An Abuja-based constitutional Lawyer, Barrister JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has descended heavily on Chief Femi Falana in his letter to the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, accusing Falana of propagating legal heresy. In his letter dated 27th January, 2016 and recieved in the AGF's Office the same day, the Lawyer told the AGF that "It is already bad enough that a Senior Advocate consecrated to uphold the Nigerian Constitution (and not any undomesticated treaty) is betraying the Constitution he swore to protect in circumstances far away from good faith and at best self-serving.". Below is found a full copy of the letter.

27th January, 2016
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION,
ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,
ABUJA.
DEAR SIR,
THE INVITATION LETTER OF CHIEF FEMI FALANA, SAN, TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND POSSIBLE TRIAL OF SOME ALLEGEDLY-CORRUPT NIGERIANS: A DANGLING SWORD OF DAMOCLES OVER THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA.
The above subject-matter refers.
1. I humbly write to draw your ever-kind attention to the letter written by Chief Femi Falana, SAN, and addressed to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court sitting in the Hague which was widely published both in the print and electronic media on the 25th January, 2016.

2. I have three core concerns that compelled this letter to your esteemed office. Firstly, by the infinite mercies of God Almighty, I am a member of this most honourable profession on this planet earth, the Legal profession to which all of us belong. Secondly, Chief Femi Falana is a high-ranking member of this ancient and noble profession by reason of which he is expected to be a shining example especially as it relates to his fidelity to the laws of the land. Thirdly, your highly-placed office is a historic one that shoulders enormous responsibilities especially as it relates to the protection of our Constitution and putting at the disposal of the President of the nation the best available legal advice on all issues of law.


3. While I make haste to recognize the right of Chief Femi Falana to hold his personal opinion on any issue of law, I will equally highlight the certainty of the qualifications of such right same not being absolute especially when public good and the dignity of our Constitution have come under a dangerous threat. Being a Minister in the Temple of Justice who has equally been charged to remain consistent in defending the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Rule of Law generally, I consider this letter a discharge of duty that I owe my society in conscience so that propagation of legal heresy will not be allowed to take root in our society.

4. There is no doubt that all issues verging on the relationship between the Nigerian State and the International Criminal Court carries both international and Constitutional law elements which can easily sway or pull a wool over the eyes of undiscerning section of the Nigerian populace as Chief Femi Falana’s letter under consideration has tended to do in the present circumstance. The heart and soul of this letter therefor is to remove the chaff from the grain since any attempt by the Nigerian Authorities to heed the promptings of that letter will strike a mortal blow on the most sacred document that holds our Dear nation in balance and in being. That will be bad for not only our democracy but indeed each and every one of us.


5. I will quickly move to clear the debris accumulated by Chief Femi Falana’s letter by juxtaposing the most relevant section of our Constitution that circumscribes issues of Foreign instruments/treaties with the Rome Statute which is the base and springboard of Chief Femi Falana’s voyage to the Hague through the vehicle of his letter. Section 12 of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly provides in this unmistakable language;

6. 12 “(1) No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.
7. (2) The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thererof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List for the purpose of implementing a treaty.
8. (3) A Bill for an Act of the National Assembly passed pursuant to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section shall not be presented to the President for assent, and shall not be enacted unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.

9. There is no doubt that under international law, treaties are seen as contracts between states and if they do not receive the consent of the various states, their provisions will not be binding upon them. The fundamental principle of treaty law is undoubtedly the proposition that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith. Under Article 11 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is now firmly settled that among other ways, a state may signal its consent to international agreements by signature, exchange of instrument constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.


10. All students of international law will recall the never-ending battle between domestic and foreign courts. Thus, the place/fate of foreign laws/treaties before domestic courts vis-a- vis the place/fate of municipal laws before foreign courts have remained an enduring debate in the field of International law world over. While foreign courts/international tribunals have consistently held that municipal laws are amenable to foreign laws/treaties, the municipal courts of many nations have taken the opposite direction in consistently holding that foreign laws/treaties are amenable to domestic laws. In this regard, while interpreting Article 46(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the International Court of Justice held in the case of Cameroon V. Nigeria (Judgment) (2002) that a state cannot plead a breach of its constitutional provision as to the making of treaties as a valid excuse for condemning an agreement and resiling therefrom.

11. In contradistinction to the above position held by foreign courts, the House of Lords in England has come to the settled conclusion that “except to the extent that a treaty becomes incorporated into the laws of the United Kingdom by statute, the courts of the United Kingdom have no power to enforce treaty rights and obligations at the behest of a sovereign government or at the behest of a private individual” and further reaffirmed in the very recent case of A (FC) and Others (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 71 where it was held that “a treaty, even if ratified by the United Kingdom, has no binding force in the domestic law of this country unless it is given effect by statute or expresses principles of international law”. The position is no different in the United States of America. The question of a possible conflict between treaty obligations and domestic legislation was raised in Diggs v. Schultz 470 F. 2d 461, where the Supreme Court of the United States came to the conclusion that “under our constitutional scheme, Congress can denounce treaties if it see fit to do so, and there is nothing the other branches of government can do about it”

12. Sir, fortunately for us in Nigeria, the position is no different as our own Supreme Court has had the opportunity to show the Nigerian position in the case of Abacha V. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt.660) 228 where it was held as follows ““I have carefully considered all that has been said by learned counsel for the parties on the status of the Charter as an international treaty entered into by our country. I do not consider it necessary to set out in extenso in this judgment their submissions. Suffice it to say that an international treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly. See s 12(1) of the 1979 Constitution, which provides……….In my respectful view, I think the above passage represents the correct position of the law, not only in England, but in Nigeria as well.”

13. It is not in doubt that the Nigerian State acceded to the Rome Statute. It is equally not in doubt that on three different occasions, our National Assembly made efforts to pass the Rome Statute into law without success signifying the intention of the Nigerian people not to be bound yet by the provisions of the said Rome Statute. It logically flows from the foregoing that no Nigerian citizen can derive any benefit nor suffer any injury under the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court same not haven acquired the force of law in the Federation.

14. It therefore boggles the mind and challenges established constitutional order that the request to the International Criminal Court of Justice to investigate and possibly try Nigerian citizens could emanate from a Nigerian Legal Practitioner. That this request is coming from a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who ordinarily and primarily owes his allegiance and fidelity to the Constitution of the land, calls for a serious worry. Let it be said here Sir, that the Rome Statute in its entirety cannot be lawfully enforced by any person or authority in any part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria where the said Rome Statute has not been domesticated in Nigeria by a Legislation by the National Assembly in faithful compliance with section 12 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria being the supreme law of Nigeria.


15. In conclusion, I would urge you to use your good offices, when and if the occasion demands, to ensure that the Nigerian nation does not slide away from the sure path of constitutionalism by siren voices dripping with nebulous intentions other the promotion of the organic law of the land. It is already bad enough that a Senior Advocate consecrated to uphold the Nigerian Constitution (and not any undomesticated treaty) is betraying the Constitution he swore to protect in circumstances far away from good faith and at best self-serving. May I again restate my personal support and commitment to the current war against corruption being waged by the present administration which all well-meaning Nigerians must rise to support robustly in line with extant laws of the land. However, nobody should be allowed to hide under the guise of supporting the war against corruption to undermine and spurn our Constitution by pulling wool over the eyes of undiscerning members of the public. A call by Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, on the Nigerian Authorities to practically torpedo the organic law of the land is most unfortunate and uncharitable and deserves the outright condemnation of all stake-holders.

16. But assuming without conceding, for the purposes of argument, that under our laws the coast is clear for the Nigerian State to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, is Mr. Femi Falana in all sincerity claiming ignorance of the circumstances under which the International Criminal Court will not exercise jurisdiction? Indeed, the key feature of the International Criminal Court is founded on the concept of “complementarity” meaning essentially that the national courts have priority. Article 17 of the Rome Statute clearly outlines the circumstances under which the court will decline jurisdiction and a case will be inadmissible. These circumstances, among others, include where the case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it, unless the state is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. Interestingly, Mr. Femi Falana did not allude to this Article 17 in his letter knowing fully well that those he is proposing to be arraigned at Hague are already having their day in different Nigerian Courts. There must indeed be a limit to outright lies and standing of logic on its head. I choose to say no more.
Please Sir, do graciously accept the assurances of my highest regards.

Yours in defence of Constitutionalism,

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOB, Esq.

This is called "Clash of the Lawyers"

Talking and argument are what put food on their table

Let them keep talking the talk...

Barrister JohnMary? Now that does elicit fits of giggles.

Okay, let's see what's got the learned fellow hot under the collar...

Nawa ooo... this is still coming from same set of people.

Let's see how this will play.

Topccy007:
.

ok

Attention seeking ipob noise maker.

corruption fighting back

Dumb iPoD nonsense...

citizenY:

Sorry

My ppl s1 tel me wetin ds guy lawyerman de talk na. I read finish bt i tel u my ppl d grama no b small tori! Still waitg.

I see English Language unleashed on Chief Femi Falana.

I await contradistinction

Where is lalasticlala sef....we need to clear the debris accumulated by NOI fast

[size=18pt]Pls ignore this post, the OP is just trying to advertise his law chambers [/size]

Rubbish from useless IPOB monkies. Doing anything to Defend OKonjo Iboala. Useless people!

lol
he should direct his case to ICC, NBA or CJN, I think those are the body responsible for this subject.
why direct it to AGF, when you knw he have virtually no power over Falana on this case? Better still, take up the role of defence counsel to argue your case in court for it to be strike out. Madam will even be happy because it seems you are ready to work on pro bono.

A call by Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, on the Nigerian Authorities to practically torpedo the organic law of the land is most unfortunate and uncharitable and deserves the outright condemnation of all stake-holders.


Like WTF are you saying? Let me see the stakeholder that will say Jack.

You must be a Criminal defense attorney because you are using legal jargon to defend a Criminal.

Watch the Zombies leave the matter on ground and attack him or call him an Ipob member


*edited* Oh, they have done that already... Empty Mofos!!!

Anyway, anything is possible under Sun especially in Nigeria. If not, how can dumbass junks such as Sagay and Falani be granted the distinction of a SAN?

arresa:
Dumb iPoD nonsense...

You are certainly a Nigerian. It sucks to be one.

Falana has now added "legal heretic " to " Integrity Challenged Charlatan" as one of two new self assumed titles.

Lol

OlujobaSamuel:
lol
he should direct his case to ICC, NBA or CJN, I think those are the body responsible for this subject.
why direct it to AGF, when you knw he have virtually no power over Falana on this case? Better still, take up the role of defence counsel to argue your case in court for it to be strike out. Madam will even be happy because it seems you are ready to work on pro bono.

It is a petition

Long Essay, No direction.

[b]“We strongly believe that allegations of corruption so far made against Col. Sambo Dasuki and other public officers have had catastrophic effects on the lives of over 25,000 Nigerian soldiers and civilians including children akin to crimes against humanity as contemplated under the Rome Statute and within the jurisdiction of the Court,” the petition read in part.

“We believe that the staggering amount of public funds alleged to have been stolen create just these consequences. Crimes against humanity are not only physical violence; allegations of corruption highlighted above hold a comparable gravity, which the Prosecutor should examine and thoroughly investigate.

“The elements that need to be established to prove a “crime against humanity “under article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute are that, the perpetrator inflicted great suffering or serious injury by means of an inhumane act; that the perpetrator was aware of the circumstances, and that the act was committed within a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population; and that the perpetrator knew of that link.

“We believe that these allegations of widespread and systematic corruption amount to crimes against humanity and therefore clear violations of the provisions of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court. These allegations have given rise to individual criminal responsibility of those suspected of perpetrating corruption, as entrenched in the Rome Statute.

“We therefore submit that this is sufficient to hold Col Dasuki and others that have been indicted in the arms theft scandal responsible for crimes against humanity perpetrated against Nigerians. The failure of a former Finance Minister, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to prevent widespread and systematic corruption including the re-looting of the Abacha loot amounts to complicity under the Rome Statute, and therefore fits the legal requirements of a crime against humanity.

“In this respect, I also urge you to commence an investigation proprio motu on the allegations of the criminal diversion of the security fund of $2.1 billion and N643 billion earmarked by suspected perpetrators, with a view to determining whether these amount to crimes against humanity within the court’s jurisdiction.”[/b]

Great! Now this is what opposition is all about

[b]I just finished reading his post and I have to say, he has a point. Please, not I am not a legal practitioner. I am open to correction.

I will make this as short and as simple as I can to make this understandable to anyone who can not go through the long write up or deal with the legal terminologies.

The man is Saying Femi Falana SAN should not have taken the case to the ICC because it goes against the Stance of our constitution.

Our Constitution does not support any international legal matter that is not already a law made by the National assembly.

He went further to state Constitutional backings of his argument with cases from UK and America.

Then he pointed out that in a case in Nigeria, a Supreme Court judgment supports his claim.

" Suffice it to say that an international treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly."

So he feels Falana, someone who upholds and defends the constitution should not have taken the case to the ICC.

I think the lawyer has a very strong claim and I think Femi Falana (SAN) should reply it.

Although I think the Barrister's point is clearly Biased because of the last point he made. He spoilt a clear legal argument with just that last point.

***

Interestingly, Mr. Femi Falana did not allude to this Article 17 in his letter knowing fully well that those he is proposing to be arraigned at Hague are already having their day in different Nigerian Courts. There must indeed be a limit to outright lies and standing of logic on its head. I choose to say no more.

***

All the people Femi Falana is proposing for arraignment in the Hague are not having their day in Court.

I have not heard of Ngozi Okonjo Iweala having her day in court and I believe she is even the reason you drafted this letter. You did exactly the thing you are accusing Femi Falana of. Lying.[/b]

Some dumb Tribalistic fellows above and bellow will ignore the crucial points this lawyer made and tag him ''Ipob'' just to hide their bigotry.

This one is just seeking for relevance. Hope he is not being sponsored!

Because he is Igbo, you e-zombies have unleashed madness.... I pity Una . .....ride on op.....

o boy dis article is loaded with bullets, very informative. D actions of femi shows he regard d constitution with contempt n second fiddle to external law dat is yet to be domisticated by d national assembly, a clear violation of his pledge n vow to defend d constitution as a senior lawyer.
falana is a disgrace to d rank of senior advocates.

tomioro:
This one is just seeking for relevance. Hope he is not being sponsored!

hahahahhaha dis one ^^^ didn't even read to article. ar u related to d daura family