Politics
Still On Al-Mustapha’s Death Sentence
Last Monday, Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos High Court sentenced Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, former Chief Security Officer (CSO) to late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, to death by hanging for the 1996 murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, wife of the winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, Chief Moshood K.O. Abiola. Sentenced alongside Al-Mustapha was Alhaji Lateef Sofolahan, an aide of Kudirat.
The case had lasted for about twelve years. Years filled with legal, judicial and political rigmarole, which has widely been viewed to have been made possible by Nigeria’s judicial system.
No doubt, the fact that the judiciary, as represented by Justice Dada, finally proclaimed a sentence, proves the saying that “justice delayed is not justice denied”, but it did not forclose the tragedy that the case lasted for such a long period.
The mere fact that others like Gen. Ishaya Bamaiyi (rtd.) and CSP Rabo Lawal, who were detained alongside Al-Mustapha, could opt for a speedy trial only gives credence to what has become apparent that the entire trial looked more like a clever ploy by the accused to delay, or even subvert justice.
On the face of it, the judiciary has not only exonerated itself from the common man’s belief that it is incapable of calling the mighty (or once mighty) in our society to order, but has also stated in no mean terms that anyone who commits heinous crime (including those done in the guise of serving the state) will eventually pay for it. It is also indicative that it will amount to arrant foolishness on the part of a criminal to imagine that he could wear out that court with the hope of escaping justice.
For these reasons, and more specifically, the judiciary’s patience, focus and candour in what could unarguably be christened a merry-go-round trial obviously created by the defence, the judiciary, particularly in Lagos, deserves some level of accolade.
However, in better organised societies, such case as the assassination of Kudirat Abiola would have been an open and shut one in which the accused would be given ample opportunity to prove their innocence, and justice would be metted out without undue delay.
The implication is that it is now time for the Nigerian judiciary to sit back and examine how justice could be dispensed much more speedily in the face of apparent but conscious obstacles likely to be put up by the defence.
Without prejudice to the final outcome of the case, following Al-Mustapha’s appeal last Tuesday, another journey in to desert island may not do well to the image of the judiciary, moreso, as it will be coming on the heels of a twelve month journey through similar route.
As indicated earlier, this case is not just for Al-Mustapha, who, backed by a dictatorial military government, took impunity to the level that made everything else, including human lives, nonsense. It is a message to some of our current politicians, who are wont to toe the same line of impunity; who feel more comfortable when their word becomes law, even in a democratic dispensation.
It may, therefore, be pertinent to remind our politicians, perhaps for the umpteenth time, that democracy is all about majority, and that no one can be so powerful that he becomes untouchable.
Like some public office holders today, Al-Mustapha, in his rampage on inhuman toga, must have thought he was too powerful to be touched, and his office too important to be probed on the grounds of national security.
As a democratic state, Nigeria has signed, sealed and delivered its determination to uphold the rule of law in its entirety. This is why it is most pertinent for every body, particularly those in authority, to note that the Judiciary should be sacrosanct; that for Nigeria to be regarded as a civilised country in the commity of nations, its inhabitants must get the message that no matter how long justice is delayed, they will one day be called to account for their actions.
Perhaps if Al-Mustapha had known when he was rolling in the hay as a supremo that what has befallen him today was waiting far him, he would have had a rethink on some of his actions.
Unfortunately, (or fortunately) for Al-Mustapha, the history of Nigeria’s quest for democracy will not be complete without mention made of him, though his was a military regime. This is why the Nigerian State, as portrayed by its leadership, cannot be so reckless in leadership as to warrant the military to consider a cameback to governance.
Let us, as Nigerians, not forget that the Al-Mustapha scenario was made possible by the impunity of Military rule, which cancelled the first most valid election in the country, and gave birth to the illegality that led to the despotic Abacha junta that produced Al-Mustapha’s “strike Force”, which terrorized Nigerians and took Nigeria to its lowest ebb, using Abacha’s shield.
The key question for current Nigerian leaders is how they want their names written in the big book of Nigeria’s turbulent journey from creation, knowing that if their names are not written in the good part of the book, some day nemesis can catch up with them.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) says it has not registered any new political parties.
The commission gave the clarification in a statement on its X (formerly Twitter) handle last Wednesday.
It described the purported report circulated by some online social media platforms on the registration of two new political parties by INEC as fake.
“The attention of INEC has been drawn to a fake report making the rounds about the registration of two new political parties, namely “Independent Democrats (ID)” and “Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM)”.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the commission has not yet registered any new party. The current number of registered political parties in Nigeria is 19 and nothing has been added,” it stated.
The commission recalled that both ID and PDM were registered as political parties in August 2013.
INEC further recalled that the two were deregistered in February 2020 in accordance with Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The commission, therefore, urged the public to disregard the said report.
President Bola Tinubu has asked Governor Hyacinth Alia to work more for peace and development of Benue State, saying he was elected to govern, not to bury people.
The President said this while addressing stakeholders at the Government House, Markudi, last Wednesday.
He also called on the governor to set up a peace committee to address some of the issues in the state.
The meeting included the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), George Akume, traditional rulers, and former governors of the state.
The governors of Kwara, Imo, Kogi, Plateau, Ondo, and Nasarawa states also attended the meeting.
“Let us meet again in Abuja. Let’s fashion out a framework for lasting peace. I am ready to invest in that peace. I assure you, we will find peace. We will convert this tragedy into prosperity,” he said.
President Tinubu urged Governor Alia to allocate land for ranching and directed the Minister of Agriculture and Food Security to follow up.
“I wanted to come here to commission projects, to reassure you of hope and prosperity, not to see gloomy faces. But peace is vital to development.
“The value of human life is greater than that of a cow. We were elected to govern, not to bury people”, he stressed.
He charged Governor Alia on working with the Federal Government to restore peace.
“Governor Alia, you were elected under the progressive banner to ensure peace, stability, and progress. You are not elected to bury people or comfort widows and orphans. We will work with you to achieve that peace. You must also work with us”, he said.
In his remarks, Governor Alia appealed to the Federal Government to establish a Special Intervention Fund for communities affected by repeated violent attacks across the state.
“Your Excellency, while we continue to mourn our losses and rebuild from the ashes of pain, we humbly urge the Federal Government to consider establishing a special intervention fund for communities affected by these incessant attacks in Benue State,” he said.
Governor Alia said the fund would support the rehabilitation of displaced persons, reconstruction of destroyed homes and infrastructure, and the restoration of livelihoods, especially for farmers.
He reiterated his support for establishing state police as a lasting solution to insecurity.
The governor pledged his administration’s full commitment to building a safe, stable, prosperous Benue State.
Also speaking at the meeting, the Chairman of the Benue State Traditional Rulers Council, Tor Tiv, Orchivirigh, Prof. James Ayatse, praised President Tinubu for being the first sitting President to personally visit victims in the hospital in the wake of such a tragedy.
He thanked the President for appointing notable Benue indigenes into key positions, including the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Minister of Water Resources and Sanitation, Professor Joseph Utsev, while expressing hope that more appointments would follow.
Former Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon (ret’d), says the Aburi accord collapsed because Chukwuemeka Ojukwu wanted regional governors to control military zones.
Gen. Gowon was Nigeria’s military ruler from 1966 until 1975 when he was deposed in a bloodless coup while Ojukwu was military governor of the then Eastern Region in that span.
In a live television interview recently, Gen. Gowon narrated what transpired after the agreement was reached in Aburi, a town in Ghana.
The meeting that led to the accord took place from January 4 to 5, 1967, with delegates from both sides of the divide making inputs.
The goal was to resolve the political impasse threatening the country’s unity.
The point of the agreement was that each region should be responsible for its own affairs.
During the meeting, delegates arrived at certain resolutions on control and structure of the military. However, the exact agreement reached was the subject of controversy.
The failure of the Aburi accord culminated in Nigeria’s civil war, which lasted from July 6, 1967, to January 15, 1970.
Speaking on what transpired after the agreement, Gen. Gowon said the resolutions should have been discussed further and finalised.
The ex-military leader said he took ill after arriving in Nigeria from Aburi and that Ojukwu went on to make unauthorised statements about the accord.
Gen. Gowon said he did not know where Ojukwu got his version of the agreement from.
“We just went there (Aburi), as far as we were concerned, to meet as officers and then agree to get back home and resolve the problem at home. That was my understanding. But that was not his (Ojukwu) understanding,” he said.
Gen. Gowon said Ojukwu declined the invitation, citing safety concerns.
“I don’t know what accord he (Ojukwu) was reading because he came to the meeting with prepared papers of things he wanted. And, of course, we discussed them one by one, greed on some and disagreed on some.
“For example, to give one of the major issues, we said that the military would be zoned, but the control… He wanted those zones to be commanded by the governor.
“When you have a military zone in the north, it would be commanded by the governor of the military in the north, the military zone in the east would be commanded by him. Of course, we did not agree with that one”, Gen. Gowon added.
Ojukwu died on November 26, 2011 at the age of 78.