03 November, 2008
31 October, 2008
30 October, 2008
The arrest, detention and release of Mr. Elendu of Elendu Reports.com
The arrest, detention and release of Mr. Elendu of Elendu Reports.com presented Nigerians in Diaspora with a great chance to make a difference and to affect the nation we call motherland in a positive way. Based on the comments written on the list services that I read, Diaspora Nigerians rose up to the challenge BUT crushed under the same weight that makes ruling in Nigeria such a challenge.
On the rising UP to the challenge section I record the many positive articles written by Nigerians of all ethnic nationalities in favor of immediate release or charge to court if a crime was established. In this case the writers noted that the freedom of speech was enshrined in our existing constitution and an arrest must be followed by a presentation to a judge in an open court of the arrested and charges entered against the defendant. And that the defendant's attorney and families would have access to him/her. When this does not happen a writ of habeas corpus would be allowed. These were the most popular positions held. This school of thought also held that Diaspora Nigerians owes a duty to Nigeria to press for his release.
Then there were positions held by others that Elendu was held because he is of Igbo heritage and that his arrest had nothing to do with his journalism. This school sighted examples of others who have written essentially in Elendu's vein but have escaped arrest. This view promoted initially by some Igbo's was waning towards the end of the debate. I post this view on the positive side of rising up to the challenge. It is positive in the sense that all Igbo's or Nigerians need not have the same point of view. This group also felt that something needs to be done to free Elendu.
The third positive thing that the Elendu's case brought to light was the need for Diaspora Nigerians to be able to act in concert over common Nigerian interest. This incident made it glaringly clear that Nigerians in Diaspora do have interests that transcend our usual differences and can best be solved by linkage of resources. It is therefore fair to say that the arrest, detention and release of Elendu did have some silver linings.
Like all things in life this incident also brought out some of the reasons why the labors of Zik, Awo, Abubakar, et al seem some times to me as labors lost. It highlights why after almost fifty years as an independent nation Nigeria has not moved far from its humble beginnings. The issue is ethnic commotion. We kind of generally agreed that Elendu deserved our attention, and effort for a united action collapsed under the mechanism to achieve it. Some people suggested that NIDOA was the instrument to accomplish this. But some NIDOA members led by Igietsmene argued that NIDOA was NOT the vehicle because the charter is only or primarily economic and that it is in coalition with the government and cannot work "against" the government, Mr. Igietsmene suggested that Nigeria lawyers association take the lead.
The matter while it has some import to the legal profession is an affair that concerns Nigerians of all works of life. The services of lawyers were likely to be needed, but the championing of the course of freedom of the speech goes beyond lawyers. Then came Igbo Defense League apparently an affiliate of CISA. This organization came under fire because it was an Igbo organization and was perceived to inject ethnic element into it. So in the end the Diaspora Nigerians did not do anything. But fortunately Mr. Elendu gained his freedom and that should be the end of it.
But should it? I hope not. We have seen a need, but have not solved the road blocks that caused us to fail or rise fully to an opportunity that arose. If we do nothing, we will be exactly where we ended with the Elendu crisis as toothless bulldogs or what some like Moa Tse Tong called a giant with feet of clay or paper tiger or most appropriately "the giant of Africa ." Mr. Clayton's call for Diaspora Nigerians to join NIDOA to strengthen it seems to be a step forward. But Igietsemene' s objection on the grounds that the charter prohibits it from doing political work remains. NIDOA's dependence on government also provides limitations to its ability to oppose government actions. What shall we do? This should be the subject of further discussions in this forum.
Benjamin Obiajulu Aduba
Boston, Massachusetts
October 29, 2008
GreaterAwguLeadershipForum@yahoogroups.com
28 October, 2008
NIGERIANS &OTHER CITIZENSHIPS
Confused Nigerians in Denmark: Dumping Nigerian nationality
Written by Harry Nasir Dirisu
Twice annually, Nigerians nationalizing in Denmark are asked to relinquish their Nigerian nationality as a prerequisite besides other ordeals they go through as immigrants – sadly, they do the renunciation voraciously damming all consequences accrued – perhaps, they simply do it out of ignorance, confusion or desperation! Ironically, these people cannot proudly refer to themselves as Danish when white-Danes ask them of their nationalities! Meanwhile, they will proudly tell Nigerians they are Danish. However, the constitution of federal republic of Nigeria chapter 3, 29(1) states, any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the renunciation. Thus, the people in the above context are acting legally within the Nigerian constitutional frame, no doubt.
Religiously, legally, morally and culturally, I strongly believe that nationality is more than literally words enshrined in print. But why should somebody dump his or her birthrights? To some this question might sound faddish, absurd or narrow-minded – maybe its better felt than imagined – Again, I am patriotically convinced that a person’s birthplace is too crucial to be discarded. Above all, some countries would naturalize people through parliamentary and constitutional laws and still restrict the same people constitutionally owing to their birthplace: chapter 6 of Nigeria constitution under presidency states, a person shall be qualified for election to the office of the president if he or she is a citizen of Nigeria by birth. And the United States constitution, article 2 states, no person except a natural born citizen … of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of the president. These constitutions obviously distinguish citizens by birth, naturalisation, adoption etc. In other words, they simply depict the importance of birthplace that must not be dumped..
The above instance might sound some hypothetical! Hypothetical in the sense that one out of million people has a change of being a president. And Nigeria being forty-eight-year old has recorded thirteen rulers if you count Baba Obasanjo twice, while United States has recorded forty-three since 1789. I find it difficult to reconcile why somebody should renounce his birthplace “nationality” for a country that practically would never accord, respect and treat you like other citizens: A country where fellow citizens would constantly ask you, where are you from? A country that many jobs could be out of your reach owing to the colour of your skin! A country where you might be living in isolation! A country where people might distance themselves from you in public places! Eligibility for naturalisation means individual in question has a permanent resident for life – suffice it to say, it is not necessary rubbing yourself of your birthrights if you already have life permanent of your host county – the only difference is you are not allowed to cast some vote in that country. Why worry, Nigeria need that vote. If nobody wants to be a Nigerian whom are we pushing our responsibilities to?
Countries like Denmark, Japan, Singapore and India regard multiple or dual citizenships undesirable, they try to minimize it legally. And multiple or dual citizenship is a status in which a person is regarded as a citizen under the laws of more than one country. Multiple or dual citizenship does have mix blessings: it increases opportunities for citizens to compete and build global contacts thereby facilitating trades and amplifying economical growth of states. On the other hand it could result to additional tax liability: some countries uses three factors in determining how their citizens pay taxes, such as: residence, sources and citizenship. This implies that a person holding the United States and Australia citizenship – lives and work in Australia – would be liable to both countries’ taxes because, Australia taxes her residents while the United State taxes her citizens. Acquiring dual or multiple nationalities by birth also has its shortcomings! For instance, Section 44 of Australia constitution forbids people holding foreign citizenship from sitting in their parliament. Iran, Mexico and many Arab countries’ consulates officials may not have access to their citizens if they also hold local citizenship. And in most cases, many countries even those that permit dual or multiple citizenship would treat a person either as a citizen or not!
Lost in thought of patriotism as I am writing this controversial and difficult theme: had Koffi Anan renounced his Ghanaian nationality! Dr. Martin Luther King his United States nationality! Nelson Mandela his South Africa nationality! Mwalimu Julius Nyerere his Tanzanian nationality! Mahatma Gandhi his Indian nationality! Paradoxically, Nigerians who have either renounced Nigerian nationality or have dual nationality are very good at blaming their leaders for not finding pragmatic solutions to their problems. Some of the so-called illiterates who write about Nigerian problem have secured solid homes abroad forsaking their fatherland. They exacerbate the matter by dwelling on issues that will divide us instead of focusing on our common grounds that will unite us. Apparently, throwing missiles from air is safer than being physically present on a battlefield; Nigerian problems remain Nigerians’. Harry Nasir Dirisu writes from Denmark and can be reached at hnd@...
Written by Harry Nasir Dirisu
Twice annually, Nigerians nationalizing in Denmark are asked to relinquish their Nigerian nationality as a prerequisite besides other ordeals they go through as immigrants – sadly, they do the renunciation voraciously damming all consequences accrued – perhaps, they simply do it out of ignorance, confusion or desperation! Ironically, these people cannot proudly refer to themselves as Danish when white-Danes ask them of their nationalities! Meanwhile, they will proudly tell Nigerians they are Danish. However, the constitution of federal republic of Nigeria chapter 3, 29(1) states, any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the renunciation. Thus, the people in the above context are acting legally within the Nigerian constitutional frame, no doubt.
Religiously, legally, morally and culturally, I strongly believe that nationality is more than literally words enshrined in print. But why should somebody dump his or her birthrights? To some this question might sound faddish, absurd or narrow-minded – maybe its better felt than imagined – Again, I am patriotically convinced that a person’s birthplace is too crucial to be discarded. Above all, some countries would naturalize people through parliamentary and constitutional laws and still restrict the same people constitutionally owing to their birthplace: chapter 6 of Nigeria constitution under presidency states, a person shall be qualified for election to the office of the president if he or she is a citizen of Nigeria by birth. And the United States constitution, article 2 states, no person except a natural born citizen … of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of the president. These constitutions obviously distinguish citizens by birth, naturalisation, adoption etc. In other words, they simply depict the importance of birthplace that must not be dumped..
The above instance might sound some hypothetical! Hypothetical in the sense that one out of million people has a change of being a president. And Nigeria being forty-eight-year old has recorded thirteen rulers if you count Baba Obasanjo twice, while United States has recorded forty-three since 1789. I find it difficult to reconcile why somebody should renounce his birthplace “nationality” for a country that practically would never accord, respect and treat you like other citizens: A country where fellow citizens would constantly ask you, where are you from? A country that many jobs could be out of your reach owing to the colour of your skin! A country where you might be living in isolation! A country where people might distance themselves from you in public places! Eligibility for naturalisation means individual in question has a permanent resident for life – suffice it to say, it is not necessary rubbing yourself of your birthrights if you already have life permanent of your host county – the only difference is you are not allowed to cast some vote in that country. Why worry, Nigeria need that vote. If nobody wants to be a Nigerian whom are we pushing our responsibilities to?
Countries like Denmark, Japan, Singapore and India regard multiple or dual citizenships undesirable, they try to minimize it legally. And multiple or dual citizenship is a status in which a person is regarded as a citizen under the laws of more than one country. Multiple or dual citizenship does have mix blessings: it increases opportunities for citizens to compete and build global contacts thereby facilitating trades and amplifying economical growth of states. On the other hand it could result to additional tax liability: some countries uses three factors in determining how their citizens pay taxes, such as: residence, sources and citizenship. This implies that a person holding the United States and Australia citizenship – lives and work in Australia – would be liable to both countries’ taxes because, Australia taxes her residents while the United State taxes her citizens. Acquiring dual or multiple nationalities by birth also has its shortcomings! For instance, Section 44 of Australia constitution forbids people holding foreign citizenship from sitting in their parliament. Iran, Mexico and many Arab countries’ consulates officials may not have access to their citizens if they also hold local citizenship. And in most cases, many countries even those that permit dual or multiple citizenship would treat a person either as a citizen or not!
Lost in thought of patriotism as I am writing this controversial and difficult theme: had Koffi Anan renounced his Ghanaian nationality! Dr. Martin Luther King his United States nationality! Nelson Mandela his South Africa nationality! Mwalimu Julius Nyerere his Tanzanian nationality! Mahatma Gandhi his Indian nationality! Paradoxically, Nigerians who have either renounced Nigerian nationality or have dual nationality are very good at blaming their leaders for not finding pragmatic solutions to their problems. Some of the so-called illiterates who write about Nigerian problem have secured solid homes abroad forsaking their fatherland. They exacerbate the matter by dwelling on issues that will divide us instead of focusing on our common grounds that will unite us. Apparently, throwing missiles from air is safer than being physically present on a battlefield; Nigerian problems remain Nigerians’. Harry Nasir Dirisu writes from Denmark and can be reached at hnd@...
Nigeria & the Under 17 world cup
The BBC has learned that Nigeria's Football Federation (NFF) has told Fifa it wants to pull out of hosting the Under-17 World Cup in 2009.
The host of the 2009 under-17 World Cup is unclear after Fifa confirmed that Nigeria wants to pull out of hosting the event.
Click HERE for the whole story.
The host of the 2009 under-17 World Cup is unclear after Fifa confirmed that Nigeria wants to pull out of hosting the event.
Click HERE for the whole story.
23 October, 2008
Why Elendu Was Arrested-PM News
http://saharareporters.com/www/news/detail/?id=751
By Jide Osokoya
Our Note:
The cowardly act of harassing and arresting citizens for exercising their fundamental freedoms is totally condemnable and we hope that Nigerians at home and abroad we condemn the violation of the rights of Mr. Jonathan Elendu by the illegitimate Yar'adua regime. However, we should state that Mr. Elendu is not connected with the SaharaReporters in any shape or form, he publishes an independent blog (Elendureports) that predates SaharaReporters, arresting, detaining and harrasing an innocent Nigerian based on the suspicion that he works for SaharaReporters is not only condemnable, but also fruitless, since no amount of such callous acts will deter or restrict the publication of hard -hitting evidence-based reports from our ever reliable team members.
http://saharareporters.com/www/news/detail/?id=751
By Jide Osokoya
Fresh reports reaching P.M.News from Abuja this morning has revealed that the publisher of an online news agency, Mr. Jonathan Elendu, was arrested for sponsoring a guerrilla news agency.
It was gathered that the United States-based online publisher, who was arrested on Saturday on arrival in Nigeria, was allegedly linked to Saharareporters, an online Nigerian news agency.
Our source revealed that Sahareporters which is known for alleged subversive reports against the federal government and important personalities in the country, was allegedly the brain child of Elendu.
It was further learnt that when Elendu was arrested at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja as soon as he arrived via KLM Airline around 7.30 p.m. on Saturday, he was immediately whisked away to the SSS headquarters, Asokoro, Abuja.
Said our sources: "The hefty publisher was accosted on arrival by two SSS operatives who told him that he was being invited for a chat with their boss, he responded that since it was an invitation, they should give him time to go home and freshen up.
"The security operatives turned down his request, seized his international passport and whisked him away, only for him to remain incommunicado since then."
Elendu's family members expressed concern and worry over the state of his health, as nobody has been able to communicate with him since Saturday.
As at the time of this report, his lawyers were preparing papers to fight for the enforcement of his fundamental human right.Our Note:
The cowardly act of harassing and arresting citizens for exercising their fundamental freedoms is totally condemnable and we hope that Nigerians at home and abroad we condemn the violation of the rights of Mr. Jonathan Elendu by the illegitimate Yar'adua regime. However, we should state that Mr. Elendu is not connected with the SaharaReporters in any shape or form, he publishes an independent blog (Elendureports) that predates SaharaReporters, arresting, detaining and harrasing an innocent Nigerian based on the suspicion that he works for SaharaReporters is not only condemnable, but also fruitless, since no amount of such callous acts will deter or restrict the publication of hard -hitting evidence-based reports from our ever reliable team members.
http://saharareporters.com/www/news/detail/?id=751
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
'NEWS PORT'
-
-
China: Dozens dead in Gansu flash floods18 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
