Uzodinma: Reinventing Hitler-styled administration in Imo state

Imo state Governor Hope Uzodinma is again in the news for the wrong reasons. He recently appended his signature to one of the most controversial laws in Nigeria, the Imo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ISACJL,) 2020 which empowers him to arrest and detain any resident of the state for as long as he wishes without police or court Warrant.

We hold the view that this law must be repealed. It is draconian, obnoxious, vexatious, repugnant and repulsive and impinges on the fundamental human rights to freedom of liberty and human dignity as enshrined in sections 34 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution, (as amended).

Going through the new law, one could see clearly that Imo state has a governor who is dreaming his dreams, backwards. We do not know why and how a governor in this 21st Century could imagine that such an anachronistic law could be implemented in Imo state of all places. This is most disrespectful to the sensibilities of average Imolites, renowned for their intellectualism, political awareness, business astuteness, and exposure.

Without mincing words, the law smacks of an evil manipulation to throw Imo citizens into the dungeon. Regrettably, this law reminds us of the notorious regimes of despots such as Adolph Hitler, India Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, and lately, Sani Abacha. It is very unfortunate that Uzodinma who became governor by virtue of an injurious and unpopular Supreme Court judgment against the people’s choice candidate, and who for the past 7 months is struggling to gain credibility would resort to this ignoble behaviour. Definitely, this law would scare away existing and potential investors and tourists from the state. With huge unemployment and poverty rates, low IGR, dilapidated infrastructures, no functional government industry and bad road network, Imo state deserves better governance.

Section 484 of the ISACJL, 2020 states that: “Where any person is ordered to be detained during the Governor’s pleasure he shall notwithstanding anything in this law or in any other written law contained, be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Governor may direct and whilst so detained shall be deemed to be in legal custody.”

Section 485(1) states “that a person detained during the governor’s pleasure may at any time be discharged by the governor on license which said license may be in such form and in such conditions as the governor may direct under section 485(2)”.

Also, in section 485(3) of the same law “a license may at any time be revoked or varied by the governor and where license has been revoked, the person to whom the license relates shall proceed to such place as the governor may direct and if he fails to do so, may be arrested without warrant and taken to such place.”

Whereas the original draft of the bill had a total of 372 Sections, how and where it was amended, recreated and reshaped into other sections including the contentious Section 484 and 485 remains a mystery and a legislative wonder of our time as the sponsor of the bill and Deputy Minority Leader of the House, Frank Ugboma and other legislatures have disowned the law.

In a Press statement he personally signed and issued in Owerri at the weekend, Ugboma who represents Oguta state constituency said, “what I presented and circulated to my colleagues during plenary, both in the First and Second Readings, did not contain such obnoxious and embarrassing Section 484, neither was it deliberated in the House Committee of the whole. It, indeed, never existed in the House”.

The law made a vague provision that someone may be detained at the pleasure of the governor. This implies that anyone (including thugs) could actually be empowered by the governor to affect someone’s arrest. Surprisingly too, the law did not provide for what infractions the governor may be at pleasure to order for someone’s detention. In other words, it could be for anything as bad as asking the governor to pay civil servants their entitlements. It could even be for deciding to go to school or attend church service or for admiring a beautiful woman, who coincidentally, the governor fancies.

We do not subscribe to those who argued that the legislatures should be blamed. Shouldn’t the governor have read what he signed? Shouldn’t the governor have withheld assent, if he wanted to make the slightest pretense to understanding the simplest tenets of democracy?

Governor Uzodinma needs to be reminded that the era of ouster clauses in our laws has gone. Therefore, he must rescind his assent and represent the law to the State Assembly for immediate amendment.