Prelude To My Riposte To Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ Advocacy To “Crush” All Agitations For Self-Determination In Nigeria.

By Sylvester Udemezue 

I read a published commentary credited to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins,
1st Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and
National Chairman of NBA’s Human Rights Committee, but who made it
clear he was speaking in his personal (not official) capacity. I
believe him that he spoke in his personal capacity and I urge all
to learn to separate the office from the person, sometimes. As a
Nigerian citizen, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ freedom of expression is
guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999. George Washington said, “If freedom of
speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like
sheep to the slaughter”. In his work, as expressed in the “Silence
Dogood” Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Whoever would overthrow the
liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
I may disagree with what Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins has said, but I will
defend to death his right to say it.

Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ commentary as published on June 02, 2021,
in the Thenigerialawyer and on June 03, 2021 in the Nation
Newspapers, is titled, “Constitution Requires Buhari To
Crush Kanu, Igboho, Says NBA 1st Vice President,
Aikpokpo-Martins”.

In the article, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins argued, among other things,
that (1). There’s is no room under Nigerian law for agitations for
Self-Determination, and that (2). the Nigerian President who swore
to defend the Nigerian Constitution is required by the same
Constitution to “crush” all and any such agitations for
Self-Determination.

With due respect, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ said opinion has NO
support in the extant law, both of Nigeria and Internationally.
First, agitations for Self-Determination are allowed under Nigerian
law (see article 20, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, LFN, 2004, and even the
Constitution (as I shall show shorty in my riposte to my Learned
friend)
Further, contrary to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ erroneous view, the
Nigerian Constitution does not encourage Presidential “Crushing” of
Agitations for Self-Determination.

For the avoidance of doubts, my position recognizes a clear
difference between genuine agitations for Self-Determination and
perpetration of criminality under the guise of such agitation. It
befuddles reasonable imagination, benumbs civilized senses and
beclouds sound legal principles and reasoning, for my brother and
great learned friend, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, to openly encourage the
“crushing” of all promoters of agitations for Self-Determination,
without making efforts to distinguish the latter from the
former.

Mr Aikpokpo-Martins’ published opinion deserves a well-reasoned
rejoinder to put things in proper perspectives; yet, it’s important
to remind my friend that his use of “crush” which is itself
unconstitutional, encourages criminality and lawlessness in a
constitutional democratic experimentation said to be founded on
rule of law; any action, whether by the president or by such
agitators, that is not authorized by the constitution is either
lawless or criminal. There’s no aspect of the Constitution that
gives a blanket stamp of support to any Presidential “crushing” of
such agitators.

Deployment of lawlessness (which “crush” implies) to deal with
agitations for Self-Determination is itself criminal, not being
legally justifiable, unless the agitators are waging a war against
the state or are trying to topple existing state institutions by
lawless means. My brother’s opinion loses its logical flavour when
he gave a blanket endorsement to presidential “crushing” of all
agitations for Self-Determination, without any distinction.

Anyway, I can see why the respected learned friend easily fell
into such error; he believes, quite erroneously, that the mere fact
of agitating for Self-Determination is inherently unconstitutional,
being, as he said (also erroneously), inconsistent with the aspect
of the constitution that describes Nigeria as an “indivisible
country”.

I wholeheartedly support the unity of Nigeria; this has been my
position. But, talking law, with due respect, who told Mr.
Aikpokpo-Martins that Nigeria can’t be legally divided if it choses
to so do? Such an argument (as advanced by Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins)
shouldn’t come from a lawyer because there’s in the Constitution, a
section 9 that spells out processes and procedures for Constitution
amendment. An amendment could be for anything — including to divide
Nigeria, if the constituents want that. What’s unconstitutional in
achieving a division through such constitutional means? What’s
unconstitutional if such a constitutional amendment process is
informed by agitations for self determination? How then does it
make any sense for anyone to argue that agitations (all agitations
without any exception) for self-determination are unconstitutional
and accordingly deserving of presidential “crushing”?

If all manner of agitations for Self-Determination are
unconstitutional, and deserving of the “crush” attitude, then,
likewise, I respectfully submit, all calls, suggestions, and
propositions for an amendment to the constitution to include in the
constitution, anything not previously therein-contained is illegal,
unconstitutional and no less eligible to be crushed.

Finally, I have questions for my friend: Presidents swear to
defend the constitution, no doubt!

Apart from fighting any deviation from the constitution, a
second aspect of “defending the constitution” is (and Mr
Aikpokpo-Martins failed to address this aspect) for presidents to
ensure their own (Presidential) actions are strictly in tune with
provisions of the constitution. Now, a question, how does a
president get crushed, or, should a president get crushed, where
his actions go against the constitution? Another question, could
these presidents (by all their actions that we see) be said to be
truly defending the constitution? Or, put differently, do they
defend the constitution in the interest of all Nigerians without
any discrimination or segregation? Why didn’t Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins
look at this aspect of defending the constitution? Or are
Presidents above the law?

In summary, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ commentary failed to
interrogate material issues; this, I suggest, accounts for the
fundamental error Into which his opinion fell. Genuine agitations
for Self-Determination (until it engages in criminality) is in the
same category as calls to amend the constitution. If my learned
friend had looked deeper, and investigated further (he should have
engaged in diligent research which is the hallmark of lawyering),
he would have seen there is no difference at all, between the
two.

A lawyer, in advancing public legal analytical opinions, ought
to be holistic, broadbased and disinterested, and not advancing
legal arguments as if (s)he is issuing/making political statements
calculated to serve or nourish vested interests or targeted at
promoting inequity, illegality and unconstitutionality, or to cover
up or justify victimization, oppression and suppression in a
country where equity, fairness, equality, freedom and oneness ought
to be on the front seat. A lawyer’s argument should be based on
law, not founded upon prejudicial predilections. With due respect,
Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ opinion is an expression of prejudices,
merely dressed up to parade itself as a legal opinion. There’s need
to respond to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, in order to set the law
straight and correct Mr Aikpokpo-Martins’ gravely flawed,
fundamentally unfounded and obviously unconstitutional “legal”
opinion. Arguments like such advanced by my Learned friend, are
among reasons why many a modern-era thinkers classify Nigeria as
backward-looking, retrogressive-thinking, which shouldn’t be!
My reaction to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins which comes in four parts, is
titled, “Meaning And Legality and Solution to Agitations
For Self-Determination In Nigeria Amid Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’
“Crush” Advocacy”

(1) Part 1 (introduction) discusses the meaning of
Self-Determination and Foundation of Self-Determination in Nigerian
and International Law. (2) Part 2 discusses constitutionality or
otherwise, and dimensions of Self-Determination in Nigeria, as well
as causes, symptoms and effects/implications of such agitations on
the Nigerian Federation and it’s unity, stability and progress. (3)
Part 3, while critically analyzing Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ Call on
the Nigerian President to “Crush” all agitations/agitators for
Self-Determination in Nigeria, discusses and recommends what I
believe are reasonable, fair and legally justifiable ways of
handling such agitations. (4) Part 4 is expository in nature,
merely chronicling the historical dimensions of agitations for
self-determination in Nigeria and why such agitations keep
occurring and reoccurring. This final part suggests what Nigeria
must do to permanently forestall or minimize such agitations and
keep Nigeria united, stable and prospering.

Watch out for part 1 which is introductory.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue
(UDEMS)

By Sylvester Udemezue 

I read a published commentary credited to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins,
1st Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and
National Chairman of NBA’s Human Rights Committee, but who made it
clear he was speaking in his personal (not official) capacity. I
believe him that he spoke in his personal capacity and I urge all
to learn to separate the office from the person, sometimes. As a
Nigerian citizen, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ freedom of expression is
guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999. George Washington said, “If freedom of
speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like
sheep to the slaughter”. In his work, as expressed in the “Silence
Dogood” Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Whoever would overthrow the
liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
I may disagree with what Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins has said, but I will
defend to death his right to say it.

Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ commentary as published on June 02, 2021,
in the Thenigerialawyer and on June 03, 2021 in the Nation
Newspapers, is titled, “Constitution Requires Buhari To
Crush Kanu, Igboho, Says NBA 1st Vice President,
Aikpokpo-Martins”.

In the article, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins argued, among other things,
that (1). There’s is no room under Nigerian law for agitations for
Self-Determination, and that (2). the Nigerian President who swore
to defend the Nigerian Constitution is required by the same
Constitution to “crush” all and any such agitations for
Self-Determination.

With due respect, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ said opinion has NO
support in the extant law, both of Nigeria and Internationally.
First, agitations for Self-Determination are allowed under Nigerian
law (see article 20, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, LFN, 2004, and even the
Constitution (as I shall show shorty in my riposte to my Learned
friend)
Further, contrary to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ erroneous view, the
Nigerian Constitution does not encourage Presidential “Crushing” of
Agitations for Self-Determination.

For the avoidance of doubts, my position recognizes a clear
difference between genuine agitations for Self-Determination and
perpetration of criminality under the guise of such agitation. It
befuddles reasonable imagination, benumbs civilized senses and
beclouds sound legal principles and reasoning, for my brother and
great learned friend, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, to openly encourage the
“crushing” of all promoters of agitations for Self-Determination,
without making efforts to distinguish the latter from the
former.

Mr Aikpokpo-Martins’ published opinion deserves a well-reasoned
rejoinder to put things in proper perspectives; yet, it’s important
to remind my friend that his use of “crush” which is itself
unconstitutional, encourages criminality and lawlessness in a
constitutional democratic experimentation said to be founded on
rule of law; any action, whether by the president or by such
agitators, that is not authorized by the constitution is either
lawless or criminal. There’s no aspect of the Constitution that
gives a blanket stamp of support to any Presidential “crushing” of
such agitators.

Deployment of lawlessness (which “crush” implies) to deal with
agitations for Self-Determination is itself criminal, not being
legally justifiable, unless the agitators are waging a war against
the state or are trying to topple existing state institutions by
lawless means. My brother’s opinion loses its logical flavour when
he gave a blanket endorsement to presidential “crushing” of all
agitations for Self-Determination, without any distinction.

Anyway, I can see why the respected learned friend easily fell
into such error; he believes, quite erroneously, that the mere fact
of agitating for Self-Determination is inherently unconstitutional,
being, as he said (also erroneously), inconsistent with the aspect
of the constitution that describes Nigeria as an “indivisible
country”.

I wholeheartedly support the unity of Nigeria; this has been my
position. But, talking law, with due respect, who told Mr.
Aikpokpo-Martins that Nigeria can’t be legally divided if it choses
to so do? Such an argument (as advanced by Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins)
shouldn’t come from a lawyer because there’s in the Constitution, a
section 9 that spells out processes and procedures for Constitution
amendment. An amendment could be for anything — including to divide
Nigeria, if the constituents want that. What’s unconstitutional in
achieving a division through such constitutional means? What’s
unconstitutional if such a constitutional amendment process is
informed by agitations for self determination? How then does it
make any sense for anyone to argue that agitations (all agitations
without any exception) for self-determination are unconstitutional
and accordingly deserving of presidential “crushing”?

If all manner of agitations for Self-Determination are
unconstitutional, and deserving of the “crush” attitude, then,
likewise, I respectfully submit, all calls, suggestions, and
propositions for an amendment to the constitution to include in the
constitution, anything not previously therein-contained is illegal,
unconstitutional and no less eligible to be crushed.

Finally, I have questions for my friend: Presidents swear to
defend the constitution, no doubt!

Apart from fighting any deviation from the constitution, a
second aspect of “defending the constitution” is (and Mr
Aikpokpo-Martins failed to address this aspect) for presidents to
ensure their own (Presidential) actions are strictly in tune with
provisions of the constitution. Now, a question, how does a
president get crushed, or, should a president get crushed, where
his actions go against the constitution? Another question, could
these presidents (by all their actions that we see) be said to be
truly defending the constitution? Or, put differently, do they
defend the constitution in the interest of all Nigerians without
any discrimination or segregation? Why didn’t Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins
look at this aspect of defending the constitution? Or are
Presidents above the law?

In summary, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ commentary failed to
interrogate material issues; this, I suggest, accounts for the
fundamental error Into which his opinion fell. Genuine agitations
for Self-Determination (until it engages in criminality) is in the
same category as calls to amend the constitution. If my learned
friend had looked deeper, and investigated further (he should have
engaged in diligent research which is the hallmark of lawyering),
he would have seen there is no difference at all, between the
two.

A lawyer, in advancing public legal analytical opinions, ought
to be holistic, broadbased and disinterested, and not advancing
legal arguments as if (s)he is issuing/making political statements
calculated to serve or nourish vested interests or targeted at
promoting inequity, illegality and unconstitutionality, or to cover
up or justify victimization, oppression and suppression in a
country where equity, fairness, equality, freedom and oneness ought
to be on the front seat. A lawyer’s argument should be based on
law, not founded upon prejudicial predilections. With due respect,
Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ opinion is an expression of prejudices,
merely dressed up to parade itself as a legal opinion. There’s need
to respond to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, in order to set the law
straight and correct Mr Aikpokpo-Martins’ gravely flawed,
fundamentally unfounded and obviously unconstitutional “legal”
opinion. Arguments like such advanced by my Learned friend, are
among reasons why many a modern-era thinkers classify Nigeria as
backward-looking, retrogressive-thinking, which shouldn’t be!
My reaction to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins which comes in four parts, is
titled, “Meaning And Legality and Solution to Agitations
For Self-Determination In Nigeria Amid Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’
“Crush” Advocacy”

(1) Part 1 (introduction) discusses the meaning of
Self-Determination and Foundation of Self-Determination in Nigerian
and International Law. (2) Part 2 discusses constitutionality or
otherwise, and dimensions of Self-Determination in Nigeria, as well
as causes, symptoms and effects/implications of such agitations on
the Nigerian Federation and it’s unity, stability and progress. (3)
Part 3, while critically analyzing Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ Call on
the Nigerian President to “Crush” all agitations/agitators for
Self-Determination in Nigeria, discusses and recommends what I
believe are reasonable, fair and legally justifiable ways of
handling such agitations. (4) Part 4 is expository in nature,
merely chronicling the historical dimensions of agitations for
self-determination in Nigeria and why such agitations keep
occurring and reoccurring. This final part suggests what Nigeria
must do to permanently forestall or minimize such agitations and
keep Nigeria united, stable and prospering.

Watch out for part 1 which is introductory.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue
(UDEMS)