Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has joined other Nigerians criticising the alleged invasion Nnamdi Kanu's home Fiery Lagos-based lawyer, Femi Falana, has come hard against the Nigerian army saying the Federal Government flouted the stipulations of the Constitution with the action. Falana said the security operatives carried out illegality in allegedly invading the home of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). He listed seven grounds of argument to back his allegation.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) noted that the government had the responsibility to protect law and order, but added that such should not be carried out with disregard to the Constitution.
“No doubt, the Federal Government of Nigeria has the duty to maintain law and order in the country. But it is the duty which cannot be carried out outside the ambit of the law of the land.
“Last weekend, armed troops invaded Abia state to deal with the alleged threat of Mr Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to destabilise the country. “It was reported yesterday that the troops have taken over the family house of Mr Kanu and put him under house arrest,” he said.
The seven grounds on which Falana based his argument include:
1. By virtue of section 215 (3) of the Constitution, the Nigeria Police Force has been conferred with the exclusive power to maintain law and order and secure public safety and public order in the country.
2. Having filed an application in the Federal High Court for the re-arrest and detention of Mr Kanu for allegedly breaching the conditions attached to his bail the federal government ought not to have presented the trial judge with a fiat accompanied by resorting to self-help in the circumstance.
3. Although the President is empowered by virtue of section 217(2) of the Constitution to deploy the armed forces for the “suppression of insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore law order” he cannot exercise the power until there is an insurrection or civil disturbance which cannot be contained by the police.
4. Since there was no insurrection in Aba state which the Nigeria Police Force could not contain the deployment of armed troops by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces cannot be justified in law.
5. However, if the federal government has evidence of other criminal offences recently committed by Mr Kanu the Police should have been directed to arrest him and charge him to court without any delay.
6. Neither the Constitution nor the Armed Forces Act Cap A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 has empowered the Nigeria Army to arrest any citizen who is not subject to service law.
7. In the case of Yussuf v Obasanjo (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt 956) 96 the Court of Appeal held that: “It is up to the police to protect our nascent democracy and not the military, otherwise the democracy might be wittingly or unwittingly militarised. This is not what the citizenry bargained for in wrestling power from the military in 1999. Conscious step or steps should be taken to civilianise the polity to ensure the survival and sustenance of democracy.”
He wondered why armed soldiers have constantly taken the responsibilities of the police while state governments have allowed armed soldiers to remain members of the police anti-robbery squads despite the fact that the country is in democracy. He warned that the soldiers should be ordered back to the barracks while the police should be allowed to maintain law and order in Abia state.