Headlines
We Released Sowore, Dasuki Out of Compassion, Malami Insists
The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN), insisted on Monday that the SaharaReporters publisher, Mr Omoyele Sowore, and a former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki were released on compassionate ground.
He said this in a statement by his spokesperson, Dr Umar Gwandu, in response to a statement issued on Sunday by Sowore’s lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN).
Falana had in the statement on Sunday asked Malami to apologise to Sowore and Dasuki for allegedly offering wrong opinions which made the Federal Government to detain Dasuki for four years and Sowore for over four months in violation of bail granted them by different courts over the periods.
But Malami said on Monday that Falana’s statement “is replete with misinformation and evinces lack of proper understanding of the law and issues implicated.”
He also justified his Christmas Eve claim that the ‘RevolutionNow’ protest convener and Dasuki were released on compassionate grounds.
He said, “First, it is beyond doubt that the Federal Government of Nigeria or any prosecuting authority has been vested with constitutional right of appeal in criminal prosecutions.
“These rights extend to rulings on bail and right to seek to vary terms of bail, among others.
“Thus, in any circumstance where this right is waived by the prosecution, it can only be for valid reasons, including compassion, after all connected issues have been duly considered.”
He accused Falana of concocting a non-existing constitutional provision to demand an apology for Sowore and Dasuki in order to condemn a “valid governmental action” taken in public interest.
He said, “It is further appalling to note that in a bid to garner media hype in condemnation of a valid governmental action taken in good faith and in the interest of the general public, Mr Falana, SAN, resorted to quoting non-existing sections of the constitution by stating that, ‘Mr Malami (SAN), should have apologised to Col. Dasuki (retd.) and Mr Sowore in accordance with Section 32(6) of the 1999 Constitution…’
“It is unfortunate that a senior member of the bar could resort to concoctions and fabrications of non-existing provisions just to score cheap media publicity.”
Malami also accused Falana of attempting “to confuse the facts and misinform the general public.”
He said, “It is important to highlight that the statement issued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, which Mr Falana was allegedly responding to, did not howsoever state that the duo of Dasuki and Sowore were released further to the constitutional provisions on Prerogative of Mercy.
“A lawyer of Mr Falana’s status should thus desist from stretching arguments beyond reasonable limits in order to score cheap political points. It is a common knowledge that Prerogative of Mercy and compassion simpliciter are two different concepts.”
He assured Nigerians that the Federal Government of Nigeria led by the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari(retd.), “is committed to preserving the unity of the nation in accordance with the rule of law and respect for the constitution.
“Citizens should thus be wary of the antics of persons bent on confusing the general public through mischief.”
The Punch
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, gave the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, until November 5 to defend the terrorism charges filed against him or risk waiving his right to do so.
The trial judge, Justice James Omotoso, advised Kanu to consult legal practitioners experienced in criminal law to assist with his defence or to formally appoint a lawyer to represent him in court.
Justice Omotosho’s decision followed Kanu’s continued refusal to open his defence, insisting that there was no valid charge pending against him.
Kanu, who represented himself during Tuesday’s proceedings, told the court that he would not return to detention unless the charges against him were properly presented.
He argued that his continued detention by the Department of State Services was unlawful, maintaining that he had not breached any known law.
He also accused the court of disregarding the Supreme Court’s judgment which, according to him, condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.
He demanded that the trial judge immediately discharge him from custody.
When reminded that the Supreme Court had ordered a fresh trial, Kanu maintained his position that the terrorism charge was invalid and incompetent.
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, he argued that there was no existing law creating a terrorism offence in Nigeria.
“In Nigeria today, the Constitution is the supreme law. There is no valid charge against me. I will not go back to detention today. The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot defend myself under a repealed law,” Kanu said.
He further challenged any lawyer to show him a valid charge, urging the court to “take judicial notice” of what he claimed was the repeal of the terrorism law.
“I cannot be tried under a law that has been repealed. Prosecuting me under such a law is a violation of my fundamental rights,” he insisted.
After several attempts to persuade him to enter his defence, Justice Omotosho adjourned proceedings until November 5, 2025, giving Kanu the final opportunity to either defend the charge or forfeit his right to do so.
During the session, counsel for the Federal Government, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), informed the court that some documents served on him by Kanu were unsigned and not endorsed by the court, arguing that they held no evidential value.
There was drama in the Senate on Tuesday following the recent threat by Donald Trump, the President of the United States to take military action against Nigeria over alleged persecution of Christians.
It started when Godswill Akpabio, the Senate President, was addressing reports by an online platform alleging that he had publicly rebuffed Trump over his recent comments and had said Nigerians were “not complaining” about their condition.
The visibly displeased Senate President denied ever making such statements, describing them as “false and malicious.”
He condemned the publication, saying it was an attempt to create diplomatic tension and discredit the National Assembly.
“The fake report claimed I said Nigerians are not complaining that we like the way we are living. That is completely false. I have petitioned the police and the DSS,” he said.
Akpabio said, “Somebody will sit in the comfort of his room and fabricate a report, attaching fake pictures from 2023 when I visited Port Harcourt with senators for a completely different event, and then claim that the Senate President replied President Trump.
“Who am I to answer Trump?” Akpabio asked jokingly.
The issue, however, sparked heated reactions on the floor of the Senate as Akpabio, and his deputy, Barau Jibrin, openly differed on how the Nigerian legislature should respond.
While Akpabio dismissed reports that he had already reacted to Trump’s comments, declaring, “Who am I to answer Trump?”, Barau quickly interjected, insisting that he was not afraid of the American leader.
“I’m not scared of Trump. I will say my mind. I’m a Nigerian. Nigeria is a sovereign nation,” Barau said passionately.
The Deputy Senate President added, “I’m a parliamentarian, the Deputy Senate President, I can speak. Don’t be scared of Trump. You can say your mind about Trump. We are a sovereign nation.”
The exchange, which briefly lightened the mood in the chamber, underscored a divide in tone between both presiding officers on how Nigeria’s parliament should handle the diplomatic row.
“It is the Presidency that will respond to President Trump, not the Senate President. But who is that person that would ascribe a comment to me when I was never contacted?”
Akpabio urged security agencies to investigate and prosecute those behind the viral story, describing it as an effort to “cause friction and bring the Nigerian Senate into disrepute.”
“I believe the Cybercrimes Unit of the police, the DSS, and others should find that character out. This is meant to sow division. Social media should not be allowed to break Nigeria,” he added.
The Senate President, however, noted that the Red chamber would take an official position on Trump’s remarks once the federal government had clarified its stance.
He said, “When the executive responds, we will take a position as a Senate. Until then, no one should speak for this institution.”
Over the weekend, Trump declared via social-media that Nigeria faces “an existential threat” to its Christian population and warned that the U.S. may deploy troops or conduct air-strikes if the Nigerian government fails to halt the killings.
He instructed the Pentagon to prepare for possible action and threatened to cut all U.S. aid to Nigeria.
In tandem, the U.S. re-added Nigeria to its “Country of Particular Concern” list for religious freedom violations.
The Nigerian government rejected the designation and the characterisation of persecuting Christians, insisting that Nigeria protects religious freedom for all.
Source: businessday.ng
China, on Tuesday, opposed US President Donald Trump’s threat to carry out military action against Nigeria over the alleged persecution of Christians, as it backed the Nigerian government in leading its people to follow a development path in line with its national conditions.
Trump Saturday said if the Nigerian government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the US will immediately stop all aid and assistance to the West African country, and may go for military action to wipe out the Islamic terrorists.
Asked for her comments on Trump’s threat, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told the media that the Nigerian Foreign Ministry issued a statement, stating that the US’s claims did not reflect the current realities in Nigeria, and the government had remained committed to fighting terrorism, strengthening interfaith harmony, and protecting the lives and rights of all its people.
As a comprehensive strategic partner, China firmly supports the Nigerian government in leading its people to follow a development path in line with its national conditions, Mao said.
“China opposes interference by any country in the internal affairs of other nations under the pretext of religion or human rights and opposes the arbitrary use of sanctions and threats of force,” she said.
On the reports that Venezuela is seeking missiles and drones following a dozen US strikes on the boats in the region on the suspicion that they carried drugs, Mao said China is opposed to the use of force in the name of fighting drug cartels.
China supports enhanced international cooperation in combating transnational crimes, but opposes the use of threats of using force in international relations, and actions that undermine peace and stability in Latin America and the Caribbean, she said.
China is against unilateral so-called law enforcement operations against vessels of other countries that exceed reasonable and necessary limits, she added.
“We hope the US will carry out normal law enforcement and judicial activities within bilateral and multilateral legal frameworks,” Mao said, without mentioning whether China will support military equipment to Venezuela.
“China’s normal exchanges and cooperation with Venezuela are conducted between sovereign states, without targeting any third party, nor are they subject to interference or influence by any third party,” she said.
Source: orissapost
