The politically motivated, vengeful, spiteful, slanderously and maliciously ill-conceived, vengeance-filled raving mad hysterical headlines have all been so misleading that almost every ignoramus not knowing the truth was deceived into believing that like a forged cheque, "Forged Certificated" meant that the innocent one had knowingly and wilfully forged some important scarp of paper, like some deformed piece of crap, only to be exposed, later.
To end all speculation We now know the following from her letter of resignation :
"Upon enquiry as to my status relating to NYSC, I was informed that due to my residency history and having exceeded the age of thirty (30), I was exempted from the requirement to serve. Until recent events, that remained my understanding.
On the basis of that advice and with the guidance and assistance of those, I thought were trusted associates, NYSC were approached for documentary proof of status. I then received the certificate in question. Having never worked in NYSC, visited the premises, been privy to nor familiar with their operations, I had no reason to suspect that the certificate was anything but genuine. Indeed, I presented that certificate at the 2011 Ogun State House of Assembly and in 2015 for Directorate of State Services (DSS) Clearance as well as to the National Assembly for screening."
And then, adhering to Westminster standards, she gracefully resigns.
So, it's many thanks to Professor Aluko (of the stalwart and steadfast resistance, not intimidated by the length of Emetulu's epistles or the range of his missiles ) Baba Kadiri (as usual, kept the fires burning, this time fleshed out Sister Adeosu's education merits and employment history with much needed facts), and from the Oxford zone, Anthony A. Akinola at the sight of whose name some pure language emperors, bugs and grammar police constables forever on the beat, knee-jerk tremble and crumble like a cookie the second they hear "Oxford" - knowing that no language inadequacies are expected to be taken to task, even if they (the bugs and humbugs) wherever they are, have only been near the place...
Almost felt like saying " I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,, madness, madness, the attack dogs relentless, relentless, as relentless as Barrister Kennedy Emetulu who does not hesitate when it comes to wanting to destroy the reputation of an honourable sister , so he goes on with his little tittle-tattle, insisting that her innocence is a major offence , deserving something like the death penalty, and as tireless as Desmond Tutu, in his case preaching, "God loves us all" -
and then there was the political commentator Anthony Chidi Opara, FIIM, with his own grave insistence, approaching the final round of madness as in
" We Poets in our youth begin in gladness;
But thereof come in the end despondency and madness."
Yeah, the question remains how can one say to the other, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,'
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 18:37:03 UTC+2, OLAYINKA AGBETUYI wrote:
And let me alert the Moderators once again to the manner in which the provsions of the laws if journalism are being abused in this forum particularly the laws pertaining to defamation.
Ordinarily a respondent can be found guilty of defamation , we were taught in my hay days of journalism even if the material published about the complainant is in fact TRUE based on the manner of publication.
How much worse if the complainant is a minister of the federal government who has not been found guilty of any criminal breaches by any competent court if requisite jurisdiction!
To pronounce the acts of a federal minister criminal can be liable to sanctions if pursued by the complainant including temporary or permanent closure or other reliefs sought by the complainant.
Where this affects the list serve is that offending publications and other media including such as our listserve where offending materials are reproduced may legally be joined in the suit.
Participants in this list serve must be made aware that not all of us want the list serve to be shut down for their excesses temporarily pending determination of suits or permanently.
OAA
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: 'Kennedy Emetulu' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafric...@googlegroups.com >Date: 18/09/2018 10:57 (GMT+00:00)Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - On the Resignation of Kemi Adeosunas Finance Minister
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (usaafric...@
googlegroups.com ) Add cleanup rule | More info
…..
Hehehehehe! Professor Aluko, you know I love you. I love you because you are a principled scholar, even though I believe you are a bad politician. Hahahaha! Okay, seriously, when you look at the law in every jurisdiction, you do so from the perspective of academics and practice, but more from the perspective of practice. Here is what I said:
"The truth is if we really want to get justice, Kemi and whoever she sent to get the certificate for her and whoever helped her with the forged certificate should be facing charges of conspiracy and forgery. If that happens, the court will determine her guilt or innocence. But I am quite certain that if she's arraigned today, she would be easily convicted based on her own statement alone. I mean, there are courts that treat forgery as a strict liability offence while still imposing the full sentence under the Criminal and Penal Codes. The fact that she claims not to be aware that it's a forgery will not absolve her of guilt and the fact that she has been using it before now to get public office positions can only make her case worse".
https://web.facebook.com/
kennedy.emetulu/posts/ 10212355596700343
So, clearly, I have not said the Criminal Code does not apply (where it applies). I am talking of the practices of courts where irrespective of the provisions of the Criminal or Penal Code, they treat the offence of forgery as a strict liability offence while still imposing the full sentence under the Codes. I chose my words carefully. I am referring to practices of lower courts (where the trials take place) where the mental element of the accused is not made part of the charge, that is where the prosecution is only required to prove the ingredients of the offence as charged. In such circumstances, the burden on the prosecution is not to prove mens rea, but simply to prove the ingredients of the offence as charged. Obviously, this is where we can say that the court is treating the matter as a strict liability offence, but even if the lower court gives incorrect reasons for treating it as a strict liability offence, appellate courts have been known to uphold the decision as correct because what they are really concerned with is whether the decision is the correct decision and not whether the reason adduced for the decision is correct. In other words, once the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt, irrespective of the fact that they did not prove mens rea, the appellate courts will always uphold the decision as correct.
But, let me once again point out the absurdity of this whole exchange. If you read me well, the key thing I was trying to convey to you is that this whole legal thing you are doing is precipitate. This lady has not been charged to any court, so any discussion about her being not guilty in law, talking mens rea, actus reus and so on is just plainly non sequitur, so to speak. It's a wild goose chase that adds nothing of value to the issue as it is! Okay, here you are again quoting the Criminal Code Act for me and challenging me to look at this or that section, but for what purpose? I Mean, if Kemi Adeosun is going to be charged, she's very likely to be charged under the Penal Code Law or/and ICPC Act. So, what's the whole point of discussing the Criminal Code Act when it is not likely to be the applicable law?
I'm not saying the above to indicate that there's a whole lot of difference between the various criminal laws or codes that apply in different parts of the country, I'm just pointing out the futility of this legal jujitsu that will take us nowhere because this matter is not a fable; it's real even if not in court at the moment. If we therefore choose to go on any legal adventure, we must not lose touch with the facts of the case as we know them so far.
But if you are keen on really having this debate, even with this obvious handicap, if you are interested in talking the law involved at least based on what you and I have been debating so far, I can oblige you. However, if this is what you want to do, considering that our purpose here is to learn from each other; let's help the process of elucidation by taking the debate a bit at a time. I also don't want you to accuse me of writing "looooong", so, we take it bit by bit and I can assure you that we will still arrive our destination at the end of it all. That destination is the opportunity for both of us to clarify every legal issue we have raised to our satisfaction and in a manner that both of us would be clear as to what we are saying and with those reading us to also understand it clearly as well.
To that end, I'm proposing that I start this stage of the debate by just asking you FIVE questions based on the claims you have made so far. I believe your response will ultimately prove what I have stated. Once you have adequately addressed my questions, you can then do the same with me. That way, we make sense to each other and to others following this debate. I have looked at your response and of everything I have said, you seem to have picked issues with only two:
My claim that there are courts that treat forgery as a strict liability offence while still imposing the full sentence under the Criminal and Penal Codes.
The citizenship of Kemi by birth.
NOTE 1:
You have said so many indefensible things so far, but we are not going to ignore them and neither am I asking you to ignore anything I've said that you think I cannot defend. My proposal is simply for us to have some kind of structure to this debate, so we don't talk over each other. I'm not interested in name-calling or personal attacks. As I said, I respect you and have no reason to call you names, even if you choose to insult me. Honestly, I just find the dimension you're taking the whole thing really funny. My focus here is strictly on the issue and the approach I'm suggesting now will help immensely in that regard. Answer my questions based on the claims you have made here and once you've done so, ask me your questions based on the claims I've made. You can ask as many questions and many more questions as many times as you like as far as we keep to this format I've proposed. This is the way to avoid a circular debate.
Now, going with your logic as expressed in relation to the two issues I've identified as your grouses above, please answer these FIVE questions:
You assert that Kemi Adeosun cannot be guilty of forgery because she did not have mens rea. Can you mention any caselaw, just any case at any level of the judicial system where an accused person was charged with forgery and the defence of the lack of mens rea succeeded? In other words, can you show us any case where the sole charge was forgery and a defence of lack of mens rea was successfully canvassed on behalf of the accused?
Can you mention any caselaw, just any case at any level of the judicial system where an accused person was charged with forgery and other offences and the defence of the lack of mens rea was successfully canvassed on behalf of the accused person in relation to the charge of forgery?
Show an example of any person in the world whose citizenship by birth was confirmed by a passport or show any country's passport in the world that confers citizenship by birth on any person.
When the authorities of your country withdraw or withhold your passport (for whatever reason) because it is the property of the government, following your logic, does that mean they are withdrawing your citizenship by birth?
If Kemi Adeosun only thought of herself as a citizen when she was 34, why did she apply for exemption from the NYSC programme when she clearly did not need it because she wasn't graduating at that point? Or did she actually apply or forge an Exemption Certificate or got one forged on her behalf (whether she was aware it was forged or not) only because she knew she graduated at 22 as a Nigerian citizen and that at the age of above 30 she needs an Exemption Certificate, even though her approach is quite irregular?
NOTE II:
What I am doing here is (i) asking you to show proof that your claim that Kemi will not be guilty of forgery in a Nigerian court because she has no mens rea is actually possible in practice and (ii) asking you to show proof that Kemi Adeosun only became a citizen of Nigeria when she got her Nigerian passport at the age of 34.
NOTE III:
"Nobody has claimed that Nike Adeosun forged the NYSC exemption document herself. So this Section does not apply to her". Professor Bolaji
You stated the above somewhere in your last response to me, but I need to tell you here and now that this is not the case because you have chosen to argue the law. I explained earlier that you were being precipitate with your analysis because this matter is not before any court of law yet and even when it comes before the courts, it is not the law you are quoting that will apply. But, you insist on arguing the law. So, that being the case, you cannot make a categorical statement like the one above when the claim has not been tested in a court of law and when neither of us know this for a fact. Here is what Kemi Adeosun said in her letter of resignation:
"Your Excellency, kindly permit me to outline some of the background to this matter. I was born and raised in the United Kingdom, indeed my parental family home remains in London. My visits to Nigeria up until the age of thirty-four (34) were holidays, with visas obtained in my UK passport. I obtained my first Nigerian passport at the age of thirty-four (34) and when I relocated there was debate as to whether NYSC Law applied to me. Upon enquiry as to my status relating to NYSC, I was informed that due to my residency history and having exceeded the age of thirty (30), I was exempted from the requirement to serve. Until recent events, that remained my understanding.
"On the basis of that advice and with the guidance and assistance of those, I thought were trusted associates, NYSC were approached for documentary proof of status. I then received the certificate in question. Having never worked in NYSC, visited the premises, been privy to nor familiar with their operations, I had no reason to suspect that the certificate was anything but genuine. Indeed, I presented that certificate at the 2011 Ogun State House of Assembly and in 2015 for Directorate of State Services (DSS) Clearance as well as to the National Assembly for screening. Be that as it may, as someone totally committed to a culture of probity and accountability I have decided to resign with effect from Friday, 14th September, 2018".
Here are things to note from the above:
There is nothing she stated there that indicates clearly that someone else helped her forge the document. She only said she followed the guidance of and took advice from associates she thought were trusted. She did not say if these associates were the people who procured the forged document for her. She only said based on the advice and guidance of these unnamed associates, "NYSC were approached for documentary proof of status" (whatever that means). NYSC said she made an application, but the forged Certificate of Exemption she has in her possession is not from the NYSC. So, what happened to her application, which itself is not the proper way to seek an exemption? Who forged the Exemption Certificate she has been using to unlawfully occupy public offices against the laws of Nigeria, including earning the money and privileges associated with these positions? Who gave the forged Exemption Certificate to her? The only person in all this, the only person mentioned in all this is Kemi Adeosun. Kemi Adeosun has not told us the role played by those she thought were trusted associates. Did they forge the Exemption Certificate? If so, who are these persons? Did they just give her wrong advice? If so, of what relevance are they in her account? They can only be relevant if they have something to do with the forgery and if they do, Kemi Adeosun should be naming them now. Failure to name any person as part of the forgery squarely makes Kemi Adeosun the forger. In fact, everything about the forged Exemption Certificate indicates it could only have been forged by a person very ignorant of the NYSC programme. The forged Exemption Certificate does not look at all like the standard ones issued by the NYSC and it was 'signed' by a Director-General that had left office eight months before. The NYSC has categorically denied it came from them in any way. No staff of the NYSC has been mentioned or implicated in this forgery. The fact that such an obviously fraudulent document passed security screening twice for high office indicates that there was most likely a syndicated effort to protect her until the Premium Times decided to blow the whistle, which implies that she has always known that it was a forgery. Indeed, we have reports in the press indicating she's been repeatedly blackmailed over it.
So, Professor Aluko, you can get on with your analysis without making a categorical statement about who the forger is and who is not. At the moment only Kemi Adeosun's name is out there over this forgery. If there is a suspect forger, it's Kemi Adeosun until the contrary is proven.
Below is a link to an interview with Anthony Ani, a former Director of Mobilization at the National Youth Service Corps(NYSC) explaining how mobilization is done and how Certificates of Exemption are procured. Also below is a link to the NYSC Act. Read and understand that what Mrs Adeosun is talking is pure bullshit. I mean, it's obvious that she knew she had to do the one year NYSC programme when she came to the country. But she didn't do it while working in the private sector because while there, she didn't have to submit anything for public scrutiny. But as soon as it became clear she was going to be a Commissioner in Ogun State, she procured a forged one. Everything she's said and done over this does not indicate innocence.
https://www.thecable.ng/dont-
apply-exemption-certificate- says-ex-nysc-director
http://lawnigeria.com/
LawsoftheFederation/NATIONAL- YOUTH-SERVICE-CORPS-ACT.html
………………
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:17 AM Mobolaji Aluko <alu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenneth Emetulu:
Please review Sections 465-468 of Nigeria's Criminal Code ACT, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, and tell this court what you really find.
I am sure that you will find on Part 6, Sections 465-468 that there is a distinction made between a forger and an utterer of forgery.
(1) making a forged document, the actual forger of. Here in Section 465,strict liabilty is implied because the court does not want to waste time with mens rea. Since the forger is not the official issuing agent, of the document and knows it, he has no business making the document, so mens rea has already been established in initiio.
Quote
465. Definition of forgery
A person who makes a false document or writing knowing it to be false and with intent that it may in any way be used or acted upon as genuine, whether in the State or elsewhere, to the prejudice of any person, or with the intent that any person may be in the belief that it is genuine, be induced to do or refrain from doing any act in the State or elsewhere, is said to forge the document.........
The term "make a false do ument or writing" includes altering a genuine document or writing, in any material part either by erasiure, obliteration, removal or otherwise, and making any additional material to the body ....
UNQUOTE
Nobody has claimed that Nike Adeosun forged the NYSC exemption document herself. So this Section does not apply to her.
But even with the forger, mens rea of knowledge and intent must be proven. A man may for example like copying documents as a hobby, , and he puts them in his unlocked cabinet. Then it gets stolen and someone who KNOWS that they are fake uses them fraudulently- utters them The hobbyist is reckless but not guilty of forgery. The utterer is guilty as Section 468 now says.....
(2) uttering a forged document, that is using, propagating a forged document for advantage of yourself or a third party. Section 468 of Nigeria's Criminal Code says as follows
Quote
Anybody who knowingly and fraudulently utters a false document or writing, or a counterfeit seal , is guilty of an offence of the same kind, and is lisble to the same punishment as if he had forged the thing in question
Unquote
..."....which knowing and fraudulently....". Thus, mens rea must be proven for uttering, as well as the forger.
So where did you get your "strict liabilty" definition for forgery in Nigeria's Criminal Code, and in any case why are you not making a distinction between forgery and uttering of forgery?
As to the citizenship controversy of Kemi Adeosun, she was born in 1967, when automatic UK citizenship was afforded her, and long before 1983 when that privilege was terminated.
QuoteIf you were born in the UK or a British colony before 1 January 1983
You became a British citizen on 1 January 1983 if both of the following apply:
- you were a citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) on 31 December 1982
- you had the 'right of abode' in the UK
This includes people who were born in a British colony and had the 'right of abode' in the UK.
It also includes people who:
<p style="border:none; margin:15px 0px; padding:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:nta,Arial,sans-
- were born in the UK
- have been naturalised in the UK
- had registered as a citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC)
- could prove legitimate descent from a father to whom one of these applies
serif; line-height:1.25; color:rgb(1
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment