Connect with us

Government

Nigerian Warship Heads to The Gambia

Published

on

nigeria-navyship-unity
  • Nigerian Warship Heads to The Gambia

A Nigerian warship has been deployed in The Gambia, more as a show of force rather than preparation for an attack, the BBC reported Tuesday.

The deployment is obviously part of the strategy of ECOWAS to force out President Yahya Jammeh who has refused entreaties from the region’s leaders to step down following his last December 1 presidential election defeat by Mr. Adama Barrow.

Jammeh remained intransigent Tuesday, declaring a 90-day state of emergency, less than 48 hours before his official mandate ends, according to the Gambia Television.

Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters, however, yesterday continued to down play its reported involvement in planned military operations in The Gambia, insisting that the matter remained with the political authorities to decide.

“We are not involved in any preparation for military action in The Gambia,” the Director of Defence Information, Brig-Gen. Abubakar Rabe said on Tuesday.
But BBC said a military source told it that the vessel – the NNS Unity – is currently sailing off the coast of Ghana.

On Tuesday, Thisday reported that ECOWAS had prepared a force for military intervention if the outgoing Gambian president refused to step down today.

The exact terms of the state of emergency remain unknown, as no details were provided with the announcement.

Jammeh initially accepted the election results but then decided he wanted them annulled after the electoral commission admitted some errors, although it insisted this did not affect the final outcome.

The Supreme Court is unable to hear Jammeh’s petition against the results of the election until May because of a shortage of judges, and the embattled president said he would not step down until then.

At least three Gambian ministers, including the foreign minister, have resigned in recent days. Thousands of Gambians have also fled to neighbouring Senegal amid fears of violence.
Barrow won 43.3% of the vote compared with Jammeh’s 39.6%. A third candidate, Mama Kandeh, got 17.1%.

Jammeh seized power in the tiny West African country in 1994 and has been accused of human rights abuses, although he has held regular elections.

Legal Basis for Military Intervention
In Abuja, a senior lawyer, Chief Sebastine Hon (SAN), said ECOWAS decision to use force to oust Jammeh was protected both under the United Nations Charter and existing ECOWAS legislations.

He said the political situation in The Gambia had reached a situation that called for urgent action, to forestall a large scale humanitarian challenge, regional instability and anarchy.

He advised that on no account should the world, ECOWAS and the African Union, stand aloof and watch the ethos of democracy destroyed by a sit-tight dictator who did not even assume leadership under acceptable circumstances.

By section 63(1) of the Constitution of The Gambia, the 5-year tenure of office of Jammeh will end on 19th January, 2017.

He said: “The reported resolve of ECOWAS to use force, if necessary, to topple him and then to install the winner of that election – Adama Barrow – is not only a welcome development but is protected both under the United Nations Charter and under existing ECOWAS legislations.

“It is also protected under historical and empirical happenings worldwide. The following are the various pre-United Nations military interventions in sovereign countries, namely:

• The Russian, British and French Anti-Ottoman military intervention in the Greek War of Independence, 1824;

• (b) The Russian unilateral Anti-Ottoman military expedition in Bulgaria, 1877;
• The US military occupation of Haiti in 1915.

He said that even after the United Nations was formed in 1945, direct military interventions in independent states without recourse to the UN have continued to be recorded, as follows:

• The US military intervention in the Dominican Republic, 1965;

• The military intervention of Vietnam in Kampuchea, which led to the overthrow of the government of that country in January, 1979;

• The intervention by France in the Central African Empire (CAE), which led to the overthrow of that government in September, 1979;

• The military intervention of Tanzania in Uganda, which led to the overthrow of the government of that country in April, 1979;

• The military intervention by the then USSR in Afghanistan, which led to the overthrow of the government of that country, in December, 1979;

• The USA military intervention in Grenada, which led to the overthrow of the government, in October, 1983;

• The USA military intervention in Panama, which led to the overthrow of the government there, in December, 1989;

• The military intervention by Iraq in Kuwait, which led to the overthrow of that government, in August, 1990;

• The US-led international military intervention in Libya, which led to the overthrow and killing of Muammar Ghaddafi, in 2011;

• The international military coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, 2014-date, etc.

He noted that even though Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that: “All Members shall in their international relations refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” other extant provisions of the Charter and empirical examples showed that military intervention was not altogether ruled out or deemed illegal.

He said: “For instance, Chapter VIII of the Charter has in very clear terms recognised ‘Regional Arrangements’. In particular, Article 52(1) which falls under that Chapter provides that ‘Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action….’”

Hon said that Charter VIII provisions had been tested before during the Liberian and Sierra Leone political quagmires of the 1980s-1990s.

According to him, with the positive signal from the UN representative in West Africa, Mr. Ibn Chambas, military intervention in The Gambia under Article VIII without prior UN Security intervention is not only legal and lawful, but is also imperative, should Jammeh refuse to relinquish power today.

Is the CEO/Founder of Investors King Limited. A proven foreign exchange research analyst and a published author on Yahoo Finance, Businessinsider, Nasdaq, Entrepreneur.com, Investorplace, and many more. He has over two decades of experience in global financial markets.

Continue Reading
Comments

Government

EFCC Declares Former Kogi Governor, Yahaya Bello, Wanted Over N80.2 Billion Money Laundering Allegations

Published

on

Yahaya Bello

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has escalated its pursuit of justice by declaring former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, wanted over alleged money laundering amounting to N80.2 billion.

In a first-of-its-kind action, the EFCC announced Bello’s wanted status in connection with the alleged embezzlement of funds during his tenure as governor.

The commission, armed with a 19-count criminal charge, accused Bello and his cohorts of conspiring to launder the hefty sum, which was purportedly diverted from state coffers for personal gain.

The declaration of Bello as a wanted fugitive came after a series of failed attempts by the EFCC to effect his arrest.

Despite an ex-parte order from Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, mandating the EFCC to apprehend and produce Bello in court for arraignment, the former governor managed to evade capture with the reported assistance of his successor, Governor Usman Ododo.

This latest development shows the challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in holding powerful individuals accountable for their actions.

However, it also demonstrates the unwavering commitment of the EFCC to uphold the rule of law and ensure that justice is served, irrespective of the status or influence of the accused.

In response to the EFCC’s declaration, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, issued a stern warning to Bello, stating that fleeing from the law would not resolve the allegations against him.

Fagbemi urged Bello to honor the EFCC’s invitation and cooperate with the investigation process, saying it is important to uphold the rule of law and respect the authority of law enforcement agencies.

The EFCC’s pursuit of Bello underscores the agency’s mandate to combat corruption and financial crimes, sending a strong message that individuals implicated in corrupt practices will be held accountable for their actions.

Continue Reading

Government

Concerns Mount Over Security as National Identity Card Issuance Shifts to Banks

Published

on

NIMC enrolment

Amidst the National Identity Management Commission’s (NIMC) recent announcement that the issuance of the proposed new national identity card will be facilitated through applicants’ respective banks, concerns are escalating regarding the security implications of involving financial institutions in the distribution process.

The federal government, in collaboration with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Inter-bank Settlement System (NIBSS), introduced a new identity card with payment functionality, aimed at streamlining access to social and financial services.

However, the decision to utilize banks as distribution channels has sparked apprehension among industry stakeholders.

Mr. Kayode Adegoke, Head of Corporate Communications at NIMC, clarified that applicants would request the card by providing their National Identification Number (NIN) through various channels, including online portals, NIMC offices, or their respective banks.

Adegoke emphasized that the new National ID Card would serve as a single, multipurpose card, encompassing payment functionality, government services, and travel documentation.

Despite NIMC’s assurances, concerns have been raised regarding the necessity and security implications of introducing a new identity card system when an operational one already exists.

Chief Deolu Ogunbanjo, President of the National Association of Telecoms Subscribers, questioned the rationale behind the new General Multipurpose Card (GMPC), citing NIMC’s existing mandate to issue such cards under Act No. 23 of 2007.

Ogunbanjo highlighted the successful implementation of MobileID by NIMC, which has provided identity verification for over 15 million individuals.

He expressed apprehension about integrating the new ID card with existing MobileID systems and raised concerns about data privacy and unauthorized duplication of ID cards.

Moreover, stakeholders are seeking clarification on the responsibilities for card blocking, replacement, and delivery in case of loss or theft, given the involvement of multiple parties, including banks, in the issuance process.

The shift towards utilizing banks for identity card issuance raises fundamental questions about data security, privacy, and the integrity of the identification process.

With financial institutions playing a pivotal role in distributing sensitive government documents, there are valid concerns about potential vulnerabilities and risks associated with this approach.

As the debate surrounding the security implications of the new national identity card continues to intensify, stakeholders are calling for greater transparency, accountability, and collaboration between government agencies and financial institutions to address these concerns effectively.

The paramount importance of safeguarding citizens’ personal information and ensuring the integrity of the identity verification process cannot be overstated, especially in an era of increasing digital interconnectedness and heightened cybersecurity threats.

Continue Reading

Government

Israeli President Declares Iran’s Actions a ‘Declaration of War’

Published

on

Israel Gaza

Israeli President Isaac Herzog has characterized the recent series of attacks from Iran as nothing short of a “declaration of war” against the State of Israel.

This proclamation comes amidst escalating tensions between the two nations, with Iran’s aggressive actions prompting serious concerns within Israel and the international community.

The sequence of events leading to Herzog’s grave assessment began with a barrage of 300 ballistic missiles and drones launched by Iran towards Israel over the weekend.

While the Israeli defense forces managed to intercept a significant portion of these projectiles, the sheer scale of the assault sent shockwaves through the region.

President Herzog’s assertion of war was underscored by Israel’s careful consideration of its response options and ongoing discussions with its global partners.

The gravity of the situation prompted the convening of the G7, where member nations reaffirmed their commitment to Israel’s security, recognizing the severity of Iran’s actions.

However, the United States, a key ally of Israel, took a nuanced stance. President Joe Biden conveyed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that, given the limited casualties and damage resulting from the attacks, the US would not support retaliatory strikes against Iran.

This position, though strategic, reflects a delicate balancing act in maintaining stability in the volatile Middle East region.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Hossein Amir-Abdollahian cautioned against further escalation, emphasizing the potential for heightened tensions and provocative acts to exacerbate the situation.

In response to the escalating crisis, the Nigerian government issued a call for restraint, urging both Iran and Israel to prioritize peaceful resolution and diplomatic efforts to ease tensions.

This appeal reflects the broader international consensus on the need to prevent further escalation and mitigate the risk of a wider conflict in the Middle East.

As Israel grapples with the implications of Iran’s aggressive actions and weighs its response options, President Herzog reiterated Israel’s commitment to peace while emphasizing the need to defend its people.

Despite calls for restraint from global allies, Israel remains vigilant in safeguarding its security amidst the growing threat posed by Iran’s belligerent behavior.

The coming days are likely to be critical as Israel navigates the complexities of its response while international efforts intensify to defuse the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel.

The specter of war looms large, underscoring the urgency of diplomatic engagement and concerted efforts to prevent further escalation in the region.

Continue Reading
Advertisement




Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending