Civil and human rights activists as well as lawyers and legal experts have faulted the two-count charge by the Department of State Security (DSS) against the suspended former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, for alleged illegal possession of unlicensed gun and several rounds of ammunitions.
Following his removal from office last month, Emefiele was detained by the DSS for nearly a month during which period they carried out extensive investigations against him over allegations of terrorism financing and monetary policies said to have constituted economic sabotage.
Last week, pursuant to an application filed by the embattled former CBN chief’s lawyers seeking the enforcement of his fundamental human rights, the Federal High Court in Abuja gave a ruling ordering the DSS to either release him from detention or charge him to court to defend himself for whatever offences he was found to have committed.
In compliance with the court’s order, the DSS arraigned him in court over a two-count count charge of illegal possession of one single barrel shotgun (JOJEFF MAGNUM 8371) without official license contrary to the provisions of the Section 4 of the Firearms Act Cap F28 of the Federation 2004, which was punishable on conviction under the provisions of Section 27(1)b(i) of the same law.
Also,the DSS accused Emefiele of being in possession of 123 rounds of live ammunitions (Cartridges) without license contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of the Firearms law punishable under Section 27(1)b(ii) of the same law.
Since the arraignment and release of the charges, mixed reactions have trailed the DSS action, with some speaking in support, while others were diametrically critical of them.
Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told our reporter on Saturday that the DSS charge was exactly in line with what he has always advocated for, that anyone found to have committed any offence should be charged and tried expeditiously to avoid the violation of the fundamental human right of the person standing as accused.
However, other civil and rights lawyers and activists who said they were not opposed to Emefiele’s trial, so far as it was in compliance with the provisions of the law to protect the right of the accused.
Lagos-based legal rights activist and lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, in a tweet on the matter through his verified Twitter handle, @InibeheEffiong took a swipe at the DSS over the charges filed against the former CBN governor, describing the as ridiculous and embarrassing.
“The SSS has taken Nigerians for granted again. I’m upset about the two-count charge filed against suspended CBN Governor, Emefiele.
“Illegal possession of firearms without license is a crime for the police. It’s ridiculous to detain Emefiele for one month only to come up with this,” he said.
Effiong said his position has always been that the SSS was “essentially a political tool in the hands of every occupant of Aso Rock.
“They are notorious for bungling cases and creating needless political tensions. The SSS needs to rethink its involvement in cases. It’s embarrassing.
The lawyer who also commented on some of the issues raised by the DSS against Emefiele prior to his suspension from office said the Naira redesign policy he was accused of using to sabotage certain interests in the last general election was not a crime regardless whether it was properly implemented or not.
“It seems the suspension and arrest of Emefiele were not propelled by any interest in holding him accountable for mismanagement of public resources, but a political vendetta. Where are the charges on terrorism financing?” he asked.
In the run up to the last elections, the DSS sought to arrest and detain Emefiele over allegations of terrorism financing and economic policies deliberately designed to sabotage the elections. It took the intervention of the former President, Muhammadu Buhari, to restrain the DSS from continuing to hound and harass the former apex bank’s boss.
Effiong did not spare President Bola Tinubu whom he suspected was the force behind Emefiele’s travails in the hands of the State Security Service.
“Why is Mr. Tinubu handling this case like this? Many Nigerians supported Emefiele’s suspension, because he made nonsense of the CBN’s regulatory processes and independence. We wanted better monetary policies from the CBN. However, with the way the case is going, it appears that the government has a different agenda. This is extremely ridiculous,” Effiong said.
Speaking further in a telephone chat later on Saturday, the lawyer said: “If you are keeping somebody in custody for over 30 days and the reason for detaining the person is possession of firearms, it shows that the agency and government are not serious.
“What they said was that Emefiele was being detained for alleged terrorism financing. Now, if you are charging him for illegal possession of firearms after his house was invaded, it means that they are telling us that before his house was searched, they had no reason to have arrested him. Why is it that the DSS is now the one investigating the case of physical possession of firearms and not the police?
“That does not necessarily affect the internal security of the country, which is what the DSS is statutorily empowered by the National Security Agencies Act to do.
“So, if this is what led to the detention of Emefiele, then it only gave credence to the position some of us took ab-initio that this case was political. Emefiele may have committed some infractions, the intention of the government is not necessarily to punish him for that infractions, but to prosecute him and to punish him for standing against the candidacy of Tinubu and APC (All Progressives Congress). That is what this looks to be about.
“If the charge is not about getting back at him for being against Tinubu, why would you keep him for one month to arrest for illegal possession of firearms. You have found the firearms and if the person does not have license, then such offence should have been charged within 24 hours.
“This is what we have been saying that the agency is now a political tool in the hands of occupants of Aso Rock and it makes nonsense of the entire case. The DSS cannot prosecute Emefiele for the Naira redesign policy, which Tinubu was vehemently opposed to. The policy was approved by the government, and so whether that policy was successfully implemented or not is not a crime,” he argued.
For Jones Akpan, another lawyer and human rights activist, the DSS cannot be seen to be prevaricating; blowing hot and cold at the same time.
“Are they just waking up to the realization that Emefiele is in possession of firearms just only when the courts have ordered his release, or should be charged to court? Is it within their statutory powers to charge for illegal possession of firearms?” he said.
Akpan pointed out that it was pertinent to ascertain who was empowered under the extant laws to issue license for firearms?
The authorized agency to issue approval for gun licenses, he said, should be in the position to sanction those who have not been issued licenses.
He expressed the belief that that Emefiele would not have been issued a license for the gun and ammunitions found in his possession by the DSS, saying he suspects there appears to be more to his current travails.
“Connect the dots. The currency issue before election. Also look at the EFCC Chairman. This is a serious challenge to the rule of law. In saner climes, before arraignment, the agencies would have concluded their investigation. But here the DSS arrested and went shopping for evidence. Initially, it was terrorism charge, but now illegal possession of firearms. Even though Emefiele may have breached extant laws, let him have his day in the court. That is the essence of rule of law,” Akpan said.
For the Chief Executive Officer, Dairy Hills Limited. Kelvin Emmanuel, spoke against what the Emefiele experience tend to portray – a culture of impunity by law enforcement and security agencies using the instrumentality of state in administering cases.
Emmanuel who is also a financial analyst, said regardless of the alleged offences by Emefiele, Sections 35 of the Constitution demands that persons under arrest or detenrion shall be informed within 24 hours of the facts and grounds for such arrest or detention.
Also, he drew attention to Section 36 of the Constitution, which says: ‘’A person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by the court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.’’
He described as unconstitutional that the suspended Governor of the Central Bank was kept in detention for nearly a month against the provisions of the fundamental rights act as stipulated in the 1999 Constitution,
“The rule of law is one of the most important metric foreign investors use as a tool to measure the ease of doing business, and grounds to deploy capital into a country. The government needs to understand that every single thing it does is a signal to international investors on how issues on ‘’fair hearing’’, ‘’fundamental human rights’’, ‘’equality before the law’’ and ‘’independence of the judiciary’’ are situated,” he said.
For Bob James, the Senior Partner and Solicitor, Bob James & Co., an Abuja-based law firm, in as much as the DSS may have received a court order that authorised them to keep Emefiele for the one month period, it appears the agency used the period to shop for whatever evidence they can use against him.
“After keeping him for so long and they could not find anything to substantiate their claim against him in the case of sponsoring terrorism and all that, and they felt if they allowed him to go like that, they would put themselves in a tight corner. So how did they keep somebody that long, yet did not find anything to hang on to against him.
James also faulted the charge preferred against Emefiele, saying: “Whatever the charge they are coming up with now against him, if the detention order they had specifying the offence of terrorism financing is being investigated.
If the offences stated in the detention order, are not covered by the offence for which is now being investigate, then all will be null and void, shall be illegal and liable for unlawful detention.”
