IKENGA UGOCHINYERE AND HIS MEDIA RABBLE ROUSING, HE HAS A QUESTION TO ANSWER.

IKENGA UGOCHINYERE AND HIS MEDIA RABBLE ROUSING, HE HAS A QUESTION TO ANSWER. Imo patriots forum strongly condemns the press conference held by one Ikenga Ikeagwuoha ugochinyere as distasteful, inciting and misleading.

Having followed the self serving press conference of Mr. Ikenga Ugochinyere with carefulness and interest. It will take a discerning mind to uncover the unmistakable mischief embedded therein. It is a pity of immense dimension that a fellow who is aspiring to represent an entire Federal Constituency could not find time to sympathise with the family of the Sole Administrator of his local Government who was murdered in cold in his house in Ideato.

ONE WOULD THINK THAT THE GRUESOME ORDEAL OF THE IDEATO NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHAIRMAN HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN OHIZU WAS PREMIDATED FOR SATISFACTION OF REVENGE FOLLOWING THE ALLEGATIONS OF AN ATTACK ON IKENGA. How low can a so called aspiring or acclaimed leader go. Leadership should be made of sterner stuff and not this flight of fantasy and infantile razzmatazz. By the way, circumspection is the first principle of a learned gentleman but the whole press drama reeked of pure and undiluted defamatory conclusions which is a dent on the sobriety credentials of Learned gentlemen. Incitement to terrorism through the media raises specific concerns because it contains elements of political declaration and self-expression, as protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. While the right to freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a robust democracy, it is not an absolute right. International human rights law permits limitations on free speech so long as any such limitations are provided by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. Furthermore, Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically prohibits “propaganda for war” and “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. In every democratic society, each and every member of the society is granted the right to freedom of expression. In Nigeria, this right is contained in the provision of S. 39 of the 1999 Constitution. However, this right comes with its own limitations. If this freedom is left unfettered, it is sure to be abused by members of the society. This is why it is provided for in S. 39 (3) and S. 45 (1) of the Constitution that the provisions of S. 39 would not invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Also, in determining the extent of a person’s right to freedom of expression, the court per Ademola CJ in the case of DPP vs. Oby stated: A person has every right to discuss any grievance or criticise, canvass and censor the act of government and their public policy. He may even do this with a view to effecting a change to the party in power or to call attention to some of the weaknesses of the government so long as he keeps within the limits of fair criticism. It is clearly legitimate and constitutional, by means of fair argument, to criticise the government of the day. What is not allowed is to criticise the government in a malignant manner as described in this case. For such attacks, by their nature, tend to affect the public peace. It is due to this reasoning by the court that the offence of sedition has to be put in place. What Is Sedition? Sedition can be aptly defined as any act, speech or publication that is done with a seditious intention. Seditious intention has been defined by the provision of S. 50 (2) of the Criminal Code. It provides: 50 (2) A “seditious intention” is an intention- (a) To bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the person of the President or of the Governor of a State or the Government of the Federation; or (b) to excite the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Nigeria as by law established; or (c) To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria; or (d) To promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Nigeria. Also, in determining the extent of a person’s right to freedom of expression, the court per Ademola CJ in the case of DPP vs. Oby stated: A person has every right to discuss any grievance or criticise, canvass and censor the act of government and their public policy. He may even do this with a view to effecting a change to the party in power or to call attention to some of the weaknesses of the government so long as he keeps within the limits of fair criticism. It is clearly legitimate and constitutional, by means of fair argument, to criticise the government of the day. What is not allowed is to criticise the government in a malignant manner as described in this case. For such attacks, by their nature, tend to affect the public peace." It is regretable that Ikenga who is supposed to be a lawyer is found wanting in observing same . We advise that this pay as you go activism is not healthy for our democracy.