The for mer C h a i r m a n , P r e s i d e n t i a l Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), has taken exception to the recent judgment of a Canadian court, which reportedly labelled the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as “terrorist organisations.”
Describing the decision as “balderdash,” the constitutional lawyer accused the Court of “inconsistency,” having regard to its recognition of the fact that Nigeria engages in political processes, which are the defining characteristics of democracy.
His words: “I think the Canadian court was inconsistent because, one, they were admitting that we are engaged in a political process, having elections and so on, which they used against the man, saying that that shows that it was a country that was engaged in a democratic programme.
“On the other hand, they now also said that the parties, by their occasional violence, election-rigging and so on, constituted terrorist organisations. “That is absolute balderdash. It shows that even a court in an advanced country is ignorant, because, a terrorist organisation is a totally different matter.
“A terrorist organisation is an organisation that imposes fear on the population by violence, destruction and killing. And that is his main aim; just to impose that fear, and therefore, control on a society by its violence by his killings, just uncontrollable destruction of lives and property, at times. “So, that court is ignorant, obviously, mixing up everything. Yes, there is rigging in Nigeria. That is true.
There is occasional election violence; there is no question about it. But, the majority of the voting is peaceful. And I’m not saying the results you get are absolutely correct, but the whole process is relatively peaceful. “And it is peaceful enough to say we are engaged in proper state activity towards democratic governance. Yes, we are doing that. “The parties are not terrorist organisations at all.
So, the basis of that judgment is wrong.” He, nonetheless, lauded the verdict as, according to him, it exposed the tendencies of many Nigerians who, in the course of seeking asylum outside the country, bring the country to disrepute. The learned silk averred: “But, I support the judgment. The effect of the judgment is that the man went there scandalising Nigeria, in order to have asylum.
He tried to run down Nigeria, and it backfired. So, he needed to be sent back, and to be tried here (for) going abroad to wreak the reputation of this country. “There must be some provision in the law which can be used in prosecuting him for doing that. You know, this has happened to this country so often.
(For instance), women, when they want to seek asylum in other countries, they will say that they were going to be subjected to sexual mutilation.
That the whole of Nigeria is full of sexual mutilation. “That they are escaping from that, and once they say that in all these advanced countries, they are given asylum. But, they are just using it as an excuse, because nobody is forcing anybody to have sexual mutilation.
“In fact, there are very few societies in this country that still do that. So, there is a tendency among our people to run down our country abroad, for personal gain. “That is the game, and that is what this man tried to do. Thank God it failed! Let him come and meet us here; we are waiting for him.”
