Last week, we commenced this vexed issues. We shall continue today. Read on.
The EFCC Act applies
The definition of terrorism under the EFCC Act, is very broad. It includes any act that is intended to intimidate, force, coerce, or induce any government, body, institution, the general public or any segment thereof, to do or abstain from doing any act or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint, or to act according to certain principles, or disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service to the public or to create a public emergency, or create general insurrection in a state and any promotion, sponsorship of, contribution to, command, aid, incitement, encouragement, attempt threat, conspiracy, organization or procurement of any person.
The combustible and inflammable comments of Dr. Isa Pantami, no doubt, were intended to cause fear or make any government or bodies abandon a standpoint, induce fear in the public or government, etc. He can be charged under the EFCC Act.
The Penal Code Act and the Criminal Code Act
The Penal Code Act and the Criminal Code Act did not provide for the offence of terrorism. The Criminal Code provides for the offence of unlawful profession and unlawful society. There is no similar provision in the Penal Code. Since the alleged act took place in the northern part of Nigeria, Pantami cannot be charged with unlawful society or unlawful profession. But he can be surely charged for terrorism under the EFCC Act.
As expected, the Presidency, through its second-in-command Chief Propagandist, Garba Shehu, has risen to the defence of Pantami. What did you expect? Indict him? That would have been the eighth wonder of the world following the Great Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Mausoleum of Mausolus, Collosus of Rhodes and the Lighthouse of Alexandria. The President appoints ministers by virtue of Section 147(1) of the 1999 Constitution. It is his sole prerogative, constitutionally speaking. But suchm inisters must first be confirmed by the Senate of the NASS, under Section 147(2). The President can also sack a minister (seeS ection 11 of the Interpretation Act). He who hires can also fire. I can, however, vow, that Pantami will NEVER be sacked. Garba Shehu has said that much. But Pantami occupies a sensitive portfolio (Minister of Communications and Digital Economy). He has unhindered access to all Nigerians’ data, NIN, BVN and confidential information. Therein lies Nigerians’ worries, nay, nightmares. It has nothing to do with alleged “cancel campaign”, purported faceless “enemies”, or alleged companies’ collusion (because of their alleged financial losses “through lower prices and greater consumer protection”), allegedly introduced by Pantami, as Garba would want some gullible Nigerians or pro-Buhari party people to believe.
Do I, for example, as a Nigerian patriot, fall into any of the above categories? Absolutely not. Pantami’s albatross has nothing to do with his alleged effectiveness or efficaciousness in his duties. It has everything to do with his dangerous religious antecedents, which, on the surface, he says he has renounced, but is still effectively practising in reality. Otherwise, why did he invite only a very little known Al-Afrikiy, a wholly Muslim television station that broadcasts strictly religious matters, to solely cover a programme of a whole Federal Government’s activity – the virtual flag-off capacity development programme on VSAT Installation Skills and TVRO Systems for 600 youths? Why?
This was only on March 22, 2021. Where were AIT, Channels, NTA, NAN, TVC, ITV, Arise News, Silverbird, Oak TV, or the several radio stations across Nigeria? This is Nigerians’ great worry, Mallam Shehu. Do not run away from the substance and pursue the shadow. Please, face the real issues at stake.
Pantami’s religious bigotry, earlier inflammatory speeches in support of and sympathy with terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Taliban and Boko Haram (the third group of whose shed blood he described as “our Muslim brothers’ blood”) are the real issues at stake. Please, face them.
If we go by Garba’s pedestrian argument that woefully fails the acid test of logic and rigorous reasoning, why did Nigerians not pardon brilliant Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, who was accused of forging her NYSC certificate, rather than pressurize and force her to resign her office?
Why didn’t the Presidency trenchantly defend Mrs. Adeosun, a Yoruba woman? Who was more dangerous, a certificate forger or a terrorist sympathiser and supporter? Why support only northern-Muslim Pantami? What about the death of one young lad, Sunday Achi, who was said to have been killed due to his incendiary preachment? What about the consequential killings of Christians in Kaduna, Kano, Jos, Maiduguri, Katsina and other parts of the North, occasioned by his bigoted religious teachings? What did former CJN Walter Onnoghen do that made the Presidency rubbish, hound and hunt him out of office in a most premature, disgraceful and unconscionable manner? What was the offence of the #EndSARS innocent protesters that were mindlessly and callously mauled down at the Lekki tollgate, even as they were harmlessly waving the Green-White-Green Nigerian flag in a peaceful protest? Why does the Presidency perennially have a “siege mentality”? Why does the Presidency forever play victimhood, when it is always the aggressor? Why do presidential spokespersons always scramble to outdo each other to beat Adolf Hitler’s Goebbels to vile propaganda as exhibited during World War II? Why will the Presidency be defending a minister? What is it hiding? Why weep more than the bereaved? I cannot understand, or can you?
Under Section 5(2) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, Pantami can be charged for terrorist activities because terrorism includes “support” for; and “support” includes (in the words of the Act) “incitement to commit a terrorist act through the Internet or any electronic means or through the use of printed materials or through the dissemination of terrorist information.”
My humble call on Pantami is to honourably resign his ministerial appointment and save this clueless government further infamy, calumny, obloquy and odium. Where he fails or refuses to do so (as I know he would), then President Buhari should sack him. Where Buhari refuses (as I know he would) then any and every Nigerian or NGO that feels sufficiently concerned and aggrieved can approach the courts and ask for an order of mandamus to compel the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami, to prosecute Pantami by virtue of Section 174 of the 199 Constitution. Every Nigerian has the right (locus standi) to do this. The Nigerian Supreme Court has laid this to rest as far back as 1981 in the causa celebre (celebrated case) of Senator Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) JELR 54679 (SC).
Pantami: The leopard and its unchanging spots
Mallam Isa Pantami is no ordinary Nigerian. He is a minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Pantami is also no ordinary minister. He is charged with the sensitive portfolio of Communications and Digital Economy. Before his ministerial appointment, he had headed the very sensitive and delicate position of director-general of the National Information Technology Development Agency. As minister, Pantami oversees the critical agencies of NCC, NITDA, NIPOST, NIGCOMSAT and GALAXY Backbone. In this digitalised world, Pantami, by his office, has access to Nigerians’ private communications, NIN, identities, etc. Ordinarily, this would not have posed a problem at all, since someone, a Nigerian, out of our 210 million population, must head the ministry anyway. But his antecedents are quite worrisome. That is what has led to the sudden bedlam and ruckus by Nigerians generated through the traditional and social media routes. How? Why? I will tell you.
Pantami is an acclaimed Islamic fanatic, fundamentalist and supporter of extremist Islamic sects. Taught in Saudi Arabia by fiery Muhammad Inn Uthaymin (nicknamed “giant of Islam”, a cleric who once opposed women driving for fear of mixture of men and women at petrol stations, traffic lights and police checkpoints), Pantami, as a graduate assistant, started preaching and leading prayers in mosques right from his days at the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, where he had graduated from. He is said to be the chief imam of the Al Mannar mosque, Abuja, where he preaches. There is nothing wrong about one being close to his maker, including his tafsir teaching during the Ramadan fasting season (Ramadan Kareem). So, I do not begrudge him his passionate pastime. To me, it is even a plus that, as minister, he still finds time to worship his God. After all, the Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be on to him), when asked by the pagans of Mecca (Makkah) to worship their gods, answered: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion” (Surah Al-Kafirun109:1). What he was simply emphasising was the freedom and individuality of religion and conscience between a person and his God. We call this secularity. It is entrenched in Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
Did Patami realise this in his earlier fiery teachings of extremism and religious intolerance and bigotry, even as far back as nearly 20 years ago? I think not. Let me show you a sample of his expressed mindset and why Nigerians are united in reactions that have since gone viral, calling for his immediate resignation or outright sack.
Among others in his Salafist ideology and spine-chilling teachings in support of two of the globally most acclaimed deadliest terrorist groups in the world (Taliban and Al Quaeda) some years ago, Pantami had said, unapologetically, “Oh God, give victory to the Talibans and to the Al Quaeda. This jihad is an obligation for every single believer, especially in Nigeria.”
He also reportedly endorsed the killing of “unbelievers” (non-Muslims).
(To be concluded next week)
Thought for the week
“Anyone who supports terrorism, anyone who sees terrorism as a legitimate means, anyone who uses terrorism to cause the death of innocent people is a terrorist in my eyes.”
(Milos Zeman)