 Welcome back, it's still the breakfast and plus TV Africa, and we are looking at the amended charges of Namdi Khan as he heads to the appeal court. Let's take a bit of a background. The leader of the ingenious people of Biafra, Namdi Khan, who has approached the Abuja division of the court of appeal to set aside the rolling of the federal high court which retains seven counts charges against him. Khan was accused of various offenses in the 15 counts, including treasonable felony and terrorism offenses. He allegedly committed in the course of his separatist campaigns. But the judge, Bing Tanako, struck out eight of the charges in her ruling on Mr. Khan's preliminary objection challenging the validity of the charges. Now Justice Nyako wrote that counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 were incompetent for not disclosing any valid offenses against their defendant. We have a human rights lawyer joining us, Justice Uhumhebu. Many thanks for joining us in this particular discourse by Mr. Uhumhebu. Yeah, good morning. It is my pleasure once more. All right, let's talk about this particular development and Namdi Khan headed for the appeal court. Specifically, he's asking for seven of the many seven counts charges to be dropped. But when I was trying to read through what his lawyers and defense were, that's Baistar Ozarkima. He said these offenses were purportedly committed outside the country and it makes the court a lacking jurisdiction. How do you reach in all of that? Yeah, you see the issue of Namdi Khan's matter has been a trending one and one that is very, very, how do I put it, classic in a way. Let me put it back because going from right from the time the purported arrest or whatever was done and all the way there was a lot of illegality. As far as I am concerned, but coming to this, the truth is that when a count or a charge is drawn, the charge will definitely state the offense you have committed, where you committed the offense, which is the jurisdiction of the court, where you committed the offense, the time the offense was committed. These are the facts, these are the ingredients that makes up the offense that will be beyond in the charge. But in this kind of situation, I think the lawyer was right by saying that nothing of such nature has happened. First of all, the purported offense was said not to have been committed in Nigeria because the offense has never said that Namdi Khan committed so-so-so offense in Lagos or in Abuja or in so-so time and in so-so time and with one facts or the other. So let's be realistic to ourselves. I think this whole game is just playing in politics, as far as I am concerned. Because as far as I am concerned, once an offense is not committed within the jurisdiction of the court, that court-law jurisdiction didn't happen that matter. And that is what Uzukumor is trying to tell the court. Now, if you look at it holistically now, they brought this application. And the court has 0.8 out of the 15 countries, leaving 7. Now those 7 you left, the court also assumed jurisdiction so that at the end of the day, it will not be an effort in futility. As far as I am concerned. Okay, let's talk about what the law or the position of the law as regards an appeal to terrorism charge or charges. In this case now with Namdi Khanu. The truth is that you have right of appeal at any point in time. Once a ruling or a judgment has been made and you are dissatisfied with that ruling or judgment, you go and appeal. We have it up to the top floor, which is the Supreme Court. So whether the valinity or not, the question you should be asking ourselves, Namdi Khanu is pursuing his legal right. And he's right in going on appeal. Any appeal, any matter or any judgment or any ruling that you feel that the court has not dispensed justice, and it should be that there is a miscarriage of justice, you definitely go on appeal. So there's nothing wrong with that. Okay, let's look at this from another dimension, still talking about the issue of jurisdiction. You know, for his defense counsel claiming that if the case were to be had in a court in Nigeria, the court would be assuming a global jurisdiction. So ordinarily, what should the federal government be doing if it actually wants to pursue this case logically? Is it only that I don't know, the federal government, like I said before, I thought I'm concerned that just using Namdi Khanu's case to play politics. For me, I don't see any child against Namdi Khanu. I have said this several times in so many other media houses. I don't see any child against Namdi Khanu. They are only playing politics with this. But let me tell you this, you see, if actually a crime was committed or purportedly committed, you remember that even by our law, even by the constitution, and the constitution as amended, an accused person is still presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. Now, in this kind of situation, I would not say that the court is competent when the jurisdiction of the court is being challenged. Now, you see, this is as simple. If actually that the federal government felt that Namdi Khanu has one case, although that you answer for any reason, as at the time Namdi Khanu was arrested, where was he supposed to be taken to? Which passport was he holding? Was he holding the passport of Nigeria as a Nigerian citizen or was he holding the passport of British passport as a British citizen? And if a property crime is committed by any person in any foreign country, other than the country where he committed the offense, the first thing to do is to seek for his tradition and take the person back to the country where he's coming from. And there is always this international treaty and coalition between countries. The person can be tried here, if actually a crime was committed. So the next question we've been at, what would be the implication if, I mean, his appeal has not been considered. Is there a tendency that his appeal cannot be considered? Well, I wouldn't want to preempt the appeal because, like I said, the matter is this, the truth is this, I foresee we are in a situation where even if the appeal is quashed, the top floor is there. The Supreme Court there is there for them to go to the Supreme Court, which will be the final arbiter. And of course, if the Supreme Court feels otherwise, I know the appropriate place to go now is to appeal to God. All right, well, let's do talk more about the implications of all of this. So far, the court has actually squashed or quashed eight of these charges, and there are still seven. What does this really tell about the courage of justice? Is it that the persecution is not actually doing due diligence before just going to court with all of these charges? Some people have actually described as convoluted. Well, the truth is that that is a problem we have in our judicial system in Nigeria. You see, we have always said this, that it's not a matter of persecution or police or the anti-graft agency or whatever agency rushing to court. You must prepare yourself very, very well. One, because cases are one, and cases are lost in the chamber before you go to court. The court is not a federal Christmas. The court must look at the whole thing holistically with enabling laws in order to make sure that it will determine the matter in its merit. So, most times in Nigeria, I have to tell you the truth, the prosecution are not always tidy. They don't tidy their cases in the first place. Now, let me, let's see it this way. What is the essence of you rushing to court? When you know that at the end of the day, the court will not assume judicial or the court will lack judicial to pretend such matter and all the rest. I've even said in the past, like EFCC and some other grab law agents, they will bring 150 count charges, 200 count charges. At the end of the day, they cannot even substantiate one. So, what does it go to show? It goes to show to an extent how they have, you know, not that having the full capacity of doing the needful. You know, the only problem I see here is that, like I said earlier, we play politics with everything. Once the government is interested in anything, one way or the other, they will take the matter to court and begin, you know, the prosecution will begin to do for a way to delay matters and all the rest. For me, it's not healthy for our judicial system. And this is one of the things we have been complaining in our judicial system because for now, I don't see the reason why somebody will be charged to court and the person is just still being in custody for one year, two years, getting to three years without anything being done on the matter, one thing or the other, and the matter will come to court and a gentleman will be taking for one month, two months. Where are we going? We're not supposed, if we're supposed to have gone past this, as far as I'm concerned, we must at this point in time tell ourselves the truth in this country, especially in our judiciary. The judiciary must rise up to be the last hope of the common man who is said to be or this why. And unfortunately, or unfortunately, let me put it that way, I don't know where we are going because if the judiciary one way or the other gets it wrong at this point in time, I am afraid that our country is heading to nowhere. So what I'm trying to say is this, as a member of the judiciary, as an adjudicator, as a judge or whatever, we are all, you are supposed to live above God. It does not matter who's or is here. And that is why I keep on saying, if you remember, I keep on saying that do we actually have independent of judiciary in Nigeria? And the answer is no. Because if the governors of various states still appoint judges of high state high courts, the presidents appoint different high court judges because of appeal and the Supreme Court. So what do you expect? They will continue to have an influence. And at times it makes it difficult for some of these judges to dispense justice with or without favor. So let's even come back to the crux of this conversation. If we say that, I mean, the crime that's committed was not within the country and as such, the court does not have the jurisdiction. Why is the court going ahead? That's the number one question. Secondly, if you say that he's been, I mean, which we should also have a connection, has been detained unlawfully, then why is still the court, you know, even attending or entertaining, you know, the case that is not within its jurisdiction? Is it the truth is that by our laws, once a matter is brought to court, the court must look at the matter and hear the matter on its marriage. And is that marriage that the court will not determine whether it has jurisdiction in the first place to entertain the matter or not? Like this kind of matter and some other matters in court. And that is why, for example, in several matters, when a matter goes to court, what the lawyers will look at is, do these courts actually have jurisdiction to entertain this matter? You will not start talking about jurisdiction before the matter comes to court. The matter must have gone to court first and plead this exchange before you now start raising the issue of jurisdiction or whatever. So that is exactly what is playing here. But my own concern is that it's taking late. It's taking too long. If the courts, the courts should do the needful at this point in time, looking at the whole thing holistically, let me give you, let me tell you this. There's nothing wrong in the courts looking at the whole situation before it, for any matter brought before the court to do the needful without having influence anywhere. If a matter is bad, it is incredibly bad. There's nothing we can do about it. Because then he said, in the case of McFoy against USC, that you cannot place something on nothing and accept it to get balanced. He said it will definitely collapse. So, but let's come back to it. When you say the law has actually stated, are you talking about the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or is this a universal law? Because, I mean, these cases would continue to happen if you don't do anything about it. Yes, by the rules of courts, by the rules of courts and also by the Constitution, that is why the Constitution say that an accused person is presumed innocent until proving guilty. So, when somebody is charged to court for a perpetrator, that's why we say perpetrated because as of that time, it has not been proved. The court will look at it, the court will hear it and one of the things the court will look at is such application now that is being filed by Osaka to say that the court is in position to entertain this matter because the face of it and the offense has not been properly placed before the court as at when, where and the time. Now, even if an offense is committed, is not committed within the jurisdiction of the court, can the court now assume the decision over that matter? So, these are legal matters and it is left for the court to decide. No, we totally understand. I mean, of course, these laws are not made by spirits. The laws are made by man and not man. I mean, the laws are made for man and so man for the law. So, it therefore means that this laws can be amended. So, we don't get into all of this circle because at the end of the day, you have a lot of people who would say that this is totally unfair. Like you always say, I mean, we cannot begin to predict, you know, the outcome of what the judgment would be at the end of the day. But we're saying that at the end of the day, there's something fundamentally wrong. Like you have rightly established that it is not within the court's jurisdiction. Why can't we have the law be very explicit on this? So, we don't even have to, you know, go in this same circle and try to understand the legality or whether or not a court has, you know. So, why don't we have the law being very explicit? You see, I have to tell you the truth. It's not that we don't have the law being explicit or being direct or being simple. Deans are better times. These things are played like a game. And that is why I told you that most times we play unnecessary politics. We bring politics into so many things we are doing, especially when the executive is in trouble, one matter or the other, and all that. But it's not supposed to be so. Because for all, I say I'm consigned. Many people have thought that the condition that it has problems is, yes, I believe and I agree that there are a lot of lacunas in the constitution. But the truth is this. If we follow the constitution as it is, simply see that even 70% will not be having the problems we are having today. That's the truth. All right, let me try and understand that I'm trying to get all that you have said and try to peek from what Mersi has said. I know in the United States, in some other countries, a case does not just go into hearing just like that. So now there are things like pre-hearing trial to find out if a case can actually go for trial. Do we have such situations here in Nigeria? Yes, I think we do, especially on the several aspects part of it, where we have what we call the Pretria Conference and all the rest. But in our criminal system, criminal legal system, we've not actually begin to explore that area. But what is happening now is what we call the preliminary stage in the cost system, filing of applications, bail applications, looking into locator applications and all the rest. That is exactly what is happening now because the court has not even gone to the matter as it is. And because at the stage we are now, any person charged, whether, for example, in a criminal matter, we call them charged. In several matters, we call them taking to court. The lawyers will look at it holistically, whether this place you're taking this person, do the courts actually have the condition to entertain this matter or not? So you can't keep quiet. You have to do the needful. The first scenario is before getting to that. So the American system may be different from our own. Every country has its own legal system, different from others. But like I told you, in the civil aspect, we don't have such provision, the Pretoria conference and the other. But in the criminal system here, we don't have simplicity such a procedure. And that is why if somebody is arrested in Nigeria for any perpetrated crime or offense, the next thing they charge the person to court. And it is not in the court that you begin to find out or discover whether the person was properly charged, whether the charge against the person is proper and competent, whether the court likes the addition to even bring the matter to court and all the rights. So like you said, I think there should be a system where we may have a Pretoria before charging somebody to the court to first try. So that some of these things can be dealt with at the preliminary level before the matter comes to court, especially in order to avoid delay or necessarily delay. All right. Just one final question for you, Barista Higu, as we wrap up. As it is right now, aside from going to the appeal court to caution these remaining charges, does he also have the right that these NAMDI cameras may be to seek some sort of justice in terms of unfair treatment? Yes, of course. Of course. The constitutional system provides that you can go to court to seek for enforcement of your fundamental human rights. When your rights have been in fridge, when your right is about to be in fridge or when your right is likely to be in fridge, these are three things. It's a trinity prayer. There is a trinity thing. So at the end of the day, that is why at times you see some people that are charged to, that are arrested by the police, maybe brutalized or anything, or even charged to call. They file fundamental human rights applications to say, no, I am not, I have been melted with injustice. You're not supposed to treat me this way because of so many things that are right to dignity of life that's right to so many things. You cannot arrest somebody and begin to brutalize that person, treat that person like an animal and all the right. These things are in our laws and the police and the antigraft law agents in Nigeria, they know all this. In fact, there's even what we call justice rule. They also know, stating the way and the motives the police should extract evidence from people. You're not supposed to beat somebody while trying to get a statement from the person or extract evidence from the person. So that is the problem we are saying. We don't know in Nigeria whether we are in the 21st century or whether we are still in the 1st century. We are not getting it right at all like all the other countries. And let me tell you the truth. Like Lodeni said also, in the case of Parker versus Parker, he said until we start doing what we have not done before, we will remain stand sale. Why the rest of the world moves on? So we must begin to do all those things we have not done before and what are all those things? Rights to fundamental human rights. Let's respect the fundamental human rights of people. The fundamental human rights is divine. It is given by God. Everybody must enjoy it. That is just the thing. And that is why in the western world, you're making a reference to it. They don't play with it. It is only in Africa and especially in Nigeria that people don't respect human rights of others. Alright, thank you so much, Barista. Justice Uwe will leave it at that. Thank you so much for all the thoughts you have shared concerning this latest development. Thank you, it is my pleasure once more. Alright, it's still the breakfast on Plus TV Africa. Time now for us to take a quick break and we'll come back with some more issues affecting the policy in a moment. Stay with us.