Former member of Nigeria’s Federal House of Representatives and legal expert, Barr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa has faulted the views of constitutional lawyer, Barr. Mike Ozekhome (SAN) that the proscription of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria was a violation of its members’ fundamental human rights.
Idahosa argued, in a statement he issued on Sunday, that the fundamental human rights of the Shiites under reference cannot be enjoyed to the detriment of the rest of the Nigerian society.
His words: “With the greatest respect to the learned SAN I do not agree with his views on this matter. The fundamental human rights of the Shiites under reference cannot be enjoyed to the detriment of the rest of our society.
“While conceding that we are in an over constitutionalized democracy, the basic duty to secure lives and property remains that of the executive. It is the duty of the Judiciary to vet the actions of other arms of Government.”
He noted that the appropriate court has thoroughly vetted the application of FGN to have the group proscribed together with the supporting affidavit and granted the reliefs sought.
According to him, there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about the exercise of the powers vested in a court of law by such court, citing Ran Hirschl, a professor from university of Toronto, who said the world is witnessing a transition to juristocracy- the transfer of power from representative institutions to judiciaries. Nigeria is no exception in this regard, he averred.
“Section 6 of our constitution has laid down that foundation. It allows for active judicial review. The learned professor added that national high courts and tribunals have become increasingly important, even crucial, policy-making bodies.
“In the United States, which is the acknowledged flag ship of constitutional democracy, there is hardly any moral, political, or public policy controversy in constitutionalism that does not sooner or later become a judicial one.
“The nature of democracy itself makes it imperative to draw up a set of procedural governing rules and decision- making processes which all stakeholders and political actors are required to accept as binding.”
Dr. Idahosa further argued that the stability of democracy everywhere presupposes the existence of a Judiciary to serve as impartial umpire in disputes concerning the nature of the rules and the compliance level with such rules by all stakeholders and policy actors.
“Above all, judicial review is a necessary component of viable democratic governance in a political system, whether federalist, confederations or unitary in nature.
“It is therefore in this regard, that one can safely argue that a government policy supported by judicial review cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as unconstitutional and illegal. Until such judicial decisions arising from preceding judicial review are upturned by superior courts, they remain legal and constitutional.”
It would be recalled that Justice Nkeonye Maha had on Friday issued the proscription order while ruling on an exparte application brought by the federal government of Nigeria. Maha designated the activities of the Shiite organisation in any part of Nigeria “as acts of terrorism and illegality.”
She restrained “any person or group of persons” from participating in any form of activities involving or concerning the IMN “under any name or platform” in Nigeria. The court action since then has elicited reaction from across the country and beyond.
Barrister Mike Ozekhome was one of the legal experts who opposed the court’s decision, saying it was without due process, discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional.
His words: “The proscription is highly discriminatory, as in the case of IPOB. What group could be more terrorist than the herdsmen and their known anchor, Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association that has held Nigeria down by the jugular for years – killing, maiming, burning, raping, turning Nigeria into a crimson field of bloodbath? Until the government bans and outlaws these, it is certainly not serious.”
He stated that the Shi’ites group was a religious group, like the Sunni, which he said Buhari belonged to, and as such could not be proscribed.
“It is not an association that could be banned. Section 10 of the Nigerian Constitution makes Nigeria a secular state. You can’t ban religion, a people’s belief. Therefore, also freedom of thought, conscience and religion in section 38, while sections 40 and 41 allow for freedom of movement and association.
“The constitution is ruthlessly being shredded by an intolerant and overbearing civilian dictatorship,” Ozekhome opined.
