Blog Full With Left Sidebar

DPA Administration is deeply concerned upon reading in the press the declaration by the police that Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, lawyer and member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is wanted in connection with murder, mayhem and other serious offences. Mr. Ejiofor, who is also representing Mr. David Aiyedegbon in relation to the disappearance death of Chacha, for which Mr. Aiyedegbon was suspected by this organization, has posted on the social media a video recorded statement made from his hideout. In his recorded statement, the obviously scared and agitated lawyer denied any involvement and professed his innocence as to the allegations the police have leveled against him. True to the discipline of our organization, we must presume Mr. Ejiofor innocent until proven otherwise. Beyond that, DPA demands that his due process rights be respected. Such rights include, but are not limited to, the right to know the nature of the evidence the police have against him and the opportunity to confront and controvert such evidence in a court of law. DPA has been on the receiving end of police abuse of power in Nigeria. It is noted that Mr. Ejiofor has self-confessed to being a friend and supporter of the Nigerian police. We defend his due process rights nonetheless. Even though he recently supported the police against DPA as gathered from his comments in the media, we derive no pleasure from his current predicament. In fact, in legal reasoning, there is something known as the doctrine of estoppel. When a person has been known to publicly hold a particular position, he is not allowed to suddenly change that position. Having held the view that the Nigerian police are to be trusted when they accuse others of serious crimes, Ejiofor should be estopped from suddenly turning around to suggest that the police are wrong when they accuse him of murder. But DPA shall refrain from holding Ejiofor to his cruel standards of justice. We shall instead remain committed to own standard of justice, equity and fairness, and apply that standard to Ejiofor. As we gathered from the video recording shared by Ejiofor, he seems to be on the run. We understand how dangerous and complicated his circumstances are right now. We therefore urge Commissioner of Police Abang to issue a public statement assuring the Nigerian public that Ejiofor will not be physically abused or maltreated if he surrenders himself to the police. And upon such assurance, we urge Ejiofor to turn himself in to the nearest police station. We fear that to continue on the run might create an excuse to harm him and to prevent the world from knowing the truth of what really happened. Before he turns himself in, though, we suggest he should hire an articulate lawyer who can better present his case intelligently to the public as well as defend his best interest in dealings with the authorities. His current practice of making video recordings of himself while on the run is an ill-advised and very distasteful tactic in dealing with an extremely combustible situation. Not only is he not in the right state of mind to argue his defenses, he lacks the full presence of the mind and he exposes all those who assist him now to serious legal jeopardy. Ejiofor may not quite understand it, given his limited exposure, but anyone that assists him or communicates with him as he runs or hides runs the risk of committing a crime. He may not be aware that the police can track, and must have been tracking, every call he makes now. Therefore, the best option is to turn himself in if he has not already done that. He should really consider what it is worth for him to expose more of his friends to legal risks. We further urge the police to resist the temptation to visit any prejudice and bias they may have against the Biafran project or IPOB on Ejiofor for wittingly and unwittingly holding himself out as the voice of that group. The allegations the police have leveled against him are exceptionally serious. Such allegations must never be leveled against a person except where the evidence is demonstrably clear and convincing, and capable of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. We end by extending our sympathies to the family of Ejiofor, particularly his wife and children. Every child suffers when such child is deprived of the presence of his or her parent. In this particular regard, we also extend our deepest sympathies and support to the families, particularly the children, of the police officers whose lives were cut short in this violent escalation, as well as to all others who lost their lives in this case. We call on all sides to eschew violence and seek peaceful means to resolve their differences. Resorting to violence never pays. May the souls of the departed rest in peace.   DPA Management

The Premium Times (PT), a Nigerian news site tries an old trick to rescue Sowore. The aim is to try to minimize the political damage Sowore may suffer due to his long detention despite court order. The way Premium Times seeks to achieve this is to spread false narrative or stories about how the President of Nigeria is trying to negotiate with Sowore. It is not impossible that the government may want to negotiate with Sowore. But when you look at the details of the story told by Premium Times, you will immediately understand that it doesn't make sense. Part of Premium Times story reads: "Rather than direct immediate compliance with a federal court order that freed Omoyele Sowore on bail, President Muhammadu Buhari has instead been sending emissaries to the activist to extract commitment from him to back down on the ‘revolution now’ protest as a precondition for his release. "In at least two attempts now confirmed by PREMIUM TIMES, the president’s emissaries visited Mr. Sowore where he is being illegally held at the State Security Service Headquarters to “negotiate for peace” in return for his freedom. "The Sahara Reporters’ publisher, however, rejected both attempts as extra-judicial and self-serving, saying he would not take part in any arrangement that would essentially lend legitimacy to unwarranted abuse of his fundamental rights and brazen disregard of judicial authority, people briefed on the matter told PREMIUM TIMES. "The development appeared the strongest indication yet that Mr. Buhari is aware of the continued detention of Mr. Sowore in defiance of multiple court orders. "Those who took part in the botched negotiation included Isa Funtua, a close political associate of the president; Sam Amuka, publisher of Vanguard Newspapers; Nduka Ogbaigbena, publisher of Thisday Newspapers and presidential spokespersons, Femi Adesina and Garba Shehu." The above story CANNOT be true. That is not how they operate, even when they need to do it. First, when PT says it confirmed the story, how did it confirm it? Nobody in such meeting, other than Sowore, will speak about such a meeting and place the mission in such poor light. And Sowore's account cannot be a confirmation because it will be self serving. Second, when in DSS custody, you (particularly Sowore) will not be allowed to speak with even his lawyer without DSS officers listening. And they would not allow such topic to be discussed. Third, Sowore is represented by a very vocal and influential lawyer, Falana. That such discussion was held and concluded without Sowore inviting his lawyer or requesting for him to be present is evidence that such discussion did not occur. Fourth, there is an extra effort to place the President in the alleged negotiation. Normally, any such effort will take the DSS director putting the terms to Sowore directly there and then for him to consider. There would be no need for the large delegation. Fifth, anybody familiar with Buhari's team knows that Adesina and Garba don't team up on any mission. So, involving both of them in the meeting and negotiation is unusual. Sixth, if ever such a meeting were to occur, the delegation will not admit that they were sent by the president. They will suggest that they came on their own to broker peace. To drop the name of the President in such a fashion is too amateur  and it risks causing the president to lose face should Sowore turn it down. The normal procedure would have been for these men to offer to help Sowore on certain conditions, even if they are working on the prompting of the President. Seventh, Sowore does not have much of a bargaining chip now. Nobody believes he is capable of causing any revolution now. Indeed, even if released, his bail conditions forbid him from trying such and if released, he will be closely monitored by the DSS. So, there cannot be any fear that he would lead a revolution if released. Eighth, if Sowore was secretly offered his freedom on the condition that he not lead a revolution, something he already knows he cannot do, he will be foolish to turn it down. So, that negotiation did not happen. Ninth, it is possible that the publisher of ThisDay and Vanguard went to see Sowore. They would do this in their own interest to earn the bragging right to claim one day that they played some role. And if those men claim to be representing the President, they are joking. Tenth, there is no doubt that the government blundered in the manner they handled Sowore's case. Indeed, they harmed Nigeria and shot themselves on the foot. But they did it on purpose because they don't care about the international community or any pressures. There is actually no pressure on Sowore's case when compared with the cases of Dasuki and El-Zakzaki. So, releasing Sowore will not be significant enough measure to improve Nigeria's human rights record. PT is peddling this rumor because it has been in alliance with Sahara Reporters to help each other. It is clear that Sowore's detention makes it harder for him to operate Sahara Reporters as he used to. And the site will suffer a steady decline. There is need to change the narrative and make it look as if freedom was offered to Sowore, but he refused on principle. Why then would Premium Times be spreading this?

One wonders if you had noticed so much discussion going on in America and Europe over the impact of the tech giants like Google, Facebook, etc. These are impacts on privacy, liberty, free speech, control on personal choices, crime, etc. In fact, the countries where these tech giants originated are very concerned and they feel a need to control the tech giants through regulation.

Equally, the governments of Africa, like Nigeria's, are concerned about the effect of the technological resources controlled by the tech giants. But Nigeria is not seeking to control the tech giants, which they cannot do. Instead, Nigerian government is seeking to control its citizen's use of the technology. Hence, Nigeria is experimenting with a new law that will make hate speech a capital offense, a wholly terrible idea.

Regarding the approaches adopted by various governments, there is the question of the user or consumer attitude and dependency. Do the consumers understand the actual and potential dangers of the use of these tech services? Apparently not, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria.

The worst harm coming from the services of the tech giants is the effect of fake news. A wholly false story could be peddled against a person or group or about a situation . Such manipulative and malicious contents influence people's real judgment and decisions about a person or group. The consequence could be devastating both to the target and the society.

As is now apparent, state actors and powerful companies have used manipulative contents and fake accounts to generate fake news that have toppled governments and changed the outcome of elections. Also, on smaller scales, fake news and manipulative contents have been used to attack individuals.

One interesting example of this was Sahara Reporter's false stories about Attorney Emeka Ugwuonye, a Nigerian-American lawyer, and Founder of DPA. Sahara Reporters falsely published that Ugwuonye was disbarred in the United States (No judgment of disbarment was ever tendered, and most people did not understand that a person cannot be disbarred without a final judgment by the highest court in the jurisdiction, which is the court that grants the license to practice as a lawyer). Also, after a while, Sahara Reporters began to report that Ugwuonye was disbarred in Nigeria. All these were false but with devastating consequences.

Who needs protection from the manipulative contents spread through Facebook and co? Different governments adopt different approaches. America and Europe want to protect consumers. But third world governments such as Nigeria, Iran, etc want to protect government and government officials. In Emeka Ugwuonye's case, the Nigerian government used fake news against Ugwuonye to deflect Ugwuonye's legitimate criticism of government.  Nigerian Government officials are not interested in protecting the user/consumer, but rather in protecting themselves.  Hence Nigeria's hate speech law. It will be an extraordinary complexity for a country like Nigeria to effectively regulate hate speech. Every criticism of government will arm the police with another opportunity to extort money from citizens.

A probably better approach is to educate the users and consumers on the dangers of abuses in the system. Also, the tech giants should do a lot more of self-policing. Facebook closed five billion fake accounts in 2019 alone. These were accounts created with fake or false identities. They should also respond better to fake contents, aside from fake accounts.

 

All in all, the dangers of fake accounts and malicious and manipulative contents otherwise known as fake news cannot be over-emphasized.

The answer to the captioned question is very simple. It is because the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate are indirectly responsible for those atrocities. Ask me how. If the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate had performed their statutory functions as provided in Section 34 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, (ACJA) there would be virtually no atrocities in Abattoir or other police detention centers in Abuja. I have attached a screenshot of Section 34 of ACJA for you to read through. Section 34 provides that the Chief Magistrate is to visit the police stations every month. It further provides that during such visit, the Chief Magistrate may call for and inspect the record of arrests; direct the arraignment of the suspect, grant bail to suspects. That section also provides that the officers in charge of a police station shall make available to the visiting Chief Magistrate the full record of arrest and record of bail, etc. And any officer who fails to do so will be punished. This is the function the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate, particularly the Chief Magistrate, failed to perform all these years. They waited until DPA wrote petitions before they started performing their duties. By then, thousands of Nigerians have died in police custody. DPA is considering suing the Chief Judge and Chief Magistrate and the police for this. We just can't take it quietly.  

The police arrested and detained thousands of people without charging them to court as the constitution demanded. People were detained for over 24 months instead of the 24 hours the constitution demanded. People were extorted and even killed or dumped to starve to death in Abattoir and other police detention centers. After DPA began to draw the attention of the world to the problem, the courts of Abuja jumped into action, but the situation was already too bad. On 4th and 5th November the court evacuated hundreds of detainees and remanded them in prison and set Monday and Tuesday (18th and 19th November) for their appearance in court. But how can any court try 400 people at once? That was the problem the Chief Judge realized today. 160 of these wretched victims were to appear in court today. But that was canceled. First, there were not enough police personnel in Abuja because they had gone for their best assignments - elections in Bayelsa and Kogi. And police are needed to help control 160 criminal defendants in court. What if they decide to run away, they must have wondered. The prisons don't have enough handcuffs for all of them at once. For these reasons today's court was canceled. That was unfortunate because effort had been made to send lawyers to the intended court. The solution now is to move the court again back to Abattoir. It will be a court in the open. The detainees will be bused back to Abattoir. Trial will be held there. Those that can be set free will be set free and those that may need to be remanded will return to the prison. (None will be held in Abattoir again. We believe that they now know that human beings cannot be detained in Abattoir). So, tomorrow, there will be a new chapter in Nigerian justice. 160 people will stand trial in one location at once. About 25 judges will participate in this trial bonanza. This is the problem created by the police. DPA is monitoring the situation closely.