By Eric Elezuo

The Federal Government of Nigeria has come under severe condemnation following the signing of the Samoa agreement, which many believe come with contrary conditions including the legitimisation of gay marriages and other related matters associated with it, which runs foul of the Constitution of the country, and moral values of the various traditional practices and institutions across the geo-political regions of the nation.

The name ‘Samoa’ is a derivation of the place where the agreement was first signed.

But in a counter response, the President Bola Tinubu-led Federal Government assured Nigerians that it will not enter into any international agreement that will be detrimental to the interest of the country and its citizens, adding that whatever that was contained in the agreement are to the basic interest of the nation and its citizens.

In a statement he personally signed, where the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris made this known, he debunked all allegations and controversies trailing the recent signing of Samoa Agreement by the Federal Government, maintaining that the agreement was signed to promote sustainable development, fight climate change and its effects, generate investment opportunities, and foster collaboration among OACPS Member States at the international stage.

“On 28 June 2024, Nigeria signed the Samoa Agreement at the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS) Secretariat in Brussels, Belgium.

“The partnership agreement is between the EU and its Member States, on one hand, and the members of the OACPS on the other.

“Negotiations on the agreement started in 2018, on the sidelines of the 73rd United Nations General Assembly.

“It was signed in Apia, Samoa on the 15th of November 2018 by all 27 EU Member states and 47 of the 79 OACPS Member states.

The Minister added: “The agreement has 103 articles comprising a common foundational compact and three regional protocols, namely: Africa –EU; Caribbean-EU, and Pacific-EU Regional Protocols with each regional protocol addressing the peculiar issues of the regions.

“The African Regional Protocol consists of two parts. The first is the Framework for Cooperation.

“The second deals with Areas of Cooperation, containing Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth and Development; Human and Social Development; Environment, Natural Resources Management, and Climate Change; Peace and Security; Human Rights, Democracy and Governance; and Migration and Mobility.

“Nigeria signed the Agreement on Friday 28 June 2024”.

Idris stressed that the agreement was signed after extensive reviews and consultations by the Interministerial Committee, convened by the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Federal Ministry of Justice.

He said the government in signing the agreement ensured that none of the 103 Articles and Provisions of the Agreement contravened the 1999 Constitution as amended or laws of Nigeria, and other extant Laws.

“In addition, Nigeria’s endorsement was accompanied by a Statement of Declaration, dated 26th June 2024, clarifying its understanding and context of the Agreement within its jurisdiction.

“This is to the effect that any provision that is inconsistent with the laws of Nigeria shall be invalid.

“It is instructive to note that there is an existing legislation against same sex relationship in Nigeria enacted in 2014.

“It is necessary to assure Nigerians that the President Bola Tinubu Administration, being a rule-based government will not enter into any international agreement that will be detrimental to the interest of the country and its citizens,” he said.

In negotiating the Agreement, our officials strictly followed the mandates exchanged in 2018 between the EU and the OACPS for the process.

The Minister reiterated that Samoa Agreement is nothing but a vital legal framework for cooperation between the OACPS and the European Union..

The Federal Government has however, opted to sue a media house that broke the news, reiterating that the signing of the Samoa agreement was done in the country’s interest.

The agreement, according to reports, has some clauses that compel underdeveloped and developing nations to support the agitations by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community for recognition, as a condition for getting financial and other support from advanced societies.

Named after the Pacific Island Samoa, where it was signed, the agreement is gradually gaining traction, despite opposition by many countries that cherish Islamic and Christianity values, in addition to the sensitivity of their cultures.

The issue has generated controversy, with some clerics and human rights activists, criticising the government over the agreement.

But amid the responses and clarifications from the government, Nigerians have continued to react wildly, criticising the President Bola Tinubu-led administration over the agreement, and accusing the government of greed and inordinate ambition to acquire wealth at the expense of the citizens.

The various social media platforms have been a beehive of attacks and criticisms targeted at the government for ‘insensitivity’ to the mood of the nation.

A respondent, who felt threatened as a practitioner of Islamic religion, wrote, “To hell with the American Pentagon-funded conspiratorial CIA-FBI treacherous anti-muslim monetised homosexual cult project!

“We as true believers in Islam, Allah’s ordained and divine faith, cannot be compromised because we are worshippers of Allah Ubangji SWT alone, like all our Prophets and nobody is a greater role model than All our Prophets in the Holy Qur’an!

“This is the end of the road for the implementation of the controversial Satanic American Pentagon-instigated Samoa Deal.

“To hell with America and those who believe in promoting their LGBTQ experimental lifestyles fan zone therapy here in Nigeria.”

In the same, another, writing from the Islamic point of view added: “To my fellow Muslims, those who were deceived to vote for the Muslim-Muslim Ticket thinking that Tinubu & Shettima will emulate Islamic style of leadership, look at where we’re today!

“We will now sit back, fingers crossed, and watch whether the clerics that promoted Muslim Muslim Ticket will come out and condemn Tinubu or not. Elections have consequences!”

More and more respondents from all walks have said that signing the agreement was never a well thought it policy, condemning the government as controversial and shameless.

Many other Nigerians have said that until the citizens stand up for themselves as it was done in Kenya, leaders will not earn to respect the views of the people or take decisions that are people-oriented.

“I thought such sensitive agreements and decisions that affect our religious and cultural lives are supposed to be dialogue before being signed. With this singular act, it shows the government is only interested in money and what the West wants just to please the international community at the expense of its citizens,” a social media user concluded.

The government has however, maintained that it has done nothing wrong in signing the Samoa agreement.

Additional information: NAN

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Abdul Mohammed, and other counsel for the 15th Emir of Kano, Aminu Ado Bayero, on Thursday, withdrew their legal representation in the Kano emirate tussle suit.

Mohammed had informed the Kano State High Court that he had an affidavit of fact dated July 3, attached with a notice of appeal and a motion of stay of proceedings.

He urged the court to stay proceedings, pending the hearing and determination of the motion at the appeal court.

“We were served with the court processes this morning by the applicants,” he said.

Mohammed also sought an adjournment to enable the team of lawyers to respond to the applications but the court declined to grant his prayers.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, he made known his withdrawal of service from the case.

Another member of the team, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Sanusi Musa also announced the withdrawal of other lawyers for the first respondent, after which the team of lawyers staged a walkout from the hearing.

“My Lord, myself, and other counsel representing the first respondent apply for the withdrawal of our legal services and appearances,” the lawyer said.

Counsel for the third, fourth, and fifth respondents, Hassan Tanko-Kyaure, moved his application for an extension of time dated July 2 and counter affidavit in response to the originating motion.

He urged the court to set aside the Kano State Emirates Council (Repeal) Law 2024, adding that due process was not followed.

Tanko-Kyaure also urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s application with a cost of N1 billion.

Counsel for the Inspector-General of Police, Mr Sunday Ekwe, told the court that he had nothing to present, as he had left everything to the discretion of the court.

Counsel for the applicant, Eyitayo Fatogun, asked the court to discountenance the respondent’s affidavit of facts pursuant to Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the court.

He said, “The motion refers to a proposed notice of appeal not a notice of appeal. It shows that the affidavit of facts is just to delay the proceedings. My Lord, the business of today is for the hearing of all pending applications.”

Fatogun urged the court to dismiss the third, fourth and fifth respondents’ applications on the issue of Kano Emirate Repeal Law because the issue is not before the court.

Before that, Justice Adamu-Aliyu had refused the application for a stay of proceedings filed by the respondent.

‘The respondent did not disclose any special fact to warrant any stay of proceedings” Adamu-Aliyu said.

The court has adjourned till July 18 to rule on an application for an extension of time, notice of preliminary objection.

Justice Amina Adamu-Aliyu fixed the date for ruling after listening to the parties in the suit. The judge will also rule on an application seeking to set aside an exparte order of the court as well as the joinder of parties to the case.

The judge also barred all lawyers in the case from granting media interviews until the substantive case was determined.

The applicants in the matter are the Attorney General of Kano State, the Speaker Kano State House of Assembly, and the Kano State House of Assembly.

Through their counsel, Ibrahim Isah-Wangida, the applicants filed a motion ex parte dated May 27.

They are asking the court to restrain Ado-Bayero and four other dethroned emirs of Bichi, Rano, Gaya, and Karaye from parading themselves as emirs.

The respondents are Ado-Bayero, Alhaji Nasiru Ado-Bayero Bichi Emir, Dr Ibrahim Abubakar ll, emir of Karaye, Alhaji Kabiru Muhammad-Inuwa, Emir of Rano and Alhaji Aliyu Ibrahim-Gaya, Emir of Gaya.

Others are the Inspector General of Police, Director of State Security Service, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, and Nigeria Army.

Channels Television

Incarcerated leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPoB), Nnamdi Kanu, has agreed to abide by any condition the Federal government would give for his release from custody.

Leading South East senators to a meeting with the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi on Wednesday to demand Kanu’s release, the Senator representing Abia South, Enyinnaya Abaribe, said that he had already met with the IPoB leader at the headquarters of the Department of State Services (DSS).

Abaribe, who spoke on behalf of his colleagues, said he is optimistic that the AGF would persuade the government to show compassion, and order Kanu’s release.

He argued that the continued detention of the IPoB leader is responsible for the rising level of insecurity and agitations in the South East region.

According to him, unless Kanu is released, social and economic activities within the region would remain stagnant.

The meeting between the lawmakers and the AGF came barely one day after the governors from the South East region resolved to approach President Bola Tinubu to beg for Kanu’s freedom.

Earlier, about 50 members of the House of Representatives from various parts of the country had urged President Tinubu to free the detained IPoB leader.

The representatives, who identified themselves as “Concerned Federal Lawmakers for Peace and Security in the South East”, urged President Tinubu to direct the AGF to invoke Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to terminate the terrorism-related charge that is pending against Kanu before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.

Kanu was first arrested in Lagos on October 14, 2015 upon his return to the country from the United Kingdom.

On April 25, 2017, Justice Binta Nyako granted him bail on health ground, after he had spent about 18 months in custody.

Upon the perfection of the bail conditions, he was on April 28, 2017, he released from the Kuje prison.

However, midway into the trial, the IPoB leader escaped from the country after soldiers invaded his country home at Afara Ukwu Ibeku in Umuahia, Abia State, an operation that led to the death of some of his followers.

Abaribe, who initially stood as his surety, alongside two others, subsequently applied to the court to be allowed to withdraw from the case.

Not satisfied with Abaribe’s claim that he was not aware of the whereabouts of the defendant, the trial court ordered him to forfeit the N100 million he deposited as bond to secure Kanu’s bail.

Meanwhile, Kanu was later re-arrested in Kenya on June 19, 2021 and extraordinarily renditioned back to the country by security agents on June 27, 2021.

Following the development, the trial court, on June 29, 2021, remanded him in custody of DSS, where he has remained till date.

On April 8, 2022, the court struck out eight out of the 15-count charge that Federal government preferred against him, on the premise that they lacked substance.

On October 13, 2022, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal ordered Kanu’s immediate release from detention, and quashed the charge against him.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Federal government took the matter before the Supreme Court, and persuaded the appellate court to suspend the execution of the judgment, pending the determination of its appeal.

While deciding the appeal last December 15, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the appellate court, and gave the Federal government the nod to try the IPoB leader on the subsisting seven-count charge.