Expulsion of Igbos from Northern Nigeria: Any Succour in the Law?
FIntroduction ew issues in recent times, have heated the polity and further sharpened our already deep inter-ethnic cleavages, like the ultimatum issued just over a week ago, by a largely faceless amalgam of groups in Kaduna, the historical capital of Northern Nigeria, to Igbos to leave the Region by the 1st day of October, 2017. Since then, to the relief – it is fair to say – of most Nigerians, both the Northern Governors Forum and their colleagues in the East, have denounced the purported ultimatum and called for calm. As the Governors rightly observed in their separate statements, the ultimatum poses more of a law and order/security challenge – apart from mere posturing and nuisance value - than anything else. Beyond that, however, in the larger context, it is clear that the threat is something of a knee-jerk, indeed infantile, reaction to the seemingly growing calls for the actualisation of Biafra as a sovereign State.
Those calls appeared to gain traction in the aftermath of the release on bail last month, of the presumed leader of that movement, Nnamdi Kanu, and have led to apparently copy-cat calls for an Oduduwa State, championed by the likes of Femi Fani-Kayode. All this is coming at a time when the absence of President Buhari on medical vacation, has fuelled talk of an imminent coup. Seldom has the country witnessed a rockier spell, in terms of political tension and instability. The quit notice issued to Igbos, however is the focus of this piece, and I intend to discuss its legal status under relevant statutes and conventions, starting with ...
The 1999 Constitution Section 41(1) of the Constitution provides that:
“Every citizen on Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom”.
Subsection (2) of this provision however qualifies it as follows:
“Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society
a. Imposing restrictions on the residence or movement of any person
who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a
criminal offence in order to prevent him from learning Nigeria; or
b. Providing for the removal of any person from Nigeria to any other country toi. Be tried outside Nigeria for any criminal offence, or
ii. Undergo imprisonment outside Nigeria in execution of the sentence of a court of law in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty:
Provided that there is reciprocal agreement between Nigeria and such other country in relation to such matter”
A similar provision in the 1979 Constitution (Section 38 thereof) was applied by the Court of Appeal in MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v SHUGABA (1982) 3 N.C.L.R.915.
The African Charter & The United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
Unlike the Constitution, both of these texts, give the right to freedom of movement and residence to “every one” and “every individual”, respectively - not just to citizens of a signatory-country. See Articles XIII and XII of the UN Declaration and the Charter, respectively. Whilst the African Charter is part and parcel of our domestic laws (vide the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983), the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights is not. The African Charter is superior to all laws except the Constitution: A.N.P.P. v I.G.P (2007) 18 NWLR pt. 1066 pg.457 @ 500C.
The Penal Code Beyond the foregoing Constitutional and statutory guarantees of residence, several provisions of the Penal Code in force across the nineteen (19) Northern States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, penalise the purported ultimatum and its incidents, as follows:
i. Criminal Conspiracy, under Sections 96 and 97, in relation to the apparent agreement to target Igbos who remain in the North beyond 1st Octber 2017 by members of the sixteen-odd groups who collectively issued the notice – the Arewa Emancipation Network, the Arewa Citizens Action for Change, Arewa Youth Consultative Forum, Arewa Youth Development Foundation and the Arewa Students Forum. However, this offence cannot stand alone, as it consists of an agreement by two or more persons to do illegal act or an otherwise legal act by illegal means. This takes us to a consideration of the following provisions of the Code:
ii. Criminal Trespass under Sections 342 & 348-352. These provisions protect the person and property of any Igbo person from any one, who attempts to enforce the quit notice by force of arms, enters his/ her property “with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or who having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy such person or with intent to commit an offence”. The punishment for this offence ranges from one year to fourteen years imprisonment plus fines.
iii. Mischief, contrary to Sections 326, 327, 336, 337 and 358. These provisions penalise any person who intentionally causes wrongful loss and damage to an Igbo person by destroying his/her property or diminishing its value/utility or injuriously affects it. The punishment is imprisonment ranging from two (2) years to life or a fine or both.
iv. Criminal Intimidation, contrary to Sections 396 - 399. These provisions prescribe imprisonment ranging from two (2) years to Seven (7) years and a fine for anyone who, presumably, acting in furtherance of the quit notice, threatens any Igbo person with injury to his or her person or property or that of another in whom the (Igbo) person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he or she is not legally bound to do (such as relocate from the North) as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
The Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, as amended.
This statute prescribes the death penalty for any person who engages in activities inimical to the corporate existence of the Nigerian State through force of arms.
Should the Ultimatum be Taken Seriously?
The short answer is: of course, any responsible government that ignores any seemingly organised threat directed at a group of its citizens for whatever reason, does so at its own peril. This risk is ever-so high, where it assumes the hue or possesses the potential - as in the present case - of something akin to ethnic cleansing. History is replete with such instances, as in post-Tito Yugoslavia, in Congo Brazzaville and Rwanda, the latter of which culminated in the infamous genocide in that country in the mid1990s.
While the other two have stabilised to a large extent, Congo Brazzaville is still wracked by that conflict, which has seen an untold member of erstwhile fellow countrymen and women, displaced from their historical places of abode/businesses simply on account of being non-indigenes. Even foreigners, including Nigerians, were caught up in the bloodletting and they had to return home in droves.
As for the related threat by the groups – purportedly as a “first step” – “to reclaim, assume and assert sole ownership and control of landed resources currently owned, rented or in any way enjoyed by the . . . Igbos in any part of Northern Nigeria” , they should be reminded or educated that by virtue of the provisions of the Land Use Act, 1978, particularly Sections 14, 28, 37 & 38 thereof, no one may acquire land belonging to another through forfeiture or by force of arms. Furthermore, under that law, only State Governors have the power to revoke rights of occupancy over land – and then, only for overriding public interest.
Conclusion Notwithstanding their claim to the contrary, the sixteen-odd groups which issued the ultimatum, do not represent the entire geo-political North of Nigeria, as that region is by no means monolithic, given that it is made up of an ethnically and religiously diverse group of indigenes. This should not, however, lull any responsible government at any level in that region, into complacency or a false sense of security. Rather, they should close ranks and set aside all political and other differences in forging a common strategy for dealing with this common threat, using the aforementioned provisions of the law.
The security apparatus of the State – DSS/SSS and the regular Police - should be at the forefront of this, whilst the Attorney-Generals of all the Northern States, including that of the Federation, should prioritise the prosecution of any one who molests or otherwise targets any Igbo person, under the pretext of enforcing the so- called ultimatum.
The sponsors and promoters of that notice should be told in no uncertain terms, that their message of hate has no place any where in the Twenty-First Century, including Nigeria. Should they be minded to test the will of the law, the Nigerian
State should demonstrate that it can and will prevail; it has enough tools in the law to do so.
"THOSE CALLS APPEARED TO GAIN TRACTION IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE RELEASE ON BAIL LAST MONTH, OF THE PRESUMED LEADER OF THAT MOVEMENT, NNAMDI KANU, AND HAVE LED TO APPARENTLY COPY-CAT CALLS FOR AN ODUDUWA STATE, CHAMPIONED BY THE LIKES OF FEMI FANI-KAYODE"