I read with great displeasure the reactions and comments credited to Senate President Ahmed Lawan , Senator Ali Ndume and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, to the clarion call by the southern governors for restructuring of the country and for Mr President to address the nation along with the ban of open grazing in the South. I am aware that these federal legislators are from Mr President’s party hence should defend him at all cost even if the country is boiling.
The Senate President said that the worsening security situation in the country is a result of a lack of a functional local government system. This is fallacious and misleading. Is it the local government system that controls the security agencies and our national Intelligence agencies? Who appoints the service chiefs, the local government chairman or the president of the country? Who is recognised as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? The local government chairman or the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? In case Lawan has forgotten the provisions of our constitution, Section 5 of the Nigerian Constitution vests executive powers of the federation in the President and not in the local government chairmen or the state governors. I know that when the issue of state policing was deliberated by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, it was rejected by most northern governors on the grounds that they did not have the financial clouts to finance such a project. Today, the federal police will post a police officer who does not know the terrain of an area or the culture of a people to go and police the area.
On the call by the Southern Governors’ Forum for the restructuring of the country, Lawan said, “I believe that as leaders, especially those of us who are elected into office should not be at the forefront of calling for this kind of thing. Because, even if you are a governor, you are supposed to be working hard in your state to ensure that this restructuring you are calling for at the federal level, you have done it in your state as well.” The truth is that my people say that the oppressor will never see anything wrong in his act of oppression and I do not expect Lawan to say the contrary.
I need not remind the Senate President that the 1999 Constitution imposed on us by the military does not represent the wishes of the people of Nigeria. I put it to Lawan that it is both absurd and abusive referring the governors as the chief security officers in their states when they do not have any control on the police, army, DSS or any other security agencies in their respective states . Recently, a viral video showed where the Governor of Akwa Ibom State was accusing the commissioner of police in his state of causing mayhem in the state. If Governor Udom Emmanuel had control over the commissioner of police in his state, would he not have transferred such a commissioner of police out of his state or sacked him? To me, it is derogatory referring to a state governor as the chief security officer of his state when he has no control over any of the security agencies in his state. All the security agencies in his state are controlled from Abuja.
In the same vein, Gbajabiamila has argued that the agitation for restructuring may be genuine but elected leaders and state governors should not be the ones to champion the movement for restructuring without first replicating the idea at the state level. I want to remind the Speaker that the governors were voted in by the people hence they should represent their people at all times. What the governors said was exactly the wish of their citizens. As we run a representative democracy, just know that the governors are representing their people.
On the other hand, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Army, Ali Ndume, said the Southern governors won’t get the solution to the various problems confronting the region by playing to the gallery. I believe that Ndume should have another meaning to the idiomatic expression of “playing to the gallery” because there is no way somebody should regard the decisions reached by the southern governors as playing to the gallery.
Ndume again faulted the decision of the Southern governors to ban open grazing in the South, adding that open grazing was not the problem but insecurity. This is preposterous as our people say that to separate a fight, one must first stop the opponents from coming together. I want to remind Ndume that southern governors are not acting alone in this, as Justice Adewale Thompson banned open grazing on April 17, 1969 and warned of unprovoked killings by Fulani herdsmen. So, there is a judicial precedent on this matter before the southern governors did the needful. Ndume may verify this from Suit no AB/26/66.
In his judgment on the suit, the presiding judge, Justice Adewale Thompson, had this to say: “I do not accept the contention of defendants that a custom exists which imposes an obligation on the owner of a farm to fence his farm whilst the owner of cattle allows his cattle to wander like pests and cause damage. Such a custom, if it exists, is unreasonable and I hold that it is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and therefore unenforceable…in that it is highly unreasonable to impose the burden of fencing a farm on the farmer without the corresponding obligation on the cattle owner to fence in his cattle. Sequent to that, I ban open grazing for it is inimical to peace and tranquility and the cattle owners must fence or ranch their animals for peace to reign in these communities.”
I still want to put it to Ndume that trespass is both civil and criminal offences in Nigeria hence it is senseless defending herdsmen who take their cattle to another person’s property to destroy the person’s crops and you say the person should accommodate the herdsmen. There is no way you can sit on somebody’s nose and get balanced. Section 342 of the Penal Code is clear on what constitutes a criminal trespass and Section 348 of the same Code clearly outlines the punishment for criminal trespass. It may also interest Ndume to know that the Supreme Court has gone further to state the ingredients of a criminal trespass as follows:
Unlawful entry into or upon a property in the possession of another or unlawful remaining there
An intention to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property
It needs to be noted that trespassing can have both civil and criminal consequences. A property owner may be able to sue someone who enters their land without permission. Meanwhile, the trespasser also may face criminal charges. The prosecutor would need to prove that the defendant intentionally entered someone else’s property without permission, or remained there after being told to leave. This charge usually arises in the context of private property, but it can also arise if someone enters a store or other business, or even a city or state park, when they are not permitted to be there. I intentionally cited Penal Code that is applicable to the northern part of the country which is where Ndume hails from because I don’t want to bore him with similar provisions of the criminal code that is applicable in southern part of Nigeria because he may claim not to be familiar with that.To To be concluded
Dr John wrote in from Port Harcourt, Rivers State via mazipauljohn@gmail.com
END
Be the first to comment