Connect with us

Headline

Coup: Why President Tinubu Can’t Deploy Troops To Niger – SANs

Published

on

Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, have adduced reasons why President Bola Tinubu cannot unilaterally deploy troops to Niger Republic to restore democratic rule in the troubled country.

In separate interviews with Vanguard, the learned silks maintained that for the armed forces of Nigeria to be deployed on a combat duty in Niger Republic, President Tinubu, must secure the approval of the National Assembly.

However, the senior lawyers pointed out that the only time the 1999 Constitution, as amended, permits the President to deploy soldiers to another country without prior approval of the legislative arm of the government, is when there is an imminent threat to national security.

Advertisement

In such situation, they stressed that the President, having deployed troops outside the shores of the country, must within seven days, seek approval of the National Assembly, which in turn must take 14 days to either okay or reject the military action.

READ ALSO: US Suspends Aid To Niger Until Democracy, Bazoum Reinstated

According to Jacob Usman, SAN: “By Section 5 (4) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the President cannot declare a state of war between Nigeria and any other country, except with the approval of both the House of Reps and the Senate, sitting in a joint session.

Advertisement

“What it means is that if there is any threat to Nigeria and the President is of the view that there is a need to declare a state of war between Nigeria and that country, he must seek the approval of the National Assembly, both the Senate and House of Reps in a joint session, not with each of them sitting independently.

“Subsection 4 (b) provides that except with the prior approval of the Senate, the President shall not deploy any of the armed forces of Nigeria outside the country.

“This is where the case of Niger Republic comes in. The President wrote for the approval of the Senate for the armed forces of Nigeria to be deployed on a combat duty out of Nigeria and the Senate, to my understanding rejected the approval.

Advertisement

“What this means is that without the Senate approving the presidential request, the President cannot and shall not deploy any armed forces of the federation out of Nigeria on a combat duty.

“However, it does not end there. By reason of subsection 5, there is a proviso that notwithstanding the provision of subsection 4, the President, in consultation with the National Defence Council, may deploy armed forces out of Nigeria on a limited combat duty if he is satisfied that there is a real threat, that is, that Nigeria is under a real threat and the President could not get the approval of the Senate.

READ ALSO: Niger’s Junta Seeks Russia’s Wagner Help To Combat ECOWAS Military Threat

Advertisement

“He could deploy armed forces within seven days and must seek the approval of the Senate which must either approve or reject it within 14 days.

“Where the Senate approves the request within 14 days, then, the troops may be deployed. But where the Senate rejects the request, the President must recall the troops back to Nigeria,” Usman, SAN, added.

Likewise, another SAN, Mr. Abeny Mohammed, argued that the consent of the Senate was a constitutional requirement “that cannot be vetoed by the President.”

Advertisement

He said: “Sending Nigerian troops to a foreign country to fight or to engage in war with a foreign country are serious matters that cannot be left to the decision of the president alone.

“It requires the collective decision by the President and the Senate. However, in the event of a sudden attack on Nigeria, the president can deploy troops to repel the attack and defend the country without waiting for the consent of the Senate, which he can seek and obtain subsequently.”

Adding his voice to the debate, a Professor of Law, Epiphany Azinge, SAN, said: “It is not in dispute that the President is the commander -in-chief of the Armed forces, but when it comes to deployment of troops, he needs the acquircence of the Senate.

Advertisement

“This is for many reasons. First is to avoid outright dictatorship by Mr President. Second is to ensure budgetry approval for the conflict.

“A President that decides to engage in conflict against the advice of the Senate may be starved of funds for the prosecution of the war. That is not in the best interest of the nation.”

READ ALSO: Niger Crisis: PDP Govs Knock Tinubu; Reject Military Option

Advertisement

Similarly, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja, SAN, when he was asked if President Tinubu could deploy troops to Niger Republic despite the withdrawal of consent by the Senate, said: “The answer is an emphatic NO.”

Continuing, he said: “It is the prerogative of the Senate to approve the deployment of troops for combat duty outside Nigeria.

“The President is expected to obtain the prior approval of the Senate before any such deployment.

Advertisement

“Where the approval is refused, that ends the process. Although the Constitution allows the President to deploy troops before approval where there is imminent danger of attack of the Country and thereafter seek approval within seven days, that exceptional scenario does not arise in the instant situation.”

On his part, a front-line human rights lawyer, Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan, said: “You will agree with me that ours is a Constitutional democracy fashioned after the American model where the doctrine of separation of powers forms the fulcrum upon which that structure revolves.

“A community reading of Sections 5, 305(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution shows that the president can

Advertisement

declare a state of emergency and deplore troops outside the shores of Nigeria in certain situations.

“The conditions laid down for such a declaration are set out in section 305 (3) subparagraphs (a)-(g) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

READ ALSO: ECOWAS Military Chiefs Seek Diplomatic Solutions To Niger Situation

Advertisement

“By the provisions of subsection 2 of section 305, the President is mandated to make copies of the official gazette of the federation containing the proclamation to both the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representative.

“Upon receipt of the Gazette containing the proclamation, both houses will meet and consider whether to approve or reject .

“Clearly, the President cannot override the decision of both houses of Parliament if those houses at plenary vote to reject the proclamation. The constitution grants the National Assembly powers in section 305 (2) to jettison and refuse to approve the proclamation.

Advertisement

“Curiously subsection 5 of section 5 of the same Constitution provides that the president can ignore the National Assembly and consult with the National Defense Council to deplore troops outside the shores of Nigeria on the condition that national security is under imminent threat or danger.

“Now, the proviso to that section 5(5) of the constitution mandates the President to still go back to NASS for approval for the action and at that point NASS may approve or reject the deployment

“In summary, it appears to me that the framers of our constitution never envisaged a situation where the President can go to war without any input from both houses of the NASS- Senate and House of Representative,” he added.

Advertisement

It will be recalled that the Senate had last Friday, rejected President Tinubu’s request to deploy troops to Niger Republic in support of move by the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, to reinstate President Mohammed Bazoum, who was recently ousted from office through a coup d’état.
VANGUARD

Headline

US Lifts Restrictions On Visa Validity For Ghanaians, Leaves Nigeria’s Unchanged

Published

on

The United States has restored the maximum validity periods for all categories of nonimmigrant visas for Ghanaian nationals following Ghana’s agreement to accept West African deportees, but similar restrictions for Nigerians remain in place.

The B1/B2 visitor visa is now valid for up to five years, with multiple entries allowed, while the F1 student visa’s maximum validity has been restored to four years, with multiple entries permitted.

“The U.S. Embassy is pleased to announce that the maximum validity periods for all categories of nonimmigrant visas for Ghanaians have been restored to their previous lengths. The maximum validity allowed for the B1/B2 visitor visa is again five years, multiple entry. The maximum validity for the F1 student visa is again four years, multiple entry,” the U.S. Embassy announced in a tweet on Saturday.”

Advertisement

Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Samuel Ablakwa, also announced in a tweet that the new policy now allows citizens to apply for five-year multiple-entry visas.

READ ALSO:Japan Scraps ‘Africa Hometown’ Project After Visa Confusion

Ablakwa also stated that the reversal of the restriction comes with other enhanced consular privileges, adding that the development was the result of months of diplomatic engagement.

Advertisement

The U.S. visa restriction imposed on Ghana has been reversed. Ghanaians can now be eligible for five-year multiple-entry visas and other enhanced consular privileges,” Ablakwa stated.

This good news was directly communicated to me by U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Allison Hooker, at a bilateral meeting earlier today, in the margins of the UN General Assembly. I am really pleased that months of high-level diplomatic negotiations have led to a successful outcome.”

These changes reverse earlier restrictions imposed under the Trump administration, which had limited most visas to single-entry and a three-month validity period.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:H-1B Visas: Trump To Impose $100,000 Annual Fee For Skilled Foreign Workers

The restrictions affected several African countries, including Ghana and Nigeria, and were based on concerns over visa reciprocity and the acceptance of deported migrants.

In July, the U.S. Consulate in Nigeria announced updates to its reciprocal nonimmigrant visa policy, stating: “The United States Department of State has announced updates to its reciprocal non-immigrant visa policy, impacting several countries, including Nigeria. Effective immediately, most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas issued to citizens of Nigeria will be single-entry visas with a three-month validity period.

Advertisement

“Those U.S. non-immigrant visas issued prior to July 8, 2025, will retain their status and validity. We wish to underscore that, as is standard globally, visa reciprocity is a continuous process and is subject to review and change at any time, such as increasing or decreasing permitted entries and duration of validity. You can view the latest information on visa reciprocity schedules for all countries at travel.state.gov.”

Reports indicate that the U.S. pressured some African nations to accept deported migrants, including Venezuelan detainees from U.S. prisons.

READ ALSO:US Defends New Social Media Vetting For Nigerian Visa Applicants

Advertisement

Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar rejected these pressures, stating that Nigeria would not serve as a “dumping ground” for deportees.

It would be difficult for countries like Nigeria to accept Venezuelan prisoners into Nigeria,” Tuggar said during a televised interview.

We have enough problems of our own; we cannot accept Venezuelan deportees to Nigeria. We already have 230 million people.”

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Ghanaian President John Mahama confirmed that Ghana had begun accepting deported West African nationals after U.S. requests.

We were approached by the U.S. to accept third-party nationals who were being removed from the U.S., and we agreed with them that West African nationals were acceptable,” Mahama said.

All our fellow West African nationals don’t need visas to come to our country.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Headline

UK Nursery Worker Jailed For Abusing 21 Babies

Published

on

A judge on Friday jailed a nursery worker for eight years for a string of “gratuitous” and “sadistic” attacks on babies.

In one incident, Londoner Roksana Lecka, 22, kicked a little boy in the face several times.

Lecka, who blamed cannabis for her crimes, admitted seven counts of cruelty to a person under the age of 16 and was convicted after a trial of another 14 counts.

Advertisement

Sentencing her for attacks on 21 babies, Judge Sarah Plaschkes said she had committed “multiple acts of gratuitous violence” at two London nurseries where she worked.

You pinched, slapped, punched, smacked and kicked them. You pulled their ears, hair and their toes. You toppled children headfirst into cots,” she said.

READ ALSO:UK Set To Announce Recognition Of Palestinian State

Advertisement

“Often the child would be quietly and happily minding its own business before you deliberately inflicted pain… Your criminal conduct can properly be characterised as sadistic,” she added.

Lecka’s cruelty was revealed in June 2024 after she was seen pinching a number of children.
Police were called in and found multiple incidents recorded on the nursery CCTV.

Victim impact statements submitted to London’s Kingston Crown Court from parents of Lecka’s victims told how they were left heartbroken and guilt-stricken by the attacks.

Advertisement

These children were so innocent and vulnerable,” one mother told the court.

READ ALSO:Kenya Court Seeks UK Citizen’s Arrest Over Mother’s Murder

“They couldn’t speak, they couldn’t defend themselves and they couldn’t tell us as parents that something had happened to them,” she added.

Advertisement

They were totally helpless and Roksana preyed upon them.”

The hearing was told that she had apologised to the parents in a letter to the court in which she said cannabis had turned her into a different person.

She had been addicted to the drug around the time of the offences, but had not told the nursery.
She was found not guilty of three further counts of child cruelty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Headline

Italy Fines Six Oil Firms $1bn Fine For Restricting Competition

Published

on

Italy’s antitrust regulator said Friday it has slapped Italian energy giant Eni and five other companies with fines totalling more than 936 million euros ($1.1 billion) for “restricting competition” in the sale of fuel.

The authority said in a statement that Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras and Tamoil “coordinated to set the value of the bio component factored into fuel prices”, which tripled between 2019 and 2023.

READ ALSO:PICTORIAL: NDLEA Intercepts Cocaine, Opioid Shipments Meant For US, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Poland

Advertisement

A probe following a whistleblower’s complaint revealed that “the companies implemented parallel price increases — largely coinciding — which were driven by direct or indirect information exchanges among them”, the authority said.

“The cartel began on 1 January 2020 and continued until 30 June 2023,” it added.

AFP

Advertisement

 

Continue Reading

Trending