Turakee2:
BEFORE YOU COMPARE HISBAH WITH AMOTEKUN
Since the declaration of the South Western Nigeria Security Network (AMOTEKUN) as illegal by the Federal Government, a lot of people especially from the South West, have been trying so hard to compare the outfit with Kano State's Hisbah Corps.
I just thought that I should share the below information.
1. The Kano State Hisbah Board was created through the Kano State Hisbah Board Law No.4 of 2003 and the Kano State Hisbah Board (Amendment) Law No.6 of 2005 by the Kano State House of Assembly, which were duly assented to by the then Governor of Kano State, Malam Ibrahim Shekarau.
Now, what Law created AMOTEKUN, by which House of Assembly, and who assented to it?
2. Under Section 7 of the Law No. 4 of 2003, Hisbah Corps were established with the duties and responsibilities set out under subsection (4) of that section, some of which include:
" - Rendering necessary assistance to the Police and other Security Agencies especially in the areas of prevention, detention and reporting of offences;
- Handling non-fire-arms for self defence like batons, and other non-lethal civil defence instruments;
- Assisting in traffic control;
- Assisting in any other situation that will require the involvement of Hisbah be it preventive or detective."
The Law that established Hisbah Corps was categorical in not allowing them to carry fire arms or any lethal weapons for self defence.
What about AMOTEKUN? What does the law establishing it say, if at all one exists?
3. The Government of Olusegun Obasanjo through the Inspector General of Police Mr. Sunday Ehindero in a press briefing on 7th of February, 2006 declared the Hisbah Law and the operations of the bodies created by the Laws as unconstitutional and illegal.
Is AMOTEKUN even backed by any Law?
4. On 8th February, 2006 the same Inspector General of Police Sunday Ehindero ordered his officers and men to effect the arrest of the Chairman and Commander General of the Hisbah Corps, Mallam Yahaya Farouk Chedi and his Deputy Mallam Abubakar Abdulkareem Rabo. They were arrested in Kano and immediately taken to Abuja where they were detained.
Has any Commander of AMOTEKUN been arrested, despite the fact that they are not backed by any known law and are made to carry fire-arms?
Would the atmosphere not have been more volatile by now if such has happened?
5. The same Government of Olusegun Obasanjo through the Minister of Information, Mr Frank Nweke Jr. in another press briefing made serious allegations that the Hisbah had sought foreign assistance from Libya and Iran for training as a terrorist group.
Has there been any such or similar allegations by the Federal Government against AMOTEKUN, even though the outlawed notorious Yoruba Ethnic Militia (OPC) with history of violent crimes against other ethnic groups and even the police, are integral part of the outfit?
Despite all the blackmail by Obasanjo Administration against HISBAH, no insults or overheating the polity were seen.
Northern Leaders and Intellectuals did not use emotion and blackmail to handle the unwarranted assault by the Obasanjo led Federal Government.
Northerners did not accuse Obasanjo and Ehindero (both Yoruba) of executing a Yoruba domination agenda.
Northern Muslims did not accuse Obasanjo, Ehindero and Nweke Jr. (all Southern Christians) of executing a Christianization agenda.
Rather, common sense prevailed and the Attorney General of Kano State took the matter to the Supreme Court where it was resolved.
Now, if the Yorubas believe AMOTEKUN is legal or created by any law and that the duties and responsibilities of the outfit (including the issue of holding fire-arms or lethal weapons) does not contravene any provision of the constitution, what is stopping them from approaching the Courts for settlement of the matter?
Why can't our Yoruba brothers pursue the issue of AMOTEKUN based purely on its merit and without joining HISBAH which differs in legitimacy, structure and functions, into their agitation?
Why can't they go about the matter with maturity and without insults or emotional blackmail against the Northerners especially and anyone of them who has reserved public commentary aligning with their agitations?
Is the group of South West Governors not made up of at least a lawyer? Rotimi Akeredolu the Governor of Ondo State is not only a Senior Advocate of Nigeria but also a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association. Why has he been unable to provide legal advise to his peers on the legal implications of setting up AMOTEKUN the way it was done?

Is this an indictment of his legal credentials or simply a well orchestrated move?

The hisbah operate openly and are easily recognizable: they are provided with uniforms, vehicles, and an office, usually by the local or state government. In some states, the government pays them a small salary. The hisbah have structures at local government and state level. Some are directly supported by their local government (materially and financially), while others, such as the hisbah in Kaduna, claim that membership and participation are voluntary and unpaid. The hisbah operate with the full consent and support of the state government, although the exact nature of their relationship with the state government varies and mechanisms for accountability are not always clearly defined.

State government officials and other individuals interviewed by Human Rights Watch claimed that the activities of the hisbah were governed by regulations and a code of conduct, developed at the state level; however, despite many inquiries in several states, Human Rights Watch was not able to find any legislation governing their activities by mid-2003. Human Rights Watch was told that state governments had only issued “legal notices” to set up the hisbah—a form of subordinate legislation issued by the state governor, which, unlike laws, are not submitted for debate to the state houses of assembly.207 Eventually, the Kano State House of Assembly passed a law in late 2003 regulating the hisbah; it includes the creation of a board composed of representatives of the main security agencies (including the police and the intelligence services) to oversee the hisbah and ensure that they are carrying out their duties properly.208

Shari’a implementation committees were set up just before the Shari’a legislation was introduced. They were given responsibility for overseeing the activities of the hisbah. Their members were selected by state governors and include religious leaders, lawyers, and civil servants. In addition to supervising the hisbah, they also advise state governors on the implementation of Shari’a.

In late July 2003, the Zamfara State governor announced the creation of a new hisbah commission and several other commissions to regulate and monitor the application of Shari’a in the state. At a public gathering in Gusau on July 28, he outlined the functions of the hisbah commission. These included, among others, monitoring the implementation and application of laws relating to Shari’a; ensuring proper compliance with the teachings of Shari’a by workers in the private and public sector; monitoring the daily proceedings of Shari’a courts to ensure compliance with the Shari’a penal code and code of criminal procedure; reporting on all actions likely to tamper with the proper dispensation of justice; keeping a record of all people in prison with pending hudud cases; taking every measure to sanitize society of all social vices and whatever vice or crime is prohibited by Shari’a; taking every measure to ensure conformity with the teachings of Shari’a by the general public in matters of worship, dress code, and social and business interaction and relationships; and enlightening the general public on the Shari’a system and its application.209

Despite the absence of legislation governing their activities in most other states, hisbah members and members of the general public in the areas where they operate interviewed by Human Rights Watch appeared to share a common understanding of certain rules governing their behavior, even if these are not always observed in practice. For example, it was understood that the hisbah effectively have powers of arrest if they catch a person in the act of committing a crime, and are supposed to hand the suspect over to the police. They are not supposed to take the suspect straight to court or administer the punishment themselves. While they are expected to arrest criminals, they are not supposed to enter people’s private homes or spy on them merely on the basis of suspicion. In practice, however, the hisbah have often disregarded these and other guidelines and violated people’s right to privacy. For example, residents reported that the hisbah would sometimes go from house to house, checking that people were not committing offenses, and in some cases searching for particular individuals on the basis of denunciations from other residents. Similarly, as in the cases of both Amina Lawal and Safiya Husseini, the hisbah were instrumental in apprehending the women after people had denounced them to the hisbah for committing adultery—even though they do not have the right to question women on how they became pregnant.