A legal practitioner based in Abuja, Mr. Silas Onu has approached the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court seeking an abortion of the Federal Government’s plan to offer amnesty to members of the Boko Haram Islamic sect.
The move comes just one day after President Goodluck Jonathan inaugurated the Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of Security Challenges in the North. Those joined as defendants in the suit include President Jonathan, Senate President, Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives and Attorney General of the Federation.
According to Onu, who prayed the court to issue a consequential order halting the continuation of an amnesty programme, granting amnesty to the sect would set a very dangerous precedent of violence for amnesty. He prayed the court to equally halt further payments to ex Niger Delta militants.
In the originating summons, Onu argued that Jonathan does not have the constitutional powers to grant amnesty to any group of persons or individuals who have not been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence created by an act of the Senate and House of Representatives by virtue of Section 1 and 175 of the 1999 constitution.
He also urged the court to determine if the president has the powers to set up an amnesty project and expend tax payers’ monies for the running and maintaining of the beneficiaries.
He further wants the court to determine “whether the Senate and House of Representatives who have not enacted any laws in accordance to Sections 11 (1) and 3(3) of the 1999 constitution can appropriate funds or accommodate or permit howsoever the use of public funds for the running of any amnesty programme, or maintenance of any group of persons or individuals who have been granted amnesty by the president; as well as “a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of Section 1 and 175 of the 1999 constitution and in the absence of any other law enacted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the 1st defendant lacks the constitutional powers and capacity to grant amnesty to unidentified group of persons or individuals who have not been investigated, charged or convicted of any offence by the appropriate bodies charged with carrying out the investigation, prosecution and conviction of these group persons or individuals.
These are in addition to “a declaration that the operation of the amnesty programme of the 1st defendant by setting up offices and maintaining the beneficiaries of the project from public funds without any legal instrument or an act of the National Assembly is ultra vires the powers of the 1st defendant and as such is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void,”
a “declaration that the appropriation of public funds for the operation of the amnesty programme by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, acting jointly or severally in the absence of any legal enactment supporting the project is a gross violation of the 1999 constitution,” and “an order restraining the 1st defendant acting by itself or through agents, servants and/ or privies whomsoever and howsoever called from continuing with the amnesty, or to use public funds for such project, unless such is in terms with the provisions of Section 175 of the 1999 constitution or any other enacted by the National Assembly.
