Barely two days after making a monumental error in Jurisprudence from his article titled “Three Options To Achieve Biafra,” Barrister Emeka Emekesiri has scored another low point during his speech at the inauguration of Ebonyi State Chapter of his pet-dream organization called Movement of Biafrans in Nigeria (MOBIN).
I will not put those who are yet to read that speech to boredom with the details but here are some highlights;
1) By the constant use of the word “We”, Barr Emekesiri gave the impression that MOBIN members represent all the Biafrans. Also, he gave the impression that MOBIN, being the “We”, is the organization that sued the Federal Government of Nigeria in suit number FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 and, in their own wisdom, contracted Bilie Human Rights Initiative (BHRI) to represent themselves and all Biafrans in court for the said lawsuit.
2) While trying to justify the need for Biafrans to participate in the Nigerian political process which is mandated by the fraudulent Fulani Constitution as opposed to the belief of the pioneers of the “new agitators”, Barr. Emekesiri made a strong allegation that Biafrans came out to confront the Nigerian military authorities. This allegation by Barr. Emekesiri is unwittingly giving credence to the labeling of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a violent organization and a terrorist group by the Nigerian Government.
3) Barr Emekesiri attempted to make his case for a political approach to Biafra independence under the Nigerian fraudulent Constitution which, as a lawyer, he is supposed to know that the Constitution fell short of the standards and legality test of a Constitution made, enacted, and agreed to by the citizens of a country or a nation.
4) The ultimate goofing point in Barr. Emekesiri’s speech is the citation of the case of IGP v ANPP (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 457 in which he stated erroneously that “It is an international law domesticated in Nigeria which by virtue of the authority of the Court of Appeal in the case of IGP v ANPP (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 457 supersedes the Nigerian Constitution.”
For those who are not familiar with the case cited by Barr. Emekesiri, here is the link to the summary of the judgment of the Court of Appeal: http://www.lawpavilionpersonal.com/lawreportsummary_ca.jsp?suite=olabisi@9thfloor&pk=CA/A/193/M/05
Let me also repost the exact portion of the judgment that Barr. Emekesiri misinterpreted and here it is:
“I answer the second question in the affirmative meaning that the provisions of the Public Order Act, Cap. 382, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, which prohibit the holding of rallies or processions without police permit are unconstitutional having regard to section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Acts, Cap. 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.”
Barr. Emekesiri should understand that in the above statement, the Judges were referring first to the section of the 1999 Constitution which guarantees freedom of assembly, specifically Section-40(1).
The reference to Cap. 10 L.F.N. 1990 was to support the Constitutional provision as specified in Section-40(1) and not to place Cap. 10 L.F.N. 1990 above the Constitution as being wrongly interpreted by Barr. Emekesiri.
Let me repeat it here again to Barr. Emekesiri that every Law in Nigeria is inferior to the Constitution and cannot supersede the Constitution.
The only exceptions to this are the Laws listed in Section-315(5) of the Constitution. For emphasis sake, let me post Section-1(3) of the Constitution which states thus:
“1. (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Let me further remind Barr. Emekesiri that the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Acts, Cap. 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (which is now CAP A-9 L.F.N. 2004) is nothing but a domesticated Law in Nigeria. It is not part of the Nigerian Constitution.
There is a difference between the Constitution and the Laws of Nigeria.
Again, the Constitution is superior to every Law in Nigeria including CAP A-9 L.F.N. 2004 but excluding the Laws listed in Section-315(5).
On the first point listed in my summary of his speech, I want to remind Barr. Emekesiri that MOBIN members do not represent Biafrans but rather represent themselves in their own organization.
There is no documentary evidence to prove that entire Biafrans met at any occasion and agreed in unison to authorize BHRI to undertake a lawsuit on their behalf.
There may be some collection of people who may have signed a document as being claimed by Barr. Emekesiri, but the question is: when did Biafrans, in general, mandate these people to sign such document on their behalf?
It will be interesting to see how this question will be answered in court as the Nigerian lawyers start interrogating BHRI’s witnesses when the said lawsuit goes into full trial.
On the second point listed on the summary of Barr. Emekesiri’s speech, let me emphasize, as in my rejoinder to his previous article, that the Nigerian Constitution has zero degrees of freedom for the use of Nigeria’s political process to achieve Biafra.
First, the Constitution makes it very clear in Section-2(1) that “Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state”.
Secondly, Section-4(5) states that “If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other Law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Therefore, the claim by Barr. Emekesiri that his strategy is to ensure that Laws are enacted at the state levels that will lead to Biafra independence, is a false claim that runs contrary to Constitutional provisions such as Section-1(2) and Section-2(1).
Third, Barr. Emekesiri must get it into his head that the Constitution of Nigeria is pro-North by design and by implementation (see Sections 3, 9, 48, 49, 134, 153, 162(2) and Schedule-3 Part-1).
In summary, Barrister Emekesiri must understand that the only solution to achieve Biafra within the Nigerian environment (excluding intervention by the United Nations) is by throwing into the dustbin, the fraudulent Fulani Constitution of Nigeria.
Any other strategy, like the ones being canvassed by him, is nothing but a mere waste of time and resources.
A country and its government are established and legitimized by its Constitution which is, by global standards, a document enacted, made, given, agree to, and authorized by the citizens of that country.
Does the current Nigerian Constitution meet that requirement?
Written by Dr. Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya; Houston-Texas, USA
DISCLAIMER: Opinion articles are solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers of Elombah News