From Chief Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo
A RESPONSE TO SHEHU MUHAMMAD, ESQ.: BALANCING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE REQUIRES MORE THAN SELECTIVE INTERPRETATION
My attention has been drawn to the commentary written by my younger colleague, Shehu Muhammad, Esq., reacting to my position on the conviction of Nnamdi Kanu and the non-prosecution of Sheikh Ahmad Gumi. While I commend his attempt at analysis, it is essential to restore legal clarity, defend the integrity of constitutional justice, and correct several mischaracterisations in his submission.
This reply is necessary not to win an argument, but to protect the consistency of the rule of law, which is the foundation of any civilised society.
Shehu argue that the matters are “legally and factually different,”therefore unequal treatment is justified. Respectfully, this is an oversimplification.
In constitutional law, the doctrine of equal protection (ss. 17, 36 & 42 CFRN 1999) does not demand identical facts it demands identical standards of investigation and prosecution when allegations involve the same category of offences, particularly threats to national security.
Both Kanu and Gumi relate to: National security, Public order, Allegations of incitement and Alleged involvement with armed non-state actors therefore, the relevant question is:
Has the State applied the same investigative rigor, prosecutorial standards, and constitutional thresholds to both individuals?
The answer, based on public records, is NO.
Shehu rightly quoted Section 35(1)(c) of the Constitution and relevant ACJA provisions on the powers of arrest and investigation but you omitted the critical point: Once facts exist that create reasonable suspicion regarding ANY citizen, the State MUST act.
Sheikh Gumi:Visited armed bandits
Admitted knowing their leaders
Made public statements defending them , passed messages on their behalf justified their killings as “retaliation”
These actions prima facie create more than reasonable suspicion.
They create grounds for investigation under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the
Criminal Code ss. 96, 100, 102, 406 etc. (aiding unlawful societies)
Evidence Act (statements against interest)
Investigation is compulsory , not optional. No one is saying “convict Gumi.”The point is investigate him the same way you investigated Kanu.
That is equal protection.
¹Shehu your claim that selective justice requires “similar facts” is legally inaccurate.
Under constitutional and international human rights jurisprudence:
Selective justice occurs when the State applies its coercive power unevenly to persons in the SAME category of allegations.Here, the category is, threats to national security and violence-linked statements and associations with armed non-state actors.
Thus, your argument collapses under the weight of basic constitutional doctrine.
You accuse me of emotion and sentiment.
Let us be clear:
I do not “hate” Gumi or “love” Kanu.
I defend the same principle for both:
No Nigerian should be above the law.
Rule of law fails when: some are aggressively prosecuted,
others are publicly shielded,
and the State uses discretion as a weapon.
Your appeal to “national security strategy” as justification for non-prosecution is misplaced.
A government cannot claim to fight terrorism while ignoring public confessions of engagement with terrorists. That is not strategy
it is inconsistency.
You argue that Gumi’s statements “do not reach the threshold” of terrorism or criminal incitement. Again, respectfully, this is incorrect.
Under: Terrorism Act s. 2, 5, 12, 24,
Criminal Code ss. 95–97,
Cybercrimes Act s. 24,
Gumi’s consistent justification of armed groups is not protected speech.
The Supreme Court has held that
speech that directly or indirectly encourages violence loses constitutional protection.
Selective blindness to this principle undermines the very “rule of law” you claim to defend.
You claim my approach “lacks balance” and is “personal.”
I humbly submit nothing in my publication was personal.
I attacked state conduct, not any private individual.It is your own reply that contains: Ad hominem language,
Emotional phrasing, Value judgments about my person rather than the issue.I will not descend to that level.
The Nigerian Constitution does not allow: One law for agitators,
Another for clerics,
One threshold for one ethnic group,
Another for another group.
The moment we tolerate that, we have rule by discretion, not rule of law.
As a public-interest lawyer, my allegiance is to the Constitution, Justice, Equality before the law, And Nigeria’s stability.That is the basis of my argument , not emotion, not partisanship, not tribalism, and not selective outrage.
The conversation must not be about personalities.It must be about consistency in the application of State power.If we prosecute one man for speech linked to violence, we must investigate all others in the same category. Anything less is injustice dressed in legal grammar.
Respectfully,
Chief Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo
Human Rights Lawyer
