Take a fresh look at your lifestyle.

Crush agitations call: You’re wrong! Lawyer blasts Aikpokpo-Martins


A lawyer, Sylvester Udemezue Esq. has lambasted the first Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, over his call on President Muhammadu Buhari to “crush” all agitations for self-determination in Nigeria.

In a piece titled “Prelude to my riposte to Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins’ advocacy to “crush” all agitations for self-determination in Nigeria“, Barr. Udemezue said Aikpokpo-Martins’ advocacy is erroneous and unconstitutional.

He said that the advocacy to ‘crush’ all agitations for self-determination falls short of reason as the Nigerian Constitution does not encourage presidential “crushing” of demands not readily found in the constitution as constitution may be amended in the future to include such, hence the provision for constitutional amendments.

See Udemezue’s full response below:


“I read the commentary by Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, 1st Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) who was speaking in his personal (not official) capacity.

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

In the article, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins argued that:

The author, Sylvester Udemezue (udems)
Barr. Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)

(1). There is no room under Nigerian law for agitations for self-determination, and that,

(2). The Nigerian President who swore to defend the Constitution is required by the Nigerian 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 shortly 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/response 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 reasoning for my brother and 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.

My riposte will come soon (because his 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 see why the respected  learned friend 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 support the unity of Nigeria; this is my position.

But, talking law, with due respect, who told Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins that Nigeria can’t be legally divided if it chooses 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 constitution amendment process is informed by agitations for self-determination?

How then does it make any sense for anyone to argue that agitations (all without any exception) for self-determination is unconstitutional and accordingly deserving of presidential “crushing”?

Now, following my friend’s style, 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, broad-based 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 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.


Sylvester Udemezue

Comments are closed.