Previous reports that some members of the NBA went underground, surreptitiously pressured Inib
The arbitrary imprisonment of Inibehe Effiong Esq in Akwa
Previous reports that some members of the NBA went underground, surreptitiously pressured Inib
This judge, in a bid to defend her judicial rascality and gangsterism, claimed that Inibehe Effiong committed contempt, and as such, she decided to jail him because she felt she was armed with the power to do so, seeing that she was seated on the highest throne, one above God’s. This embarrassing reason for jailing Inibehe shows that Ekaette Obot is either ignorant of the provisions of the law she claims to be an authority of or that she wilfully embraced the path of lawlessness and tyranny to punish a lawyer she intensely loathes. On that day, being Wednesday, July 27, 2022, Ekaette was a fully robed judge determined to strangle her favourite victim.
My contention is that Ekaette did not follow due process in her “conviction” of Inibehe. She did not allow Inibehe to enjoy the constitutional provision of fair hearing, generously provided and guaranteed under section 36 of Nigeria’s Constitution. Is Ekaettesaying that Section 36 or any part of Chapter 4 of the Grundnorm, is not applicable to Inibehe Effiong as a Nigerian citizen?
The point of my argument should be quite clear by now, which is that assuming without conceding that Inibehe Effiong was indeed guilty of contempt as Ekaette Obot desperately wants us to believe without proof, she was without the competence in law to send him to prison. The decision was outside her power at the material time and therefore constitutes a serious abuse of office. In abusing her office, Ekaette Obot acted as the accuser, witness, prosecutor and judge in her own case! This is a very violent violation of Inibehe’s fundamental human rights, particularly the right to fair hearing, which is surprisingly an elementary principle in law.
I must crave the indulgence of my reader to quote some relevant sections of the Nigerian Constitution which Ekaette Obotpurports to uphold as an advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria:
Section 36[1]: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted IN SUCH MANNER AS TO SECURE ITS INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY.”
How can any sane person claim that “independence and impartiality” were guaranteed in a case in which the accuser was the witness, prosecutor and judge?
Section 36[4] says:
“Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, UNLESS THE CHARGE IS WITHDRAWN, BE ENTITLED TO A FAIR HEARING IN PUBLIC WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME by a court or tribunal.”
The question is: was Inibehe granted fair hearing by EkaetteObot before he was hurriedly condemned to one month in prison? The answer is NO, in capital letters!
I further seek the indulgence of my reader to quote relevant judicial authorities to enable us examine whether or not EkaetteObot’s decision to condemn Inibehe to one month in prison was judicially and judiciously exercised.
In University of Ilorin Vs Oluwadare (2003) FWLR [PT. 147] 1206, it was held as follows:
“Once a person is accused of the commission of a criminal offence, he must only be tried by a Court of law established under the constitution where the complaints of his prosecutors can be ventilated IN PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND WHERE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FAIR HEARING WOULD BE ASSURED.”
See below in the case of Ajao vs Ashiru (1973) NSCC 525 what the Supreme Court had to say about the arbitrary wielding of power like Ekaette Obot did with Inibehe Effiong:
“The courts will frown upon any manifestation of arbitrary power assumed by anyone over the life or the property of another even if that other is suspected of having breached some law or regulation. People must never take the law into their hands by attempting to enforce what they consider to be their right or entitlement.”
Finally, the law is very clear that once certain steps have been recommended to follow before any person can be deprived of their right[s], those steps must be followed strictly. The accuseror whoever has no right to employ shortcuts to achieve their aims like Ekaette Obot did in the case of Inibehe Effiong.
In University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Management Board Vs Nnoli (1994) 10 S.C.N.J 71 wherein Onuh J.S.C. (as he then was) it was held that:
“Where a statute directs that certain procedure be followed before a person can be deprived of his right, whether in respect of his person, property or office, SUCH A PROCEDURE MUST BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED.”
The questions are: did Ekaette Obot, Acting Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State High Court, observe any step recommended by the law [including conducting trial] before she arbitrarily “convicted” Inibehe Effiong? Was Inibehe granted fair hearing in line with the position of the law as copiously captured above? Sadly, the answers returned with a very loud NO; again, in capital letters.
On the strength of the above judicial authorities and position of the Nigerian Constitution, I call on you, Ekaette Obot, to immediately release Inibehe Effiong Esq
I round off with a quote by Justice Mustapha Dahiru [late], the 13th Chief Justice of Nigeria, who once remarked as follows:
“Metaphorically, an unjust judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs amok with a dagger in a crowded street. The latter as you know can be restrained physically, but the former deliberately destroys the moral foundation of the society and causes incalculable distress to individuals, while still answering HONOURABLE.”
#FreeInibeheEffiongNow!
Elias Ozikpu