THE LEGALITY OF THE GROWING DEMAND FOR SECESSION IN NIGERIA

THE RIGHT OF NIGERIAN CITIZENS  TO QUIT THE CORPORATE UNION

Following the arrest of Chief Sunday Igboho (the leader of the Yoruba Nation movement) in the République of Bénin and the arrest and continuation of the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (the leader of of IPOB), an existential discourse as being thrown into the public. Do the citizens of Nigeria have a right to determine their continuous involvement in the corporate existence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Many lawyers have sighted article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Right ACHPR, claiming it bestows the right on citizens of Nigeria to seek for self-determination.

Now, let us analyze the various extant laws that deal with the corporate existence of Nigeria and possible consequences for trying to balkanize it. First of all, let's take a look at the ACHPR. The ACHPR, in its 

aboriginal state it's an international treaty, which ordinarily by operation of section 12 of the 1999 Constitution should not be enforceable in Nigeria unless it's ratified by the Nigerian parliament. However, in 1983 the ACHPR was domesticated and it can now be considered as a Nigerian law. Thus, article 20 of the ACHPR which donates the right to self-determination to the citizens of the signatories to that treaty, having been ratified by the Nigerian parliament in line with section 12 of the 1999 Constitution is applicable in Nigeria. However, we must juxtapose Article 20 of the ACHPR with the Constitution. The preamble of the 1999 Constitution states that Nigeria shall remain one indivisible and indissoluble entity. The conflict of a domesticated international treaty such as the ACHPR and the Nigerian Constitution or any other existing law in Nigeria was abundantly examined by the supreme Court in Abacha v Gani Fawehinmi where the Supreme Court in examining the enforceability of the ACHPR. The court explained that international treaties which have been ratified in accordance with section12 of the 1999 Constitution, gain the full force of the law and whenever there is a conflict between it and any other law in Nigeria, the ratified international treaty will have pre - eminence over such a domestic law. As there is a presumption that the legislature would never have had the intention to breach an international treaty. However, the Supreme Court stressed that even though a ratified international treaty would be given priority over other domestic laws in Nigeria, this doesn't apply to the Nigerian Constitution, as the Constitution ranks above all laws in Nigeria.  This is a position of the law that has been well expounded by the Nigerian courts. The Nigerian Constitution, in Nigerian jurisprudence is viewed as the grund norm, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And no other law can take precedence over the Nigerian Constitution. 

Thus, as much as I agree that the ACHPR been an international treaty domesticated in Nigeria. Its provisions that deal with the right of citizens to demand for self-determination (with regard to article 20) supersedes any other law that would seek to punish any person or group of person who seeks to determine his future in the Nigerian union.

 However, by virtue of the Supreme Court's decision in Abacha v Gani Fawehinmi article 20 of the ACHPR can't take precedence over the 1999 Constitution, which states that Nigeria shall remain one indivisible and indissoluble entity. Thus, my summation on the position of the right of the Nigerian citizen to seek for self-determination, is that; it is lawful for any Nigerian citizen to seek for self-determination by virtue of article 20 of the ACHPR. However, the realization of an independent nation arising from the clamour for self-determination would not be foreseeable, as the 1999 Constitution explicitly provides that Nigeria shall remain one indivisible unit. However, an attempt by citizens to self-determination would not amount to an offense under any other law in Nigeria. As the ACHPR, as a ratified international treaty, is higher in ranking over other domestic laws in Nigeria save for the Constitution (which doesn't prescribe any punishment for secession). 

However, I have seen a lot of lawyers use article 20 of the ACHPR as a defense for treason. Taking a cursory look at the provisions of the operational parts of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) which deal with treasonable offenses. No mention was made as to secession been a treasonable offense. Thus, it can't be said that there is any form of conflict between the sections that prohibit acts of treason and the ACHPR. The Criminal Code Act (CCA) only talks about offenses such as levying war against the state in other to over awe the state or force the president to change his counsel as we have seen been done by some of the secessionist groups forming their security networks to attack the police, the army and correctional authorities in other to force the state to grant them independence such an act amounts to treason, and it's punishable by death. Or do we want to talk about how some of the leaders of these secessionist groups boasted to have allied with the ambazonian forces in southern Cameroon with the aim of attaining an independent state within Nigeria. Section 38 of the CCA prohibits the invitation of any foreigner to invade Nigeria and prescribes a punishment of death. These are some of the offenses  addressed as treasonable offenses under the CCA, and there was no mention of secession. Thus, it is very correct to state that the right of Nigerians to demand their political existence is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar, but this should not lead to levying war against the country, or causing inter communual strife (which is punishable with life imprisonment) or inviting foreign forces to invade Nigeria. Reliance on article 20 of the ACHPR to defend any act that is labelled as treason under the CCA would be foolhardy, and it would fall barefaced on the ground.