IPOB:Why Nigeria can’t come out of another Civil war – Ex-Commissioner, Tsav

Abubakar Tsav, former Commissioner of Police, has given reasons why Nigeria must not experience another Civil War.
Tsav said should another war break out now, the effect will be devastating due to the proliferation of arms across the country.

Speaking with Punch, the former Commissioner said with the rate of arms proliferation, people won’t know who they are fighting.
The Benue State-born former Commissioner also warned that no nation ever experienced two civil wars and still remains united.

He said, Those who witnessed the Nigeria Civil War and are still alive learned so many lessons, so they would not want to go into another civil war. But it is those who were born after the civil war and have never experienced any war that their blood is boiling. They are the ones itching for war and no country fights two civil wars and still exists.

A war is terrible because when it starts, you never know who would be consumed. So the people who are agitating for this war don’t know the evil in it. But for someone like me who witnessed the Nigerian Civil War, l’m too scared of experiencing another war  
I am praying that we should not go back to that level but the situation is very frightening. I’m praying that it should not happen because arms have found themselves in the hands of many people in this country.

There is proliferation of arms everywhere in this country. So if there were to be an outbreak of war now, it would be very bad because you wouldn’t know who you are fighting. Your next-door neighbour may have guns; and they may have a score to settle with you, so they may attack you. So I’m praying that God Almighty should help us.

We are responsible for what is happening in this country. We are after money, we are not thinking of salvation, having peace and loving one another. We are only thinking of prosperity and making money, so every one of us is to blame because when you go and start cursing people and saying: Fulani are murderers

 Tiv people are cattle thieves, and so on, it is not good. We should not preempt and curse one another. We should pray together and ask God to forgive us all our shortcomings.

God should have mercy on us so that this country can develop, but the number of arms which people possess now in this country is alarming.   If anything happens, it is going to be terrible. Well, some of
you are still young, but for old people like us, if anything happens now, we will sit still and they will come and gun us down. Then, we will join our ancestors in heaven or hell, but l pray that God should pity me and take me to heaven.

CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA:Court refuses to order Buratai to produce Nnamdi Kanu

  


ON 26/1/2018
A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, turned down request by the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, to order the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, to produce their leader, Nnamdi Kanu.

In a ruling that was delivered by Justice Binta Nyako, the court dismissed an application that was filed by a team of lawyers representing the IPOB leader, which prayed the court to compel Buratai to produce their client, either dead or alive.   

The IPOB lawyers, led by Ifeanyi Ejiofor, told the court that they have not seen or heard from their client since September 14, 2017, when the Nigerian Army invaded his house, on a murderous raid, where life and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and defenceless populace, leaving 28 persons dead and abducting many.

Pursuant to section 40 of the Federal High Court Act, F12, LFN 2005 and section 6(6) (1) (4) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, Kanu’s lawyers applied for, “an order of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, commanding the Respondent (Buratai), to produce the Applicant in Court.
In a counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the suit, Buratai told the court that Kanu was never in custody of the Nigerian Army.

The army chief maintained that contrary to claims in the suit, soldiers who were deployed to the South-East for ‘Operation Python Dance II, did not have any contact whatsoever with Kanu on September 12 or 14, or anytime thereafter as alleged.    
 
The Chief of Army Staff told the court that the Nigerian Army did not at any time arrest or took Kanu into custody within the period the military operation lasted, even as he denied allegation that soldiers invaded the IPOB leader’s house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State.
A colonel attached to the Chief of Army Staff’s office in the Army Headquarters, Abuja, Col. A.A Yusuf, who deposed to the counter-affidavit on behalf of Buratai, said the alleged invasion of Kanu’s house was totally false.

In her ruling, Justice Nyako held that Ejiofor failed to convince the court that Kanu was seen with soldiers at any time.
She pointed out that, “the doctrine of last seen, which the applicant relied upon, even though applicable in murder cases, has no statutory backing. 

The Judge noted that Kanu was listed in the suit as the main applicant.
According to the judge, she was surprised that someone that was said to be missing was the one seeking reliefs from the court, insisting that the lawyers ought to have rather commenced the action in the name of the applicant.

Nyako said affidavits Ejiofor presented before the court contained criminal allegations against the Nigerian Army that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Has the applicant placed enough evidence to show that the respondent was the last to see the applicant? Was there any evidence that he was last seen with even one soldier?
The onus of proof will not shift from the applicant to the respondent except the applicant is able to prove that he was last seen by the respondent. This they have failed to do.

This application fails and it is hereby dismissed. Be ready for your case, the Judge held.
When Ejiofor demanded to know from the court what the next line of action would be in respect of Kanu’s pending trial, since his whereabouts has remained unknown.


justice Nyako explained, As far as I am concerned, the applicant is on bail. Was he not released on bail based on an undertaking by sureties?
The sureties guaranteed to produce the applicant in court for his trial, so three of them should produce him.    
 
They made an undertaking and deposed to the fact that they will produce him to stand trial.
If there is any reason they cannot produce him, they should tell me on that date