Jonathan, Senate, AGF Sued Over Boko Haram Amnesty

An Abuja-based lawyer, Mr Silas Onu has dragged the Federal Government to court over the proposed amnesty programme for Islamist sect Boko Haram.
The recently inaugurated Presidential Committee on the programme had earlier suffered ‘setback’ as some nominees rejected their nomination into the committee. They were replaced early enough for the inauguration.
The suit filed at a Federal High Court in Abuja by Mr. Onu through his lawyer Mr. Edwin Inegede, is challenging the federal government’s amnesty for the Niger Delta militants and the Boko Haram sect. He wants the court to halt the ongoing amnesty programme for Niger Delta militants as well as stop the proposed amnesty programme for the Islamic insurgents.
The federal government had in June, 2009 signed an offer of unconditional amnesty for members of the Niger Delta militants which was followed by setting up on April 24th, 2013, of a committee for granting of amnesty to the Boko Haram sect.
Mr. Onu contended that the office of the President has no constitutional powers to grant amnesty to “any group of persons or individuals who have not been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence created by an act of the Senate and House of Representatives as provided for in section 1 and 175 of the 1999 constitution.
The defendants in the suit include the President Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation.
Mr. Onu also wants the court to determine whether the President has the powers to set up an amnesty project and expend tax payers’ monies for the running and maintaining of the beneficiaries, and also determine whether the Senate and House of Representatives, who have not enacted any laws in accordance to sections 11 (1) and 3(3) of the 1999 constitution, can appropriate funds or accommodate or permit howsoever the use of public funds for the running of any amnesty programme, or maintenance of any group of persons or individuals who have been granted amnesty by the President.
The six claims he made against the defendants include, a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of section 1 and 175 of the 1999 constitution and in the absence of any other law enacted by the National Assembly, that the President lacks the constitutional powers and capacity to grant amnesty to unidentified group of persons or individuals who have not been investigated, charged or convicted of any offence by the appropriate bodies charged with carrying out the investigation, prosecution and conviction of these group persons or individuals.
The lawyer also wants the court to declare that the operation of the amnesty programme of the President, by setting up offices and maintaining the beneficiaries of the project from public funds without any legal instrument or an act of the National Assembly, is ultra vires the powers of the President and as such is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
He wants the court to stop the President from continuing with the amnesty programme, or to use public funds for such project, unless such is in terms with the provisions of section 175 of the 1999 constitution or any other enacted by the National Assembly.