[ad_1]
As the trial of banned IPOB chief Nnamdi Kanu resumes on Monday, a former federal lawmaker who drafted and co-sponsored the 2013 Terrorism Law Amendment Bill Kayode Oladele has called for proceedings which rejects those accused of terrorism from using the trials as a platform for propaganda.
Kanu’s arrest from an unknown location and his extradition to Nigeria were announced on June 27 by the country’s Attorney General, Abubakar Malami.
The Nigerian News Agency (NAN) reports that the head of IPOB was therefore brought to justice before Judge Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, amid heightened security on June 29.
The case was then adjourned until July 26.
Oladele, a former chairman of the House Committee on Financial Crimes in the 8th Assembly, however, spoke of the need for a closed-door trial of terrorists.
He advised the federal government to adopt secrecy in terrorism trials, being the model used by several Western countries.
According to him, acts of terrorism amount to acts of war.
The former lawmaker said so in a five-page article titled: “Terrosim Trials: An Overview of the Delicate Balance between National Security and Human Rights.”
The lawmaker said that all terrorism trials all over the world, by their nature, were always full of subtleties that involved several difficult legal issues bordering on procedural, conflict of laws including witness protection, disclosure issues and the use of sensitive evidence during trials.
He urged the federal government to ensure a balance between national security and procedural fairness at all stages through appropriate protection of human rights standards as a state’s international law obligation.
The lawyer also advised the government to adopt secrecy in the process, saying this has been standard practice around the world.
He said: “The secrecy of terrorism trials, which is another common feature of terrorism trials around the world, is found in Nigerian law.
»Article 31 (3) of the 2011 law provides that the court may, at the request of or on behalf of the public prosecutor, in the interest of security or public order, exclude prosecution for any breach of law. this law, any person other than the parties and their legal representatives.
“Surprisingly, the Terrorism Law of 2011 did not create a separate tribunal for the trial of terrorists.
“Jurisdiction is still vested in the Federal High Court which should presumably use the same procedure as that used for the prosecution of other criminal cases in terrorism trials, a significant departure from what can be achieved in several other jurisdictions. where, in addition to secret trials, separate courts such as military courts are generally used for the trial of terrorism cases.
He also cited section 30 of the 2011 Act as giving the Attorney General of the Federation general powers to initiate and initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria, even though he may “delegate his powers to any body charged with the responsibility of investigating terrorists to initiate criminal proceedings against any person for offenses classified “in the law”, which he argued as empowering the government to justify the mode of procedure. “
“Realizing that acts of terrorism amount to acts of war, several Western countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, not only secretly try most terrorism cases in special courts, they also sometimes adopt procedures special cases in order to protect national security, the public interest and also “achieve a high conviction rate that would not be achievable in ordinary courts, where” due process “is diligently pursued.
“In the trial of terrorists, therefore, the main emphasis is on ‘the execution of military justice associated with a military conflict’, not necessarily (although important), the protection of the fundamental rights of terrorists,” did he declare.
Breaking News Nigeria
Source link
