The Legality Of Pres. Muhammadu Buhari’s Directive Against Ballot Snatchers By Jibola Salvador

Introduction:

The Elections are few days away and Nigerians are eager to
exercise their voting rights.

This article seeks to address President Muhammadu Buhari’s
statement/directive that the security agents should “deal
ruthlessly with anybody that snatches ballot box(es) and that such
a person would so at the expense of his own life”, they
question that will be answered by this article is that;

1. Was President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB)’s
   directive lawful?
2. Was PMB’s statement politically correct?

1. LEGALITY OF PMB’S DIRECTIVE:

Many Nigerians particularly the oppositions and socio-political
analyst have misconstrued PMB’s directive.

However, the statement “deal ruthlessly” and
“expense of his own life” are the key words here
which mean without mincing words, the security agents have been
directed by their Commander-in-Chief to take the life of any ballot
snatcher.

Further to the above, I opine that the directive is well backed
by law and same shall be addressed under this head.

Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (CFRN)
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.
• 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 above constitutional provision without any scintilla of
doubt gives right to life and also provides instances where such
life can be taken and same will be justified. They are as
follows:

1. in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a
   criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria;
2. 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 –
3. for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the
   defence of property;
4. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of
   a person lawfully detained;
5. for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or
   mutiny.

Flowing from the above, it is clear that where person(s) invade
a polling unit or centre to cause riot and a security agent is
obligated to apply such force as necessary to the situation. Hence,
where such persons are armed with ammunitions and offensive
weapons, such security agent is constitutionally permitted to use
such force that is proportionate to the act, in this instance if he
shoots to kill, that is an exception. See Okorodudu v. The
State (2014) LPELR-23210(CA)

Also, in the defence of the ballot box which is a property of
INEC, a security agent is permitted under Section 33 (2a)
of the CFRN to apply such force as may be reasonable. The
force to be applied depends on the force or action of the person
carting away with the ballot box or invading the polling
unit/center.

In light of the above, it is clear that the directive of Mr.
President is well grounded in the grundnorm.

Also, another law that must be considered to put this issue to
bed is the Robbery and Fireams (Special Provisions) Act. I submit
that any person who takes away the ballot box without the use of
arms or offensive weapons is guilty of the offence of robbery.
However, where such person uses arms or offensive weapons is guilty
of the offence of armed robbery and shall be sentenced to death by
hanging or firing squad.

Section 1 (1) and (2) of the Robbery and Fireams
(Special Provisions) Act, provides thus:

1. Punishment for robbery

(1)    Any person who commits the offence of
robbery shall upon trial and conviction under this Act, be
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 21 years.

(2)    If-

(a)    any offender mentioned in
subsection (1) of this section is armed with any firearms or any
offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed; or

(b)    at or immediately before or
immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds
or uses any personal violence to any person, he offender shall be
liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death.

(3)    The sentence of death imposed under
this section may be executed by hanging the offender by the neck
till he be dead or by causing such offender to suffer death by
firing squad as the Governor may direct.

1. Punishment for attempted robbery, etc.

(1)    Any person who, with intent to steal
anything, assaults any other person and at or immediately after the
time of assault, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any
other person or any property in order to obtain the thing intended
to be stolen shall upon conviction under this Act be sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than fourteen years but not more than
twenty years.

(2)    If-

(a)    any offender mentioned in
subsection (1) of this section is armed with any firearms or any
offensive weapon or is in company with any other person so armed;
or

(b)    at or immediately before or
immediately after the time of the assault the said offender wounds
or uses any other personal violence to any person, the offender
shall upon conviction under this Act be sentenced to imprisonment
for life.

The above provisions stipulated the following offences and their
punishments as follows:

1. Robbery – a term not less than 21 (Twenty-One)
   years imprisonment;
2. Armed Robbery – sentenced to death by hanging or firing
   squad;

• Attempted Robbery – sentenced to imprisonment for not less than
  fourteen years but not more than twenty years;

1. Attempted Armed Robbery – sentenced to imprisonment for
   life.

Section 11 (Interpretation) of the Armed Robbery and
Fireams Act, provides thus:

(1)    In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires-

“firearms” includes any canon, gun, rifle,
carbine, machine-gun, cap-gun, flint-lock gun, revolver, pistol,
explosive or ammunition or other firearm, whether whole or in
detached pieces;

“offensive weapon” means any article (apart
from a firearm) made or adapted for use for causing injury to the
person or intended by the person having it for such use by him and
it includes an air gun, air pistol, bow and aITOW, spear, cutlass,
marcher, dagger, cudgel, or any piece of wood, metal, glass or
stone capable of being used as an offensive
weapon;

“robbery” means stealing anything and, at
or immediately before or after the time of stealing it, using or
threatening to use actual violence to any person or property in
order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or
overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained;

In conclusion, I submit that the President has done no wrong
legally in his directive to the security agents. Also, saying that
the directive is politically motivated or inappropriate depends on
your political stance.

I wish all Nigerians a peaceful, free and fair Election