Understanding Anti-Terror Laws In Nigeria

The importance of knowledge cannot be overemphasized, knowledge
is power and understanding makes for outstanding. Through knowledge, a house is
built and by understanding it is preserved.

What is terrorism?

The Webster dictionary, 11th Edition defines terrorism to
mean:

“the systematic use of terror especially as a means of
coercion”3

While the Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition defines the
word as:

“the use of threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic
especially as a means of affecting political conduct”4

The U.S department of Defence defines the same word to mean:

“the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of
unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political,
religious, or ideological”5

To the FBI

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against
persons or properties to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social
objectives”6

About 1992, the United Nations came up with their own
definition of what amounts to terrorism when they said that:

“Terrorism is an anxiety – inspiring method of repeated
violent action, employed by semi-clandestine individuals, group or state
actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast
to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets”7

The British Government also defined the same word to mean:

“…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any
use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the
public, in fear”8

Common to these definitions are 3 (three) key elements,
Violence, fear and Intimidation.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act was enacted in 2011 by the
Nigerian National Assembly. It does not provide technically speaking, for the
definition of terrorism but it elaborately detailed out what the Act considers
as an act of terrorism. In the words of Section 1(2) of the Act, an act of
terrorism means; “an act which is deliberately done with malice, aforethought
and which:

(a)May seriously harm or damage a country or an
international organization;

(b) Is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been
intended to –

(i)Unduly compel a government or international organization
to perform or abstain from performing any act;

(ii)Seriously intimidate a population,

(iii)Seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental
political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an
international organization, or

(iv)Otherwise influence such government or international
organization by intimidation or coercion; and

(c)Involves or causes, as the case may be:-

(i)An attack upon a person’s life which may cause serious
bodily harm or death;

(ii)Kidnapping of a person;

(iii) Destruction to a government or public facility,
transport system, an infrastructural facility including an information system,
a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, public place or private
property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss.

(iv) The seizure of an aircraft, ship or other means of
public or goods transport and diversion or the use of such means of
transportation for any of the purposes in paragraph (b) (iv) of this
subsection:

(v)        The
manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons,
explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research
into, and development of biological and chemical weapons without lawful  authority;

(vi)The release of dangerous substance or causing of fire,
explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(vii)Interference with or disruption of the supply of water,
power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to
endanger human life;

(d)An act or omission in or outside Nigeria which
constitutes an offence within the scope of a counter terrorism protocols and
conventions duly ratified by Nigeria.

The Act in Section 1(1) criminalized the following as an
offence under the Act.

(1) “A person who knowingly;

(a)Does, anything or threatens to do an act preparatory to,
or in furtherance of an act of terrorism;

(b) Any person who knowingly omits to do anything that is
reasonably necessary to prevent an act of terrorism; or

(c) Any person who knowingly assists or facilitates the
activities of persons engaged in an act of terrorism commits an offence under
the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2011″9

Because of the nature of this crime, new line of offences
appeared to have been created by the Act. Under the regular criminal law,
conspiracy to commit an offence is an offence just like the act itself which
constitutes the offence. However, under the terrorism law, the law punishes not
only conspiracy and the main crime or offence but also, the law creates new class
of offences such as preparations for an act of terror, omission to do anything
to prevent an act of terror and also conspiracy to prepare for act.

It should be recognized that the law, and this is
understandably so, intends speedy intervention at an early stage of the
commission of an offence in order to prevent destruction of lives and
properties on a large scale.

This point is firmly captured by your President and
Secretary when they said in their letter of invitation that:

“in view of the key role the Editor played in information
dissemination, influencing, molding public opinion and conveying messages and
data, it is imperative that he or she is properly positioned to not only
understand the issues of National Security but also the Philosophy underpinning
them”10

The Editors occupy very strategic platforms in information
management. While a piece of information carefully and strategically managed
can make, build and construct a nation, on the other hand, a piece of
information carelessly or recklessly handled can destroy and set fire on it.
There is therefore the need I believe to strategically manage information if we
must together build our nation.

Several questions may present themselves to the Editor
particularly when in touch with a sensitive information.

Does he go ahead to publish or authorize the publication of
the information as raw as they are, adding nothing and subtracting nothing
having no regard for its consequences? Or does he tone it down? Or better
still, does he withhold the publication of the information outrightly,
particularly if it is capable of imparting negatively on public peace, public
safety and National security? How does he exercise this discretarion
particularly when dealing on sensitive and delicate security issues?

DUTY OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2011 talked
about information regarding Acts of Terrorism and how it should be handled.

In the words of the Section,

(1)“Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section,
where a person has information which he knows or believes to be of material
assistance in –

(a)Preventing the commission by another person or an
organization of an act of terrorism; or

(b)Securing the apprehension, persecution or conviction of
another person for an offence under this Act, and that person fails to disclose
to a law enforcement officer the information as soon as reasonably practicable;
he commits an offence under this Act and shall on conviction be liable to
imprisonment for a maximum term of 10 years.

(2)It is a defence for a person charged und subsection (1)
of this section to prove that he has reasonable excuse for not making the
disclosure.

(3)Subsection (1) of this section does not require
disclosure by a legal practitioner of any information, which he obtained in
privileged circumstances.

(4)For the purpose of subsection (3) of this section, an
information is obtained by a legal practitioner in privileged circumstances
where it is disclosed to him by-

(a)His client in connection with the provision of legal
advice, not being a disclosure with view to furthering a criminal purpose; or

(b)Any person for the purpose of actual or contemplated
legal proceeding, and not with a view to furthering a criminal purpose”11

The law imposes a duty on any person who has any information
which he knows or believes to be of material assistance in preventing the
commission of an act of terrorism or any information which he knows or believes
to be material in securing the apprehension, prosecution and conviction of any
person for the commission of an offence of terrorism to disclose such
information to relevant authorities.

Failure to discharge this duty amounts to an offence under
the Act and it’s punishable upon conviction by imprisonment for a maximum term
of 10 years. The Act does not provide for a minimum term of imprisonment.
Therefore, it is safe to say that the presiding judge may impose a prison
sentence of any period between 1 day and 10 years on any person exercising his
discretion judicially and judiciously but certainly, not capriciously.

Section 7(2) however provides a saving grace by creating a
defence of reasonable excuse for non-disclosure of information. Reasonable
excuse was not defined by the Act and I think this is a serious omission. It is
my suggestion that the defence of “reasonable excuse” as provided in the Act,
ought to have the same meaning as the defence of “lawful excuse” provided in
Section 123 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011. The Section states that;

“Any person who without lawful excuse, the proof of which
lies on him disobeys any lawful order issued by any person authorized by any
Act, Law or Regulation to make the Order, is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless
some mode of proceeding against him for such disobedience is expressly provided
by Act, Law of Regulation and is intended to be exclusive of all other
punishments”12

The test is both subjective and objective.

In the case of WONGPOOH YIN V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR13 the
judicial Committee of the Privy Council laid down the rule that there are both
objective and subjective tests to be applied when considering the defence of
lawful excuse. The Defendants must honestly believe that they had a lawful
excuse to resist an order. Whilst objectively, the defendant must show that
they were reasonably justified in holding their view. This was a trial for an
offence of disobedience to a lawful order under Section 203 of the Code, the
section provided the defence of lawful excuse to the accused person if he can
show that he has lawful excuse to disobey the order.

In Cambridge Shaire Country Council V. Rust,14 the defence
of lawful excuse was interpreted to mean;

“Either an authority or a reasonable believe in the
authority:

According to the presiding judge in that case

“a very clear and simple way of describing “excuse” in this
context is a reasonable believe that you have the right to do what you seek to
do”15

I hasten to say that the above reference being a foreign
authority is only a guide.

The law will have to be interpreted by the Court in order to
know the extent of the defence provided for a person accused of non-disclosure
of information to be able to resist liability. Suffice it to say however, that
where the defence of reasonable excuse succeeds, it totally absolved the
accused from liability. Please note that the burden of proof lies on him who
seeks to raise the defence.

THE JOURNALISTS’ PRIVILEGE

It is a common knowledge that the journalists cannot be
compelled to disclose their sources of information. Often, they are anxious to
protect the confidentiality of their source, perhaps relying on the
Constitutional protection guaranteed them by Section 39(1) and (3) of the
Constitution.16

Section 39(1) provides as follows:

“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression,
including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and
information without interference.

(3)        Nothing in
this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a
democratic society-

(a)for the purpose of preventing the disclosure of inflation
received in confidence…”17

It is submitted that Section 39(1) and (3) of the
Constitution protect and guarantee the right to freedom of expression,
including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and
information without interference. (Emphasis is mine). This provisions
constitute the basis for what is generally referred to as the ‘Journalists’
privilege’.

Whether the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of
Terrorism Act compelling the disclosure of an information aimed at achieving
the objectives therein will be considered as protected by the Constitution and
therefore valid, in the sense that, it is a law reasonably justifiable in a
democratic society is a moot point until same has been subjected to the
interpretative jurisdiction of the court.

However, if I am permitted to postulate, it is my humble
suggestion that, as an enactment which touches on public safety and National
security, the courts are likely to uphold the validity of the section.

Sebastine T. Hon. SAN has argued in his book “Law of
Evidence in Nigeria Substantive & Procedural”18 that in addition to relying
on Section 39(1) of the Constitution quoted above; journalists could also rely
on Section 10 of the English Contempt of Court Act, 1981 through the window
provided by Section 5(a) of the Evidence Act.

Section 5(a) provides as follows:

“Nothing in this Act shall –

(a)Prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which would
apart from the provisions of this Act be admissible”19

In Maxwel V. Pressdram Ltd.20, the Defendants were sued for
libel. They pleaded justification and deposed to an affidavit that the
information leading to the publication was derived from “highly placed source”
The Plaintiff sought to compel the Defendants to disclose/reveal the source of
their information. The Defendants refused and relied on the provisions of
Section 10 of the Act. The Court held that the Defendants were perfectly
entitled to the protection offered by the section and that it was not in the
“interest of justice” to order the Defendants to disclose their source.

Also in X. LTD. V. MORGAN – GRAMPLAN PUBLISHERS LTD.21 The
House of Lord ruled that the Plaintiff who was suing for libel ought to be told
by the Defendant press house of a “mole” within the Plaintiffs organization
which had leaked the information to the press house. The House of Lords went
further to find the press house guilty of contempt for failure to name their
source of information and awarded damages. Similar decision was reached in the
case of CAMELOT V. GROUP PLC V. CENTAUR COMMUNICATIONS LTD.22 I think it is
important to make the point here that there is no definitive definition of the
phrase “in the interest of justice” If anything, the competing interest of both
parties must always be considered and balanced. It is submitted that the Court
must not make the habit of learning in favour of pressmen to the prejudice of
the other party, particularly when the security of the State is involved.

The phrase “National Security” came up for discussion in the
English case of SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE V. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD.23 In
this case, a document tagged “SECRET” was prepared in the Ministry of Defence
and addressed to the Prime Minister. A day after it was prepared, Guardian
Newspaper got a photocopy of the document and subsequently went ahead to
publish it. Nobody knew how the organization got the document.

In an action against the Newspaper to disclose its source of
information and return the document in the same way it got it, the Newspaper
organization sought refuge under Section 10 of the 1981 Act which effectively
restricted the powers of the court to order disclosure of source of
information.

The Court of Appeal held that on its true construction, the
cited law restricts the court’s inherent jurisdiction relating to the
disclosure of documents. However, that the court can order a disclosure where
it was necessary in the interest amongst other things of national security.
That the crown was entitled to the return of the document in question because it
had satisfied the court that there was a risk to national security, unless the
person that leaked the document to the press could be found. It was the further
opinion of the Court that the risk did not lie in the publication of the
document, but in the fact that a servant of the crown who was in a position to
handle a material classified as “Secret” was in breach of his duty of trust.

In the very words of Lord justice Griffiths;

“The press have always attached the greatest importance to
their ability to protect their sources of information,… I would therefore
construe this section as enjoining the court not to make any order that will
have the result of requiring a person to disclose the source of information
unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is
necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the
prevention of disorder or crim. Prima facie, therefore, I would have held that
the Guardian was entitled to the protection of section 10.

However, in the particular circumstances of this case, I
have no doubt that it should be ordered to hand over the document forthwith
because it is in my view clearly established that it is necessary in the
interests of national security that the source from which this document came
should be identified…The threat to national security lies in the fact that
someone, probably in a senior position and with access to highly classified
material, cannot be trusted.”

Lord Justice Griffiths continued –

“Nobody knows what other documents of a far more sensitive
nature he may be prepared to copy or to whom he may be prepared to show them.
So long as he is unidentified he presents a very serious threat to our national
security”.24

Confirming this decision, the House of Lords the highest Court
in England had this to say:

“Finally, the last sentence, although elliptically
expressed, makes it, to my mind, clear that the risk to national security that
the government feared lay not in the publication of the particular document of
which the delivery up was sought, but in the possibility … that whoever leaked
that document might leak in future other classified documents disclosure of
which would have much more serious consequences on national security… My Lords,
that is why, after attempting to apply the necessary mental gymnastics, I feel
compelled to range myself with those of you who, in agreement with all three
members of the Court of Appeal, consider that the evidential material that was
before that Court at the interlocutory stage on 16th December, 1983 was
sufficient to establish that immediate delivery up of the document was
necessary in the interests of national security”.

It must be noted that the Courts in Nigeria are not bound by
the decisions of English Courts Stricto senso. However, they serve as
persuasive authorities. The cases cited above can serve as a useful guide in
construing the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2011
titled: information about acts of terrorism.

It does appear to me, that the provision of Section 7 of the
Act in view of the serious and compelling nature of the class of offence may
take precedent over what we generally know as journalist privilege or the
Editors/Reporters protection from being compelled to testify about confidential
information or to disclose sources of their information.

Other very significant sections of the Act include but not
limited to Section 9 which empowers the President of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria on the recommendation of the National Security Adviser or the inspector
General of Police to declare any person or organization to be involved in the
commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism or
any person who belong to an international terrorist group or who has a link
with an international terrorist group and he reasonably believes that the
person is a risk to national security to be a Suspected International
Terrorist.

Section 10 provides for suppression of financing to
terrorist organizations. Anyone who directly or indirectly provides or collects
funds with the intention or knowledge that they will be used in full or in part
to commit an offence under the Act shall be guilty of an offence on conviction
of which he shall be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of 10 years.

So also any person who directly or indirectly provides or
collects funds with the intention or knowledge that they will be used, in full
or in part in order to do any act intended to cause death or serious bodily
injury to a civilian or any other person not taking active part in the
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act is
by its nature is to intimidate a group of people or to compel a government or
an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act commits an offence
under the Act and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a maximum
term of 10 years.

By virtue of Section 12(1) of the Act, the National Security
Adviser or the Inspector General of Police with the approval of Mr. President
may seize any cash where he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash is
intended –

(a)To be used for purposes of terrorism;

(b)Belongs to or is held on trust  for a proscribed organization.

The NSA or the IGP may seize the cash in the course of
conducting a search, or affecting an arrest or when the property is liable to
forfeiture upon Court Order pursuant to an application to that effect by the
Attorney General of the Federation, the NSA or the IGP with the approval of Mr.
President. An order of seizure shall last at first instance for 60 days or
until the production of the cash in Court in a proceeding against any person
for an offence with which the cash was connected. See Section 12(1) – (6) of
the Act. The Act defined “Cash” under section 12 (8) to mean coins, Notes in
any currency, postal order, Travelers cheques Banksers’ drafts or Bonds.

By virtue of Section 14 of the Act, a Financial Institution
or designated non-financial institution shall within a period of not more than
72 hours forward reports of suspicious transactions relating to terrorism to
the Financial Intelligence Unit which shall process such information and
forward it to the relevant law enforcement agency where they have sufficient
reasons to suspect that the funds;

(a)Are intended to be used for an act of terrorism whether
derived from legal or illegal sources.

(b)Are proceeds of crime related to terrorist financing or

(c)Belong to a person entity or organization considered as
terrorist.

Failure to comply with this directive, the Financial Intelligence
Unit can impose administrative sanctions once it is shown that the failure is
not deliberate. But where the institution continues with the breach indicative
of deliberate intention not to comply, it shall on conviction be liable to a
minimum of Five (5) Million Naira or imprisonment for maximum term of five (5)
years for the principal officers of the institution or the defaulting
officer.25

Section 24 empowers
the Attorney General of the Federation, the National Security Adviser or the
Inspector General of Police for the purposes of prevention or detection of
offences or the prosecution of offenders under the Act to give such directions
as may appear to him to be necessary to any communication service provider.
This is for purposes of intelligence gathering.

MONEY LAUNDERING

The Prohibition of Money Laundering Act No. 7 of 2003 is
also pertinent here. It is unlawful under the law for any person to make or
accept cash payment of a sum exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Naira in case of
any individual or Two Million Naira in case of a body corporate except in a
transaction through a financial institution26.

Similarly, a transfer to or from Foreign country of funds or
securities of a sum exceeding 10,000 US Dollars or it equivalent shall be
reported to the Central Bank of Nigeria indicating the nature and amount of the
transfer, the names and addresses of the sender and receiver of the funds or
securities.

Several obligations are imposed on the Financial
Institutions by this Act with accompany sanctions for their breaches by the
Financial Institutions such as the need to verify a customer’s identity and
address before opening an account.27 The need to seek information from the
customer as to the origin and the destination of funds in any transaction28, the
need to keep customers records i.e. customers identification and record of
transaction for at least 10 years.29 The financial institution is also
obligated to report to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency within 7 days
any single transaction, lodgment or transfer of funds in excess of
N1,000,000:00 (One Million Naira) or its equivalent in the case of individual
and N5,000,000:00 (Five Million Naira) or its equivalent in the case of a body
corporate.30 The Agency has power under the law to investigate the source of
the fund and if found to be criminal or atleast questionable, may seek further
information on the transaction from the Financial Institution. Please note that
funds may be ordered to be blocked if an order stopping the transaction is obtained
by the Agency from the Federal High Court.31 Essentially, the motive behind
some of these draconian provisions I believe is to block sources of fund to
terrorist organizations or individuals suspected to be terrorist, apart from
creating the offence of money laundering simplicita.

THE CRIMINAL CODE

Let me spend some few minutes on the Criminal Code. This is
because some of the acts that have been classified as terrorist acts under the
specialized Laws discussed above are not totally uncovered by the Criminal Code
of the Federation or the Criminal Law of the States. Furthermore, it must be
stated that the offences of conspiracy and attempt which are inchoate in nature
are all provided for in our Criminal Laws.

For instance, Section 516 of the Criminal Code makes it an
offence for any person to conspire with another to commit any felony either in
Nigeria or any part of the world which if done in Nigeria would be a felony and
if found guilty on conviction will be liable to imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
if no other punishment is provided.

There is a similar provision in the Lagos State Criminal
Law32 and other States of the Federation. Conspiracy to commit an offence other
than felony (i.e. a misdemeanor) attracts imprisonment of 2 (two) years on
conviction.33 For the avoidance of doubt, felony is “any offence which is
declared by law to be a felony, or is punishable, without proof of previous
conviction, with death or with imprisonment for three years or more”34.

It is the law that conspiracy as an offence is the agreement
by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by
illegal means. The actual agreement alone constitutes the offence. Prove can be
achieved through direct or circumstantial evidence including inference from some
proved acts. See OBIAKOR V. THE STATE35, POPOOLA V. C.O.P36 It must also be
noted that the agreement by two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal
act by illegal means is sufficient, to ground an offence. The actual commission
of the offence is unnecessary. See MUMUNI & ORS. V. THE STATE37.

Similar argument goes for the offence of Attempt. Any person
who attempts to commit a felony or misdemeanor is guilty of an offence which
unless otherwise stated is a misdemeanor. Where it is an attempt to commit a
felony punishable with death or imprisonment of 14 (fourteen) years and above,
a person convicted of an attempt unless otherwise provided is liable on
conviction to 7 (seven) years imprisonment38. But where it is an attempt of a
misdemeanor, if no other punishment is provided, the punishment is one half of
the greatest punishment to which an offender convicted of the offence which he
attempted to commit is liable39.

Perhaps, The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2011 has only
captioned in one codified form, several offences in the Criminal Code of both
the Federation and the States although there is no direct heading titled
terrorism is the Code. However, a critical examination of the Code will reveal
that specific acts or omissions which constitute offences under the Act also
constitute offences under the Criminal Code (C.C). For example, Arson – Sec.
443 of C.C. Killing of human being – Sec. 306 of C.C. Attempt to destroy
property by explosive – Sec. 452 of C.C. Sending letters threatening to burn or
destroy property – Sec. 461 of C.C. Destroying or damaging an inhabited house
or a vessel with explosions – Sec. 451 of
C.C Attempts at extortion by threats – Sec. 407 of C.C. Kidnapping –
Sec. 364 of C.C. Disturbing religious worship – Sec. 206 of the C.C. etc.

CONCLUSION

From the above, can it be seriously contended that our
statute Books lack relevant provisions to outlaw and sanction acts that are
generally harmful or dangerous to the society and its people in Nigeria
including but not limited to the security challenges facing the nation today?

The Nigerian Police Force is saddled with the general
responsibility for “the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of
offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and
property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they
are directly charged” how effective has the Nigeria Police Force been able to
discharge these onerous responsibilities?

How far indeed can they go in this highly compelling
statutory assignment within the circumstances under which they presently
operates? What is the role of investigation of crime and enforcement of laws
including maintenance of law and order in all this? What is the place of prompt
intervention, thorough investigation, effective and efficient performance of
the Nigeria Police as we see in other Nations of the world?

Even for the respectable and respected 4th estate of the
realm, have they not dumped investigative journalism for ‘reportorial’
journalism? How much of Boko Haram phenomenon do we know? Mr. John Campbell the
former U.S ambassador to Nigeria said:

“Boko Haram once an obscure, radical Islamic court in the
North, is evolving into an insurrection with support among the impoverished and
alienated Northern population”.

For me this is very instructive because it raises yet a
number of questions. Is Boko Haram insurrection a fight against class
oppression? Is it driven by poverty and alienation? Alienation from what? From
power? Is it a fight against government over what the fighters regard as their
rights?

Another commentator said that if the insurrection and
confrontations in the northern part of the country are indeed reactions to
class oppression, why are mosques exempted from attacks? What are the specific
motives driving the Boko Haram? I have no answers to these questions. I believe
there is a compelling need for Nigeria authorities to scientifically and
intellectually identify the cause of this phenomenon and positively address
them. Afterall, it is said that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom
fighter.”40

I believe it is the duty of the press to dig up information,
thoroughly investigate it, publish their findings and focus the attention of
the public to the findings in other to change the society for the better. Yet
another question, how far can the press go in the face of patently innumerable
acts of self imposed censorship that we see and feel today? Can the Police
Force and other security agents function effectively and efficiently without
useful information from the public, particularly the gentlemen of the press? I
recognize that every great destiny rides on the wheel of information. This is
true not in the life of individuals but also in the life of a nation. There is
no substitute for information in our quest for change of position in life.
Information infuses motivation and motivation provokes action required to
arrive at a destination. Once you lack information, you will lack motion.

Being a paper delivered by Dele Adesina SAN at the 8th All
Nigerian Editors Conference held at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State on Friday, September
14th, 20121

 

Dele Adesina, SAN