Headlines
Why I Said Herders Carry Ak-47 Rifles for Self Defence – Bauchi Gov
Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State, on Sunday, explained himself over a comment he made about herdsmen carrying Ak-47 rifles for self defence, a statement issued by Mukhtar Gidado, his Senior Special Assistant (SSA) on media, said.
Mohammed and his Benue counterpart, Samuel Ortom, had disagreed over the issue of herders carrying guns in order to protect themselves and cattle from rustlers.
The Bauchi governor said that the primary objective of his comment was “to avert the dangerous prospect of a nation-wide backlash and generalisation of the Fulani clan as criminals”.
According to the statement, Mr Mohammed said it would be inappropriate to label an entire tribe as criminals, based on the crimes of a few members of the ethnic group.
“The attention of the Bauchi State government has been drawn to reactions from various members of the public to gov. Mohammed’s speech, at the closing ceremony of the Press Week of the Correspondent’s Chapel of the NUJ in Bauchi State, last Thursday.
“The Governor used the occasion to weigh in on the contentious issue of clashes between herdsmen and farmers, particularly against the backdrop of the eviction and other forms of restriction orders, issued by some state governments and non-governmental entities.
“The primary objective of the Governor was to avert the dangerous prospect of a nation-wide backlash as tempers flared and given that the phenomenon of inter-ethnic migration, is a national pastime involving all ethnic groups in Nigeria.
“By extension, the Governor made it abundantly clear that it will be inappropriate to label any one tribe based on the crimes of a few members of the ethnic group,” said the SSA.
Mr Gidado said that the governor’s reference to AK47 “was simply to put in perspective, the predicament and desperation of those law-abiding Fulani herdsmen who, while carrying out their legitimate cow-rearing business, have become serial victims of cattle rustling, banditry, kidnapping and assassination”.
He said “these were the people who, in the absence of any protection from the security agencies, are forced to resort to self-help, to defend both their means of livelihood and their lives”.
“As a Constitutionalist which, he has proved over time, all through his political career, Gov Mohammed will be the last person to advocate a subversion of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He did not do so in the past; he will not do so today,” Mr Gidador said.
He explained further that Mr Mohammed’s description of forests, as “no man’s land” is a carry-over from his own geo-political environment “where a pastoralist could set up camp, in any forest, for a few weeks without causing any uproar or opposition”.
“To interpret such a temporary stay as a form of ‘land grab’ by the Fulani herdsmen is completely incorrect.
”In actual fact, neither does such temporary habitation of the forest inconvenience anyone nor does the itinerant Fulani sojourner, bother anyone about his plight in the forest characterised by life without access to electricity, pipe borne water, good roads or hospitals.
“On the contrary, Mohammed is very familiar with the Land Use Act, including the criteria for land acquisition and cannot, therefore, seek to undermine the statute which, as governor, he has sworn to uphold,” he said.
Mr Gidado said “the governor’s statement was intended to caution all stakeholders to guard against escalating the tension, just as many patriotic stakeholders, particularly from the North, have been working round the clock to avert reprisal actions that could throw the entire country into a cauldron of unimaginable proportions”.
“Rather than vilify Governor Mohammed, it is incumbent on all those criticising him to admonish those governors whose lack of restraint is responsible for the escalation of this crisis.
“Mohammed’s antecedents, as a bridge-builder, humanist and nationalist, are so well known that he will never, under any circumstances, deliberately fuel any national crisis or subvert the Constitution,” he said.
(NAN)
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is putting Nigeria back on the watchlist, reversing a Joe Biden-era policy due to the extermination of Christians, Fox News reports.
The US President, Donald Trump, on Friday, ordered the designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, saying that Christians in Nigeria are facing an existential threat. He also called on American lawmakers to investigate the mass slaughter.
A day later, Trump revealed that he had ordered the Pentagon to prepare for possible action in Nigeria as he continued accusing the Federal Government of violence against Christians.
Trump, who posted a statement on his social media handle, said that if the Nigerian government continues to allow the killing of Christians, US troops will be ordered to enter Nigeria and wipe out terrorists.
He said: “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.
”I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our cherished Christians! Warning: The Nigerian government better move fast!”
However, Fox News is now reporting that Trump’s directive has been carried out as Rubio is putting Nigeria back on the watchlist.
Source: Fox News
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
