Constitution Requires Buhari To Crush Kanu, Igboho, Says NBA 1st Vice President, Aikpokpo-Martins

Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) 1st Vice President, John
Aikpokpo-Martins, Saturday said any President of Nigeria is
constitutionally bound to crush secessionists like Nnamdi Kanu and
Sunday Adeyemo, alias Sunday Igboho.

Mr Aikpokpo-Martins said under Nigerian law, self-determination
agitations are “simply unconstitutional”.

He faulted secessionists’ claim that agitation for
self-determination is a fundamental right, noting that Chapter 4
(fundamental human rights guaranteed provisions) of the 1999
Constitution does not include the right to expressions seeking to
divide the country.

The NBA official stated this in his personal capacity in a post
on his Facebook page titled, STIRRING THE HORNET’S NEST; THE MENS
REA.

He began his post by differentiating between the agitations of a
former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo, alias
Tompolo on the one hand, and that by Boko Haram, the Independent
People of Biafra (IPOB) and Igboho, on the other.

Mr Kanu, the leader of IPOB that is calling for the independence
of Biafra from Nigeria, was presented before a federal high court
in Abuja last Tuesday, days after his arrest at an undisclosed
location abroad.

A team of joint security operatives invaded Mr Igboho’s house in
Soka, Ibadan, capital of Oyo State around 1an last Thursday, barely
72 hours to his plan to hold a rally in Lagos to further canvas for
the Yoruba nation.

Defending the government’s actions “strictly based on the law”,
Aikpokpo-Martins said: “Let it be known that there is a major
difference in the agitation of the Niger Delta militants as led by
Tompolo etc to the agitations of Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday
Igboho.

“Tompolo never agitated for a different country; this is very
very significant and must reflect on how he is treated.

“Whereas Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday Igboho are agitating to
carve different countries out of Nigeria, Tompolo never did that;
he is a Nigerian and advocates for justice and equity albeit as a
Nigerian and in Nigeria.

“Constitutionally, no President (whether he is a Buhari, Nnamdi,
Babatunde, Ahmed, Osahon, Wike, Aper etc) worth his job will treat
those agitating for self-determination with kid’s gloves; he is
constitutionally and legally mandated and obliged to crush such
people.

“You may mouth fundamental human rights to self-determination
etc, but the fact is, the Nigerian constitution described Nigeria
as one indivisible country; see section 2(1) of the 1999
constitution.”

He explained that Buhari took an oath to defend the
constitution, “so how can a President who swore to defend the
constitution which contained a clause providing for the
indivisibility of the country turn around to condone agitations for
self-determination whether by peaceful and or violent agitations,
when such agitations are directed at the core of the
validity/legitimacy of the constitution he swore to defend?”

According to him, such agitations are “simply unconstitutional
and the President is constitutionally bound to crush same.”

He contended further that Chapter 4 (fundamental human rights
guaranteed provisions) of the constitution that many rely on to
defend protests, agitations and rallies to demand for a division of
Nigeria into different countries “did not guarantee such
expressions when such expressions or assemblages are directed at
the validity and/or legitimacy of the constitution itself ie
seeking a divisible Nigeria!

“It is a legal, ideological and philosophical absurdity to rely
on a constitution to which you seek to destroy to protect a right
to destroy the same constitution!

“The constitution must inherently and naturally protect and
defend itself by denying any person or agitator any right that is
inimical to its existence.

“So, those agitating to divide Nigeria cannot seek the
protection of the constitution; it will not avail them. They can
only seek to actualized their demands outside the purview and
protection of the 1999 constitution by whatever means that they
deem fit.

“The constitution and all organs and authorities that take
legitimacy from the constitution will automatically be biased
against such agitators, so they should not expect to be granted any
benefits as of right.

“They must brace up to receive any indignity hurled at them by
the system with stoic equanimity. Any right granted them by the
system is simply magnanimous except such rights can be founded in
international statutes.”

Aikpokpo-Martins advised that for the agitators to enjoy the
benefits of the constitution and be free from the biases of those
in authorities vide the constitution, they must first “renounce
their claims to the unconstitutional calls for the divisibility of
Nigeria ie calls to be carved out of Nigeria.

“Except and until the constitution provides for the right to
self-determination, any expression or assemblage where such
agitations are made are not only unconstitutional but also
treasonable.

“So, I urge the agitators for different countries to be carved
out of Nigeria to first agitate for the right to self-determination
and referendum be included in the constitution.

“Then and only then will a President who seeks to crush such
agitations be said to be acting unlawfully, illegally and
unconstitutionally and only then too can agitations for Boko Haram
Caliphate, Odua Republic and the Biafra Republic be lawful and
constitutional.

He described those who disagree with his argument as blind.

According to him; “Many persons may not agree with me, but then
such people may be blinded by sentiments, ignorance or both. My
analysis is strictly based on the law as I know it, and the law is
not sentimental.

“Lastly, Tompolo was asking for a better deal for his people
WITHIN the country called Nigeria as a Nigerian, he never professed
any other nationality nor sought for the break up of Nigeria.

“This fundamental is the ideological difference between him and
the others. His methods may have been unlawful, but certainly not
unconstitutional, so he deserves different treatment to Sunday
Igboho, Nnamdi Kanu, Shekau and all Boko Haramists.

“The actus reus may be the same, but the mens rea is not.”

Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) 1st Vice President, John
Aikpokpo-Martins, Saturday said any President of Nigeria is
constitutionally bound to crush secessionists like Nnamdi Kanu and
Sunday Adeyemo, alias Sunday Igboho.

Mr Aikpokpo-Martins said under Nigerian law, self-determination
agitations are “simply unconstitutional”.

He faulted secessionists’ claim that agitation for
self-determination is a fundamental right, noting that Chapter 4
(fundamental human rights guaranteed provisions) of the 1999
Constitution does not include the right to expressions seeking to
divide the country.

The NBA official stated this in his personal capacity in a post
on his Facebook page titled, STIRRING THE HORNET’S NEST; THE MENS
REA.

He began his post by differentiating between the agitations of a
former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo, alias
Tompolo on the one hand, and that by Boko Haram, the Independent
People of Biafra (IPOB) and Igboho, on the other.

Mr Kanu, the leader of IPOB that is calling for the independence
of Biafra from Nigeria, was presented before a federal high court
in Abuja last Tuesday, days after his arrest at an undisclosed
location abroad.

A team of joint security operatives invaded Mr Igboho’s house in
Soka, Ibadan, capital of Oyo State around 1an last Thursday, barely
72 hours to his plan to hold a rally in Lagos to further canvas for
the Yoruba nation.

Defending the government’s actions “strictly based on the law”,
Aikpokpo-Martins said: “Let it be known that there is a major
difference in the agitation of the Niger Delta militants as led by
Tompolo etc to the agitations of Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday
Igboho.

“Tompolo never agitated for a different country; this is very
very significant and must reflect on how he is treated.

“Whereas Boko Haram, IPOB and Sunday Igboho are agitating to
carve different countries out of Nigeria, Tompolo never did that;
he is a Nigerian and advocates for justice and equity albeit as a
Nigerian and in Nigeria.

“Constitutionally, no President (whether he is a Buhari, Nnamdi,
Babatunde, Ahmed, Osahon, Wike, Aper etc) worth his job will treat
those agitating for self-determination with kid’s gloves; he is
constitutionally and legally mandated and obliged to crush such
people.

“You may mouth fundamental human rights to self-determination
etc, but the fact is, the Nigerian constitution described Nigeria
as one indivisible country; see section 2(1) of the 1999
constitution.”

He explained that Buhari took an oath to defend the
constitution, “so how can a President who swore to defend the
constitution which contained a clause providing for the
indivisibility of the country turn around to condone agitations for
self-determination whether by peaceful and or violent agitations,
when such agitations are directed at the core of the
validity/legitimacy of the constitution he swore to defend?”

According to him, such agitations are “simply unconstitutional
and the President is constitutionally bound to crush same.”

He contended further that Chapter 4 (fundamental human rights
guaranteed provisions) of the constitution that many rely on to
defend protests, agitations and rallies to demand for a division of
Nigeria into different countries “did not guarantee such
expressions when such expressions or assemblages are directed at
the validity and/or legitimacy of the constitution itself ie
seeking a divisible Nigeria!

“It is a legal, ideological and philosophical absurdity to rely
on a constitution to which you seek to destroy to protect a right
to destroy the same constitution!

“The constitution must inherently and naturally protect and
defend itself by denying any person or agitator any right that is
inimical to its existence.

“So, those agitating to divide Nigeria cannot seek the
protection of the constitution; it will not avail them. They can
only seek to actualized their demands outside the purview and
protection of the 1999 constitution by whatever means that they
deem fit.

“The constitution and all organs and authorities that take
legitimacy from the constitution will automatically be biased
against such agitators, so they should not expect to be granted any
benefits as of right.

“They must brace up to receive any indignity hurled at them by
the system with stoic equanimity. Any right granted them by the
system is simply magnanimous except such rights can be founded in
international statutes.”

Aikpokpo-Martins advised that for the agitators to enjoy the
benefits of the constitution and be free from the biases of those
in authorities vide the constitution, they must first “renounce
their claims to the unconstitutional calls for the divisibility of
Nigeria ie calls to be carved out of Nigeria.

“Except and until the constitution provides for the right to
self-determination, any expression or assemblage where such
agitations are made are not only unconstitutional but also
treasonable.

“So, I urge the agitators for different countries to be carved
out of Nigeria to first agitate for the right to self-determination
and referendum be included in the constitution.

“Then and only then will a President who seeks to crush such
agitations be said to be acting unlawfully, illegally and
unconstitutionally and only then too can agitations for Boko Haram
Caliphate, Odua Republic and the Biafra Republic be lawful and
constitutional.

He described those who disagree with his argument as blind.

According to him; “Many persons may not agree with me, but then
such people may be blinded by sentiments, ignorance or both. My
analysis is strictly based on the law as I know it, and the law is
not sentimental.

“Lastly, Tompolo was asking for a better deal for his people
WITHIN the country called Nigeria as a Nigerian, he never professed
any other nationality nor sought for the break up of Nigeria.

“This fundamental is the ideological difference between him and
the others. His methods may have been unlawful, but certainly not
unconstitutional, so he deserves different treatment to Sunday
Igboho, Nnamdi Kanu, Shekau and all Boko Haramists.

“The actus reus may be the same, but the mens rea is not.”