dependants (wife, children etc) of Gana can sue the soldiers responsible for his death for the violation of his fundamental human right to life through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure.

The constitution in section 46(1) provides thus:

“Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to High Court in the State for redress”

In a clearer legal parlance, the provision of the fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules (2009) is very assertive in cases having legal semblance with the one of Gana. A representative suit can be maintained by his family members or dependants against those who carried out his killing and the people that sent them, as they are all parties to the unlawful killing of Gana.

Aside redressing the unjust, unconstitutional and unlawful execution of Gana via the instrumentality of FREP; the people responsible for his killing could also be charged and prosecuted for murder/unlawful homicide.

ESTABLISHING THE CASE OF MURDER AGAINST THE SOLDIERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF GANA

In order to establish the case of Murder or culpable homicide against the soldiers who carried out Gana’s unlawful execution, it is imperative to unravel the offence of murder and its ingredients. It will also speak well if the Jurisdiction of court with regards to murder is discussed. It is important to note at this juncture that the people alleged to have purportedly carried out the killing of Gana were soldiers /members of the Nigerian Army, so, the law has a somewhat special arrangement for them.

By virtue of the section 306 of the criminal Code Act,

 “it is unlawful to kill any person unless such killing is authorized or justified or excused by law”.

Also, section 308 of the same Act provides:

“except as hereinafter set forth, any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, is deemed to have killed that other person”.

It is also important to make reference to section 315 of the criminal code Act in this regard, the section reads thus:

 “Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of an offence which is called murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstance of the case”.

Also, section 316 (supra)

” Except herein after set forth, A person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances that is to say__

  1. If the offender intends to cause death of the person killed, or that of some other person:
  2. …………….

It suffices to state that for an offence to be validly established in a law court, two things must be established. They are called ingredients of an offence. These are Actus Reus that is the physical element of an offence and Mens Rea, which means the mental element of an offence. For an accused person to be linked up to an offence, the two ingredients must coexist that is, there must be contemporaneity of both Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Section 306, 308 and 315 speak volume of the physical element of the offence of murder, that is any unlawful killing of one person by another is murder. In a similar vein the mental element of the offence of murder is established by reason of section 316 0f the criminal Code Act. Premised on the footing of the above legal provisions, it is instructive to state with accurate precision that the soldiers who carried out the killing of Gana could be punished for such unlawful killing owing to the fact that such killing was unlawful, unjustified and unexcused by law. By the same token, if the soldiers or members of the Nigerian Army who dragged Gana away from the vehicle that was taking him to government house in Makurdi and later took him to an unknown location where he was brutally murdered claim that they cannot be held liable for his unlawful killing premised on the fact that they were sent by some people; both the soldiers and those who purportedly sent them would be held liable. This reasoning finds legal and logical expression in Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act dealing with parties to an offence. Section 7 of the Criminal code Act states thus:

“when an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say-

  • Every person who actually does the Act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence; (this is where the soldiers who unlawfully killed Gana would be caught. They were the ones who carried out the murder of Gana regardless of whether or not they were sent).
  • Every person who does or omits to do any Act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;
  • Every person who aids another person in committing the offence;
  • Any person who counsels or procures any another person to commit the offence (supposedly, if the soldiers claim to have been sent to carry out the unlawful execution, the people who sent them to carry out his inexcusable execution would be charged under this subsection for his unlawful killing).

Now to the proviso under section 7 (supra) “a conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence; entails the same consequences as a conviction of committing the offence”.                                                                                                                                                                                    

 It needed to be stressed that the offence of murder complained of in this work was allegedly committed by soldiers, who are subject to service law that is the Armed Forces Act CAP A 20 LFN 24 2004, so the offence maybe prosecuted in either a court-martial or a civil court. The court- martial is a creation of the Armed forces Act. It can only exercise jurisdiction on persons subject to service law.                                                                                                                                                                             

 Those who are subject to service law are officers in the Nigerian Army, the Navy and the Airforce. The officers, that is the soldiers who are responsible for the death of Gana may be tried for military and civil offences by either a general court -martial or a special court- martial which are the two types of court- martial created by law.

With logical reference to the subject of this work, it becomes imperative to state that the offence of murder complained of here is a civilian offence and we need not extend the tentacles of our discussion to military offences as they don’t fall within the rubric of this pre-occupation. The offence of murder as a civilian offence under the Armed forces Act is recognised under section 106 thereof. To conclude this aspect, it is instructive to state that a person who has been tried and convicted by court -martial may also be tried by a civil court for the same offence. The civil court will however take into consideration the punishment already imposed by the court- martial. However, where a person has been tried and convicted by a civil court, he shall not again be tried by a court martial.

                                          CONCLUSION                                                                                    

Roscoe Poundin his work, Sociological School of Jurisprudence is of the view that “law is a tool for social engineering.” As such, law is the yardstick through which the legality or otherwise of the conduct of man can be measured. If man is left alone to carry out his will, the whole world would rest in a state of anarchy and state of anarchy is a stateless and lawless state. According to Thomas Hobbs, in the stateless state, life was brutish, nasty and short.

Premised on the foregoing, it can never be gainsaid that security agencies in Nigeria have turned to something else especially members of the Nigerian Armed Forces who usually see themselves as being above the law of the land. In fact, their unruly and refractory display of martial madness has forced people to reach a conclusion that they are nothing but Gangsters in Military uniforms. The unlawful killing of Terwasa Akwasa Agbadu aka Gana is an eye opener for the people for them to brace up in their quest and clamour against extra judicial killings which is pervasive and ubiquitous in the Nigerian society. Before Gana was killed by soldiers, they did not follow due process of law, hence, they are culpable for his death and they should be tried either in a civil court or court -martial by reason of the fact that his killing was grossly unlawful, unconstitutional, inexcusable, and unjustifiable.

On the footing of the totality of all the analytical exposition represented and elucidated above; I wish to finalise my thought by saying “those who gave Gana an unlawful and unconstitutional death penalty deserve lawful and constitutional death sentence.”

THE END

          AUTHOR’S PROFILE

Adeyemi Stephen Adegboye is a Legal Practitioner currently practicing in Port Harcourt. His areas of practice are Maritime Law, Energy Law (Oil & Gas), Environmental Law, Banking Law, Minerology (Solid Minerals), Law and Medicine, Fintech law, Real Estate (Property Law), Corporate Law, Entertainment Law, Food Security Law, Consumer Protection Law and International Law.

Email: [email protected]

Phone Contact: +234(0)70 19452435

Linkedin Contact:

 

PICTORIAL ANNEXTURES

 

One of the pictures taken by Terwase Akwasa Agbadu aka Gana with Traditional Rulers and Local chiefs the day he was going to Makurdi to receive Amnesty of the Benue State Government.

 

Yet another Picture taken by him with Traditional Rulers, Local Chiefs and a large crowd that came to witness the occasion

Picture of Gana after being maimed by members of the Nigerian Army.

 

 

 

1. Retrieved from Premium Times online newspaper- premiumtimesng.com

2. See “ADDRESSING THE IMBALANCES AND LOPSIDEDNESS IN THE NIGERIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM WITH  CONCURRENT APPRAISAL OF NIGERIAN SOLDIERS AS DESTRUCTIVE AGENTS OF ETHNIC CLEANSING” BY Adeyemi Stephen Adegboye.

3. The Nigerian Constitutional Law Ese Malemi Pg. 116.

4. See Chapter Four of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Also see the case of Abacha v. Gani Fawehinmi., Olisa Agbakoba v. DSS, Sughaba v. Minister of Internal Affairs. Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009.

5. See THE NIGERAIN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY PROF. BEN NWABUEZE

6. SEE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

7. The lex lata- the Law as it is. Doing justice in line with what is obtainable under the law without considering any overriding consideration or peculiarity of the surrounding circumstances of a case.

8. This should be the end result of every law. Law as it ought to be. This is an attempt at relaxing the strict nature of law to suit circumstantial issues as a result of some overring factors. For example, Therapeutic abortion is an exception/defence to the offence of abortion once it is proved that if the foetus is not aborted, such with constitute harm and great danger to the life of the mother. This is pure substantial justice unlike the strict operation of the Technical Justice.

9.See “The Jurisprudential Elocution of Justice” by Adeyemi Stephen Adegboye.

10. See ADENIJI V. STATE (2000) 2 NWLR PT 645, P. 354 CA, OKONKWO V. STATE (1998) 4 NWLR PT 544, PG. I42 CA, KALU V. STATE (1998) 13 NWLR PT 583, PG 531 SC. AND MUSA V. STATE (1993) 2 NWLR PT 227, PG 550 CA.

11. See Ogundipe v. Queen (1940) 6 WACA 6, R V. LAOYE (1940) WACA 6, OKOKO & ORS. V. STATE (1964) 1 ALL N.L.R 423 and DPP V. SMITH (1960) 3 ALL E.R 61.

12. See Babalola v. State (1970) 1 ALL N.L.R. 44. Also see Robbery and Firearms Act 2004 CAP R11 2004.

13. See Introduction to Nigerian Legal Method by Professor Abiola Sanni.

14. BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2003) SC. Where Aare Afe Babalola submits that “the canon and principle of interpreting the provision of the Constitution is the that the constitution should not be interpreted disjointly but rather in consonance with other relevant provisions of the constitution.

15. SEE THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ESE MALEMI PG.

16. Section 1(1) of the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended “this constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the federal Republic of Nigeria.

17. See Bello v. A.G Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR PT 45, P828 SC.

18. See section 130 Armed Forced Act Cap A 20 LFN 2004. Also see N.A.F V. Obiosa (2003) 1 SC. (PT. 11) 145 at 157-158.

19. See Criminal Litigation in Nigeria

20. See Section 129-130 of the Armed Forces Act.

21, See Section 170(2) Armed Forces Act (SUPRA)

22. See Section 170(1) Armed Forces Act supra.

23. Former Dean Harvard Law School.