Hello, everybody. This is another episode of upfront with me at leaflet. Today we have two very distinguished guests to noted jurist, former judge of the Supreme Court of India justice local who headed the social justice branch of the court for many years. It's one of the rare judges who has been very vocal and voicey for us on the issues of human rights, civil liberties and judicial activism, and we have in the adjacent. Again, a very noted human rights lawyer and former additional solicitor general of India. Welcome to a friend program at the leaflet justice local. I would like to start with you justice local. You, since you retired, have been writing a series of papers and articles on the issue of civil liberties and fundamental rights and it has been a concern in a country increasingly over the last few years, the way the state has been suppressing freedom of speech, and has been denying civil liberties to many people who have been incarcerated on supposedly seemingly flimsy charges. You wrote a recent piece. This is in the wake of the Delhi High Court judgment on Natasha Narwal Devangana, Caleta and acidic balls bail application. Where the Delhi High Court interpreted you a PA in a certain way before giving bail to the three student activists, and you pointed out five questions. So I'd like to start with that justice local. What is the biggest concern with the way of one the the Delhi High Court interpreted you a PA and then following which the Supreme Court had state order, practically state order. Yes, thank you. You know, first of all, I just want to clarify that I have not commented on the judgment of the Delhi High Court. In fact, I've said that in the first paragraph itself that I'm not being any comment on the judgment of the Delhi High Court. I was only concerned with the process that was involved in the initially refusal of bail by the trial code. But as far as the interpretation of the law is concerned by the Delhi High Court. So you have to go back into the provisions of the UAPA. And while doing that you have to go back to the provisions of Tata terrorist and disruptive activities act photo prevention of terrorism act and then comes UAPA. Essentially, I believe that bail is a matter of right, you know, it's not a matter of vision for the judge, of course, the judge has to, you know, also you use his discretion is our discretion granting refusing to grant me and imposing conditions, but it's really a matter of right, which right can be curtailed or stopped on the basis of submissions made by the prosecution. Now, if you look at it from that point of view, under Tata, it was said that that was the first law 1987. It was said that they can be refused if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the offense. Okay. Now, how do you say that a person is not guilty of the offense. The person who is accused of the offense will say, listen, I'm not guilty. All right. Now, the public prosecutor has to be heard, he will say he's guilty. So the court will have to see why the public prosecutor is saying he's guilty. It will also have to see why the accused is saying he's not guilty. So they will have to be this, you know, arguments back and forth, so to speak, that the court will have to look into and then come to a conclusion that I think that there are reasonable grounds for believing that this person is guilty. In POTA, it was more or less the same, right, except that instead of reasonable grounds for believing, they said grounds for believing. Okay, but really that doesn't make much of a difference because it still has to be reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty. Now, if you look at it in that light under UAPA, the bail provision says reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. Okay. Now, in all three statutes, both the sides have to be heard. Otherwise, an accused will say that listen, why are you hearing the other side?  And these are the reasons I'm giving you why I'm not guilty, don't hear the other side. But that would be a very strange sort of a situation. So similarly, under UAPA, if the prosecution says that listen, I think there are reasonable grounds for believing that what I'm saying is prima facie true. The accused can say listen, this public prosecutor is not giving the entire truth, or there are no reasonable grounds for believing that what he is saying is prima facie true. So there has to be a hearing of both the sides. And this is something which has been acknowledged by the Delhi High Court. And the Delhi High Court has then come to the conclusion after hearing both the sides said listen, we don't think there is any evidence against this person. And therefore, prima facie, we don't think that there is any ground for believing that the accusation made is prima facie true. That being the position, the provisions of UAPA are not attractive and therefore the persons are entitled to be. You know, it's a sequence that has been going on since 1987. And I think the conclusion of the Delhi High Court is logical in that sense. Besides the bail provisions and where you explained the process involved in disposing of the bail applications of the accused under the UAPA Act, you have also raised questions about the police process in the sense that how the charge sheets were not delivered on time, how the physical charge sheets were not given or perhaps deliberately denied. And even the registration of multiple FIRs, some of these FIRs seem to be more tactical. You also highlighted that how when accused got bailed in one FIR they were arrested in the court at the very same time when they were bailed out in the earlier FIR. And even when they were bailed by the Delhi High Court, that order was again forced on, which means that the police said that look, we have to verify the addresses. The all in culmination justice local, it seems that there was a witch hunt against the student activists and which you have highlighted, and this witch hunt doesn't restrict to this case. It has been going on in various other cases as well, which is the way the sedition law has been applied the way. I know the right to protest peacefully has been denied and an MP recently was arrested under sedition act and sedition law and was also tortured during police custody. So, is there a pattern in the way the state has been acting against those it believe are ideologically opposed to to its stance. Do you see a pattern. You know, I'm not sure whether it's only ideological, right. It's a question of disagreement also, in the sense that, you know, I may have the same ideology as a particular person but I don't agree with that person. You know, I don't agree with the policies of that person or the views of that person, even though the ideology may be the same. So it's not really, you know, so much ideological as a general pattern that if somebody does something wrong, you know, let's fix that person.  And, you know, come back to this point that you just raised that that this this approach of talk to has is becoming a norm and the default rule by which the state is playing. But I'd before that I'd like like to ask Indra one question Indra. You know you have been representing the behemoth Corrigan accused. What is your interpretation of a terrorist act, because while deciding the bail application of the three student activists we just spoke about the Delhi I called had to go into the definitional issues, which is section 15 what is a terrorist act whether they were the prime office I case of terrorism. According to you, what is terrorism is inciting a riot, an act of terrorism. I will also preface my comments with a caveat. You point out that I'm representing some of the accused in the behemoth Corrigan case and the matters of Judas. So I will not refer to the facts of that case. However, you know that worldwide, we don't have a standardized definition of what is terrorism. All we have is what is a terrorist act. Now, I would however like to put on the table my definition of terrorism for the reading of international law at the heart of the issue of terrorism is intimidation an act of intimidation. So, what is terrorism it is intimidating the government to do or not to do something. The impact of which is felt by ordinary citizens of that state, ordinary citizens of India, I would say. For example, you might say that the hijacking of the aircraft at Kandahar was an act of terrorism because demands were made release on so on so on so on. And failing which the aircraft will be blown up.  My approach to the question that you raised is to look at the plain meaning of the section. Now I would like to draw your attention to the plain wording of section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. And this is what it says, whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten. Now please listen carefully to these words, the unity, the integrity, the security, the economic security, brought in by an amendment by the UPA government, or the sovereignty of India over the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people. Now pause here. This is intelligent thinking people. We know the distinction between an act, which threatens the unity of India, the integrity of India, the security of India, and the sovereignty of India. And there is some ambiguity about the use of the word sovereignty, but in my opinion, it is used here in the top context of unity integrity and it's probably meant to refer to territorial sovereignty. What I have noticed in actual practice is that this section is invoked in the case of an ordinary act of violence. By the way, the section also requires to be a terrorist act, the use of deadly weapons, which cause death or likely are likely to cause death, etc. So what I've found is that looking at the cases that are registered in India, I have found that none of those, even state in the FIR, that there was an attempt to attack or threaten the unity or integrity or sovereignty of India. What I think here is the way this law is being interpreted by the police, the prosecution, the decision makers is that they collapse the difference between government and India. As Justice Nogur pointed out, you may disagree with the policy of the government of India. You may dissent. You may oppose. You may protest. It doesn't amount to an attack on India. And I think it's very important for us to make that distinction between an attack on India and an attack on a policy of a government. Otherwise, we're liable to end up in a situation where you say the government is India and India is the government. So you say a particular individual in the government is India and India is that one individual. So we really need to distinguish between the two. And my, I've been saying for very long, every riot is an offense under the Indian people call, but not every rise is an act of terrorism. This is the essential difference that we need to make when we are looking at laws. Right. So, fine, but there are, but there are riots and then there are organized riots. So what if there are organizations who by slogany ring by organizing meetings by giving call to people to arms of first create an environment of of communal disharmony, communal discord.  What is that is not an ordinary riot. This is a very organized riot and it strikes terror in the people. Is it not terrorism. She's rather than talking abstractly. I think we need to refer to real life situations. I'm talking to real life situations. So suppose Naroda party in 2002. Yeah, we have now convictions both by the trial court and also by the high court conviction. Yes, by the high court. That's right. Yes, if I can just refer to the trial court judgment where the judge actually uses the world terrorism, while convicting them and says that they struck terror in the people. So, yes. Is that not terrorism. So, when I was referring to real life situations I really wanted to come back to the some of the most recent what we have come to describe as programs we don't even call them rights anymore. And there is a there was a debate in the public domain that you don't even call it a program you call it genocide. Okay. So, we know what happened in 1992 post the demolition of the boundary mustard we've also seen good job 2002. And I would, I would say that yes, those are cases where your section 15 of the UFA, I could have been invoked but one also and also 1984 rights. That's right. That is right. 1984, as well. I would say that those are cases where section 15 of the act could have been invoked, but was not invoked. And so that brings you to the question. How come this act is not invoked in situation like that, whereas it is invoked for somebody like the show Ravi or Natasha, or, or any of the recent cases that we've seen. Yeah. Now, so the only conclusion I can draw is that prosecution in this country is a political act. And let us not forget that who launches the prosecution right who launches it it's the police and who is the police accountable to the police at the end of the day in this country is accountable to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Right. So, although the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot interfere with an investigation that's the law. But the act of invocation itself of a particular law becomes a political act. And in that sense, I think we are seeing an ideological use of the law justice, you asked the question. Justice local respondent, but it is an ideological use of the law. I can give you examples but their subject is in the case of the Makorega. I have raised the issue in my petition of what we now call selective prosecution. Why go to be my career. Let's have a look at West Bengal. The Sudrendra, Adikari, and Mukul Roy were not prosecuted in relation to the same Narada scam for which sitting ministers of the West Bengal government were arrested. So this is an act of selective prosecution which is valid of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I'd like to go back to justice local justice local Indra pointed out by giving various, you know, real life examples about the political misuse of laws and all laws are susceptible to misuse some more than others. There is a user law theory which is that you give any law in the hands of the police and you show me the man I will show you the law. But this is where the role of the judiciary becomes very, very important, especially in the case of national security legislation and anti-security, anti-terrorism laws, the way they are applied. So sedition, waging war against the nation, preventive detention act, earlier Tadapota now UAPA. So what is, according to you justice local, the role of the judiciary, especially the role of the magistrate, the role of the lower judiciary when dealing with these cases where prime of his side there appears to be an abuse of law. Well, I think the, you know, the judiciary has to be alive to situations. It just can't, you know, I don't accept that ivory tower theory at all. The judiciary has to be alive to situations. Now, you know, you have grades of offenses, right? Worst offense, if I may use that expression is terrorism. Then you have something a little lower down in the ladder under the UAPA you have something about an unlawful activity. Unlawful activity has been defined as sovereignty integrity of India and session and session. Then you have IPC offenses. All right. Now you have sedition, for example. Sedition talks about causing exciting or tending to excite disaffection against India. That is sedition. Now, in one of these statutes, I think it is, yeah, it's in UAPA. Causing or intending to cause disaffection is an activity with most terrorism and it's an activity which amounts to unlawful activity under the UAPA. Okay. So, now you have the same act, the same act can be a person can be prosecuted under the IPC for sedition 124A. The same person can be prosecuted under the UAPA for an unlawful activity. Punishments are different. Provisions are different in terms of, you know, bail and so on. But the offense is the same. The definition is more or less the same one uses the word exciting, you know, the other one says causing. So, the judiciary has to make that distinction. And this is one of the distinctions which the Delhi High Court has made in a sense where they say that, listen, if it can be done under the IPC, prosecute that person under the IPC, why do you have to go to UAPA? All right. So, because UAPA is a much harsher provision in terms of punishment and so on. So, don't use that, you know, if the same result can be achieved by IPC. But if you think it is something, you know, much greater. Now, in this case, much greater would have to be terrorism. So, unless you equate sedition with terrorism, you proceed against a person for sedition under IPC. And this, you know, of nature which perhaps comes in the definition of unlawful activity, I don't find I can't say what would come under the definition of unlawful activity. A seditious act which would come under the definition of unlawful activity then you proceed under UAPA. Not that because I have the power to proceed under UAPA, forget about IPC, I'll proceed against under UAPA. And that distinction has to be made and appreciated by the judicial because you are not dealing with an ordinary case. You're not dealing with an ordinary person. The case is one of terrorism or not of terrorism. Right. The person is a terrorist or not a terrorist. You're dealing with the life and liberty of that person, supposing he's not a terrorist. And it's not a case of terrorism. And you put that person behind bars, you're all right, you know, I'm throwing away the piece. The consequences are very serious. That is the difference which I think the judiciary should appreciate. Right. So Justice Locour, this has been a perennial problem, which is of misuse abuse misapplication of anti terror laws, right from the mid 80s since we had Tata in place, then came pota. It is well documented justice Locour that both under Tata, then under pota and now under UAPA, a large number of people who are detained and prosecuted eventually get acquitted. Now, the question still remains after three decades of our living lived experience with special extraordinary anti terror laws. How can we achieve sufficient judicial oversight of police and prosecutorial decision making. I think that question still remains at large and what can the Supreme Court do to ensure that there is enough accountability and enough. As you pointed out that the lower judiciary is alive to the situation. You see the Supreme Court has said in Prakash Singh's case, long time back, that there must be separation between the investigation and the prosecution. Right, not in the middle. All right, that's one. The second thing is about, you know, the judiciary being alive to all this. Now, yes, there is misuse. Yes, there is abuse. But what about, you know, National Security Act that is also being abused. Right. In the newspapers, I found a very strange write up. Madhya Pradesh, I go set aside the preventive retention of a person because he was selling oxymeters at an inflated price. Right. Now, I don't know how much an oxymeter cost, maybe 1000, 2000 rupees. He couldn't have been selling it for one lakh or something.  He's been selling it for 2000, 3000, 4000, whatever it is. He may have sold hundreds of them. Is that a question of national security? Right, so when you have these laws and they are abused, the judiciary has to come hard on the abuse. Nambi Narayan. Right, the court said, Supreme Court said, listen to the big cost compensation. Okay, 50 lakhs, I think. Now, in a situation like this, the fellow was in jail for about 50 days. Why can't the court say, what kind of bogus preventive retention order you have issued? Big cost. Now, unless the court comes down heavily on the abuse of the law, I'm not saying misuse, they can be different views. The trial court thinks it's a misuse, high court thinks it's not a misuse, judgments can be reversed. But abuse is pretty clear. Right. So there, I think the court should come down and tell them what is going on. Right. And you pay compensation for whatever. Right. Ms. Jai Singh, I would like to ask you, Justice Lokore has very eloquently spoken about that how each of these cases need to be more effectively, judiciously dealt by the judiciary at various levels. From your experience as an additional Solicitor General. Do you believe that state can prevent terrorism while also simultaneously guaranteeing human rights, or must the police and the state trade off some human right protections to effectively prevent or punish acts of terror. Look, that'll be the end of the rule of law, the so called trade off. Yeah. So I think it's very important to say it loud and clear that what we are talking about here is the protection of the rule of law. Equal, equality for following equal protection of law.  And therefore this trade off. Yeah. But you know, I can tell you you wanted my experience as an ASG let me tell you as an ASG is handling a lot of cases on behalf of the CBI and prosecuting people against whom cases have been filed including police officers. And I can tell you that in the Surabhudin case, which is more than famous notorious as a case in this country. Council, or get up in court and argue my Lord, we should be thankful. By the way, on behalf of the accused police officer, these comments are made in court. My Lords, we should be thankful that a dreaded criminal has been done to death. We should not be prosecuting the police officers who have done them to death, even if it was done extra judicially. Now, what amazed me is that a submission like that is made in the highest court of the land and the judges. Listen, keep silent. I don't know what goes on in the minds of judges. So I leave that comment over there. But but Ashish, I would like to say that our disappointment often is with the highest court of the land that is the Supreme Court of India. We have noticed in the recent past high courts have been giving judgments which you could characterize as within the bounds of rule of law and therefore progressive. For example, I am deeply disappointed by the fact that the Supreme Court said, while admitting the appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, this will not be treated as a precedent. Now I have a comment to make on this. I would have I would have welcomed the admission of this appeal because we would like to see that interpretation endorsed by the Supreme Court of India. And it is not my case that this appeal should not have been admitted. You know the race against time to get these people released on bail and I fear that if they were not already out then the Supreme Court may even have had the opportunity to stay the operation of the bail order but that's just speculation. What is on the table is an order which says it shall not be treated as a precedence now. You know, in law, the it is only a judgment given under Article 142 where the Supreme Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction to do complete justice that they can say in the facts and circumstances this will not be treated as a precedence. What are the judgments of any court, including a constitutional court, which is a high court and a Supreme Court. No one not even the Supreme Court can say it shall not operate as a precedent, because a precedent operates off its own force. It doesn't. It is not binding the only question is what is the binding value of a precedent. The judgment of the Delhi High Court will not bind any other high court in the country they can use it as a persuasive judgment, but to say that this cannot even be cited in another court it shall not be treated as a precedent. So everything goes beyond the four corners of the law so therefore we are disappointed. And what really matters is judgments of the Supreme Court because they operate as the law throughout the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India We do. You did ask the question to Justice Locour earlier that what can we do about a magistrate who refuses to read the plain text of the law and say look this is not an offense under UAPA, but my question is a bigger question. My question is what do we do. The answer to that is only the Supreme Court can correct what we call subordinate courts and therefore we should focus our attention on what the Supreme Court does and doesn't do. Justice Locour you I'm again going back to one of your articles where you wrote about the rule of law and in that article you wrote about the culture of impunity, and you said confidence of the police that its conduct will not be inquired into leads to a culture of impunity. Now when the police over and over again in cases gets away with blood on its hands or gets away with the stifling of free speech or civil liberties. You think that this is leading to a state of affairs where there is terror in the hearts and minds of the people who'd known necessarily agree with the government of the day. And this will eventually erode, not just the rule of law but it will also eventually erode the very democracy of which we are so proud of. Yes, you see, it's like this, it's actually not only the police, you know, but it's also bodies like the organizations like the enforcement directorate, for example, or the narcotics control view. Now, if these, you know, authorities get away with doing something wrong, I mean something which is patently wrong. It is definitely going to, you know, have an impact on society. And that's why I think it's, you know, broader question than the ideological thing. Now, the enforcement directorate for example may not necessarily be concerned about ideology. Okay, but they can still, you know, get after the person, NCB, they may not be concerned about ideology, but they can still get after a person, somebody like Rhea Chakravarti, for example. Right, she was not opposing the government or anything, but they got after her. So once these, you know, bodies like the police, NCB, media, whatever, you know, once they know that nothing is going to happen to us, if we do something wrong, then fine, you know, we can take the law into our own hands. And that's when the rule of law becomes compromised, so to speak. And that is what we have to be careful about. Right. And you have also at various points spoken about compassion and expeditious justice and access to justice. And compassion is one element which we saw in your term when you were heading the social justice branch of the Supreme Court, which we increasingly find lacking. Not only when it comes to, say, disposing of bail applications, but also in various other cases like, you know, PILs filed for say migrant laborers or people who are displaced because of the overnight imposition of lockdown. And so many other cases. I would like to ask you, what do you think is the future of the of the social justice jurisprudence in the country. You think that the social justice jurisprudence in the country has suffered a setback over the last few years in the way the higher judiciary has over and over again by sided with the executive and for one reason or the other failed to give enough saccharine relief to the dispossess and the underprivileged. Yeah, I think it has suffered a setback. I'm pretty clear about that. You know, we are talking when we talk about social justice in the context of the social justice bench, we are talking about disadvantage persons, right marginalized persons. Now, you had the situation of last year, you know, of the migrants. Now, obviously, on the face of it, they were disadvantaged and they had to trudge back home when a girl had to, you know, cycle, I think 1000 kilometers or something with the father. Right. Now, if the board says that listen, So what is this migration. Then there's something wrong. You know, you can't, you can't just ignore the plight of millions of people. Okay, even hundreds of people, you can't ignore it. You have homeless people, you have people who are unable to, you know, the cost of this COVID treatment. First of all, going to a hospital, spending money in the hospital. A lot of people have got impoverished because of that. Can you say when, you know, what can, what can we do about it? We can't do anything about it.  We don't even treat prisoners of war in that way. Why should we treat our own people like that? So I think compassion is very, very important. And social justice is very important. But over the years, I think, you know, things like, you know, the economy or economic justice has distinguished from socio economic justice. And these have been highlighted. How do you see the case of Stan Swami, an 85 year old Jesuit priest where he had to go to the courts or in Oregon for something as basic as a sipper or a straw. Yeah, that's a question of compassion. You know, if I remember correctly, correctly, if I'm wrong, the jail authority said there's no provision. There's no rule or whatever in the prison manual would say that you're entitled to a sipper or a straw. But is there a rule that says that you cannot be given a straw? There's no such rule. So if he asked for a straw, why can't it be given to him? You know, why is it that a negative is used to deny something to a person?  He's just going to drink water or, you know, whatever he wants to drink with it. He can't start a revolution or something with a straw. That's where compassion comes in. And then you say you go to court. Now, fine.  But supposing a lawyer says, no, no, no, you see, I need my fees. And he quotes a figure of, you know, four figures for a straw, you know, which you can buy a packet of straws, I think about 50 to be the 100 rupees or something. And what does he want? He just wants one straw. He doesn't want 100 straws. That's where compassion comes in. You know, or you have a situation like this Natasha where her father died. Has there to be an argument that, oh, you know, she wants to go, her father has died. It doesn't have to be an argument on that. Yeah. That's where compassion comes in. Yes. And if that is lacking, you know, we're in trouble. Right.  You know, as a former judge of the Supreme Court, as a, as a, as a jurist, you think that these kind of broad immunities, whether by convention or by law, which have been granted to government officials and state functionaries. They are the justified and necessary. And like, not at the very spirit of the rule of law. Yeah, I think we have to have a real look at all this. We have to have a real look. In that case of Benny and his father in Tutikorin, you know, who were bashed up and they died. Right. What has happened to the police? Yeah. It's been about a year or a year and a half. I don't know. What happened to those people who you know, staged an encounter or there wasn't an encounter one doesn't even know what happened. When those four people were killed. Right. What happened to that person who was killed in an encounter or was trying to run away near Kanpur. He was killed. These are instances which are a year old, if not more contrast this with George Floyd. Yes. It's been a year that policeman has been convicted and sentenced. Yeah. And we are still trying to figure out, you know, whether the people who bashed up Benny and his father, Benny and his father died. It's not that they were only bashed up. They died. We are still trying to figure out, you know, what happened. Yeah. It can't be like that. So we have to, we have to, you know, revisit all this. Yes. Otherwise, we're inviting trouble. You know, if you say, it's a part of life. You know, as we're going on for the last over the years, a couple of years, but in the next couple of years, we can do it. If I may ask you, from your 50 years of long experience dealing with cases of human right violations and violations of civil liberties. How do you think one can ensure that special courts and special procedures enacted under anti terror laws follow judicial independence and the requisites of a fair trial. Ashish, I don't think I can answer this question without raising a few larger issues in this discussion and what I have noticed is that as we speak goalposts are changed. Now, if you amend the law and say this is not the law, how do you expect a lawyer to go to court and argue. Well, this is the law. Let me give you a couple of examples. If you take article 370 of the Constitution of India, all you need to do is to amend the law and say, the state government shall mean the central government. You've changed the goalpost throughout your life you've been arguing that is the state which will take a decision what is the future of JNK and suddenly you turn around and say, no, it's a central government. I can give you any number of examples of this you take the CAA. Okay, I've grown up all my life thinking that almost thinking that everybody who was born in this country is a citizen though citizenship in our country is not only based on birth but then in a very creeping fashion you have laws which say no, both your parents must have been of Indian origin then you say one of them.  So, I think there are, there are, you know, much, how does one answer a question like that. Okay, if you want to know my feeling I can tell you my feeling I don't have an answer but when I started my practice as a social justice lawyer. I was under the impression that one just has to argue for social and economic rights and then this country will be in a state of paradise if we can just eliminate poverty. That's that's our only problem. But today if you ask me the same question I will say I'm sorry I was very mistaken. What I need more than my economic and my social rights is my political and civil rights. And because why because your civil and political rights gives you the right to speak up. Right. And I think that the people we are talking about whether they are marginalized or whether they are political dissidents they have only one weapon in that armory, and that is their voice.  Okay, there is nothing left to argue for then you can, you know, you can give a person as much food as you want you can give that person as much clothing and housing as you want but if you don't give them the right to speak. You have achieved nothing so I think we need to understand why is it in this country that the goalpost is changing all the time why is the secular character of the country being dismantled brick by brick. I have an answer to that question. I don't think we can people like me who are not in the judiciary on the other side. I'm my tools for advocating for justice, having taken away systematically. And then what are you left with you're left to the mercy of the Supreme Court now, we are not supposed to be left to the mercy of the Supreme Court. We are dependent on the law, and the law is a tool it's a very powerful tool in our hands so I would argue for the return of that tool as we speak, Ashish. Justice Locor is surely aware of the fact that the bar council of India has just issued rules to say that you can criticize the judiciary. And if you do, you'll be disqualified as a lawyer now. How can I answer your question Ashish, I have no answers. To be left to the to be left at the disposal of the Supreme Court. If I can go back to Justice Locor, which is this a new trend has emerged in the last few years which is the tactical registration of FIRs. It's something you say something you write and then different complainants in different parts of the country they register in FIR coming emanating from the same act or same article that I wrote. Again, the Supreme Court has dealt with these kind of tactical registration of FIR or this kind of abuse of territorial jurisdiction also in a very uneven manner. So, again, Justice Locor you wrote an article where you contrasted the Arnav Goswami case with the Amish Devgan case and those two cases also with other cases where there was not a relief for many other people who are on the receiving So, how do you deal with this, this new pattern that is emerging in a country that a writer and author, an activist is susceptible to facing simultaneous prosecutions possible prosecution in different parts of the country for for something as simple as writing an article. Yes, again, that that is an area that has to be looked at right and it's not only territorial, it is it can be a multiple FIRs. For example, you write an article in Delhi today. Alright, somebody is unhappy with the article. And let me tell you this is not something which is new, it is something which has happened in the past. So, you write an article and somebody, you know, in the Northeast files an FIR against you. Okay, now according to Delhi Police, it takes three days to go by Rajasthani from Delhi to Gohati. That's what the Delhi Police told the trial judge when they wanted to verify Devangana Katta's address. So somebody files the case against you in some village or some, you know, district of Nagaland. Another person files something against you in Jammu and Kashmir, somebody files against you in Kerala or Lakshadvik, right, it's not really to go, somebody in Andaman's. Okay, now, should that be permitted? You know, so this is something which has to be looked at, now this is sheer harassment. You know, the police says you can't go to all these six, seven different places. So you have a problem not only of territory, but you have a problem of multiple FIRs filed against you. Now, when I said this has happened in the past, there was a time, you know, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the check is bounced. Now somebody in Maharashtra for example, somebody in Karnataka for example, gives a check which bounces. This person opens a bank account in Sikkim, right, and gets a notice issued from Sikkim and says you've come to Sikkim. Now, should that be permitted? You know, so we have to look at these laws because today, many of them are being procedure laws. Many of them are being misused if not abused. So we need to have a fresh look at many of these things, right. So I think this whole business of writing articles and 10 FIRs being filed against you and 10 different parts of the country is nothing but sheer abuse. How many people can actually go to the Supreme Court and say that listen, there are 10 FIRs against me and you please club them and send them to one place? Yeah, everybody can't go to the Supreme Court. Okay, but now I think what has happened, which I think is very, very interesting. There was some person who was to be, who was summoned by Delhi Police few days ago. He said, I'm not coming. All right, so the Delhi Police said you go to his house and you question him over there, interrogate him over there. So they went to his house and they interrogated him. Probably the interrogation was not complete, whatever I do know. Then now the police, all right, now you appear before us through video conferencing. Okay, very good. Now, Karnataka High Court has also passed a similar order with regard to the Chief of Twitter in India that the police in UP can examine him through video conferencing. Do that. Then the police will also come to their senses. So you don't have to bring Disha Ravi from Bangalore to Delhi to question one. You can be done through video conferencing. Yes. Right. I think, I think this is something which, you know, people should take advantage of that you if you want to someone somebody and interrogate him through video conferencing. Let's see what happens. Right. And I would just like to end this conversation justice local with one final question which is before the judiciary, especially the higher judiciary, some very profound questions of credibility are looming large, especially when large number of people in this country, they believe that the process of justice is very uncertain, expensive and torturous. As a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Do you feel concerned about the diminishing faith in judicial relief that a common man expects from the highest course of this country. I do feel concerned certainly certainly you see it's like this. The judiciary has had bad times in the past. But there has to be the will to bounce back. And unless that will is shown by the Supreme Court, things may not improve.  The emergency was over in 77. In 79, you started getting these judgments of local standard being relaxed. In the case, you had public interest litigation for two years, and maybe less than two years for the Supreme Court to bounce back. But there was a will at that time. I don't know whether today there's a will or there is no will. Perhaps the Supreme Court can bounce back. But if it is a kind of attitude, there's a problem. Yeah, Indra, if I can come back to you for one final question as a civil rights lawyer with 50 years long practice. What do you think is the role of lawyers like you to ensure that judiciary is one alive to the ground reality, and is also alive to the need of a very expeditious and effective relief to people who have been wrong by the state. What what role do you think lawyers like you can play. It is no longer possible to play a role only inside the courts. I think advocacy for civil rights has to be done inside and outside the courts. Yeah. And the so that's one. So that's one way in which I think we can move forward. You know, at the heart of this debate is a political issue. What is the idea of India do we want to see an India, which is being secularism is being dismantled. And, or do we want to fight for the preservation of secularism, whether it's inside or outside the courtroom I see that as a major role of civil rights always because it's only in a secular framework that people like us will get justice, not in a framework which is, which has a judicial Hindutva state would make it impossible for any rights adjudication to take place because in that case you don't need a court right you your your rights are then guaranteed by government and you don't need a court to go to. So that is one that is one role that I see. And of course the other is to, you know, inside a courtroom to keep raising these issues without fear, I think, look, the, there is a major problem with the with the way the legal system functions. First, there is in the judiciary and in the legal profession, the institution of dynasty. Okay. The second thing is that most lawyers seem to think that their success depends on their finding favor with judges. And here is where I think that the legal profession needs to undergo a road change. And we, a direct answer to your question is to argue fearlessly, politely and in a dignified manner before a judge, your point of view, without worrying that you're going to lose I would suggest no compromises be made on what you see as the proposition of law as the correct proposition of law and not just end up with with ad hoc orders that ad hocism in the judiciary has gone very far. And I must say that I don't enjoy arguing my cases in in a quarter of law in an ad hoc manner. I think in the future, it is your, it is your skills your forensic skills as a lawyer be grounded in constitutionalism, which is the way forward for civil rights lawyers in this country. Thank you so much justice local. Thank you, Miss Indra for speaking to the leaflet and for this very illuminating and informative conversation on accountable jurisprudence on compassionate jurisprudence on the rule of law, and a very very topical issue which is off the anti-terror and security laws and their possible misuse and misapplication. I believe that there will, there is no other area of law which is being more vigorously contested and debated than the issues related to law of sedition and the Supreme Court of India has finally agreed to hear the constitutionality of section 124A, which is a law of sedition all over again. And I believe that the 2019 amendment of the UAPA is also under a challenge for its constitutional validity. So we'll hear more from the Supreme Court, more from noted jurists like Justice Locour and Indra in the coming days on on issues of human rights and civil liberties and their interplay with the laws of the land. Hope to see you soon in one new episode of leaflet with where we'll be talking on a similar issue of public importance. Thank you for watching.


As a breakfast in plus TV Africa many thanks for being part of the show this morning. We start off with G.D. Johnson. He joins the conversation via Phone or zoom if you like to say this morning, and we're looking at the front pages of a national dealies We call it after-press G.D. Johnson is good to have you join us They pledged to be with you messy and go fiat with a lot of ideas already what good money Like before my correct. Good morning to G.D. Johnson All right, Boko Haram and Sarah terrorists now in Kaduna ever fire cries out That's the board caption for the leadership this morning confirms 360% killed in Kaduna in three months another for student kidnapped in Gideon Gidan wire and troops rescue 63 civilians kill 60 criminals as 1627 terrorists surrender victims family one against Kaduna train resumption and You also have quick notice video or an easy once against on guarded statement Statutory delegate non-assent to amend electoral act will affect primaries. This is what? the House of Representatives has quoted to say and After mayhem FCT minister shorts the dire market electoral act South courts to hear the shoot on weather pointers must resign to contest every don't know why this is You know a major bone of contention President Muhammad a Buhari inaugurates 200 I beg your pardon 23 billionaire water project in Bouchie and Gander J for straighted me out of APC Coral is quoted on that the headlines on the leash leadership this morning All right, let's go straight to the next newspaper. This is a daily independent terrorists now in two local government areas Of Katoona state governor L5 bandits kidnapped four female students So look at that when they play in a first segment On our main discussion more from the daily independent despite promotion Magus case still on this is coming from the minister of police affairs He says he will face prosecution if indicted by the salami panel Interesting at the top of that front page or caravan June 1 deadline won't stop enforcement. This is coming from the Lagos state government with a rider Riders police clash is no pun intended But I'm of course are talking about the clash in Ojo local government area of Lagos state PDP rejects tenor extension for FCT council chairman Counselors decries judgment vows to drag judge to NJC PDP rejects tenor extension for FCT council chairman Counselors decries judgment vows to drag Judge to NJC Buhari signs national health authority bill into law leaves for UAE Targets 83 million poor Nigerians for coverage Supreme court joins rivers AG speaker and suit against section 84 sub 12. This is of course the Electro Act 2022 Tension persists as a Booja traders lament market closure Police arrest suspected killers of inspector recover arms in emo and at the bottom of that front page I'm vying as Nigerian presidential aspirant not Northern aspirant is coming from law and those are the headlines on the front page of the daily independent All right away from the daily independence. We take a look at the punch newspaper this morning presidential primaries and certainty over apc PDP delegate list as boharie delays electoral act Uh, okay Nobody has exact number of delegates for presidential primary Vaughan digits quoted on that an apc begs inek for extension And inek is still saying we're not shifting grounds because third of june still remains The vice president's team denies hotel plan for delegates And legos airport shot temporarily flights divoted over managed I take that again Legos airport shot temporarily flight divoted over the man-girl cops on runway And federal government moves to end as a strike begins arrears payment Okay Can backs kumu you south is crusade acts ipop to embrace peace 29 state lack insurance cover for workers bencon is quoted on that You also find we must re-strategize for nigeria to change says, uh, the former president lushagon or basandro and uh Anambra gunman shun soludo 60 day peace offer continue reign of terror Planned resumption of trained service insensitive says abductees family And devolution of powers key to national development. Akira dolu is quoted on that 7256 Nigerian nurses left for the united kingdom in a year This is according to the report And you still find interesting headlines bought for the want of time. We'll just leave it at that Let's uh bring this to a berth with the headlines on the front page of the nation The leading one there pressure on apc governor's over tickets for senator's reps pressure on apc governor's over tickets for senator's reps akity 2022 sdp apc disagree over attack on all knees or on onis Running mate sdp apc disagree over attack on onis running mate. That's a former governor of uh, Akity state who had to decamp to the sdp ex-chairman predicts landslide victory for apc Our store last glory in education says pdp candidate interesting more from the paper l5 six wiping out of communities on kaduna abuja highway 360 killed 1389 kidnapped in three months Tinibu to bouchie a bouchie delegates You with you i will win tinibu to bouchie delegates with you i will win of course a minister of transportation Rotimi and michi who is also presidential aspirant On the platform of the apc had been there as well seems bouchie is um the toast of the presidential aspirants salamis panel Salami panels report on magu stalled two years after Many okada writers are criminals cp Alleges liga steps up ban enforcement and ipb to kumu ii No crusade is what they're saying. These are some of the headlines on the front page of the nation We now bring in jillie johnson jillie johnson. Thanks again for your time. Let's begin with um The okada issue in the country we've had and seen what's been happening in liga state um yesterday We had the clash in our job between The law enforcement authorities and of course the okada men We can also look at what is happening or what happened at the day-day market in abuja the building materials market Where there was a clash between the traders and motorcycle operators commercial motorcycle operators Are these motorcycle operators becoming um a security threat or have they become a security threat? as a group to the country well, um if you check the source of the means of mobility or Terror is operating in the north east and in north central and in north West turn part of Nigeria to discover that That's their means of mobility what it does when it comes to what they used to cut away The rise they demanded for and some of the food items they demanded for for any other case to listen is just that Our leaders are fired away from reality and there is there is a racket that is that's ongoing with this process With respect to revenue generation either by State appointed agents or state recognized agents from these okada riders and That's why you see them in droves don't need anyone to tell you for example I've lived in my own committee for more than 40 years They are lived their kata their kata park has been taken over by people that are not Nigerians I've said it I've said this I've said this on on program on live programs many times. So It's it's it's there for everybody to see that The the threat is Is there is there is just we are sitting on the keg of gunpowder which we have pointed out You see the result with which these people We acted to this to this ban and then you see the political move with the governor of Lagos taking Massive votes if if the ban is overturned and Indian temple is a game of number But the nation that does not enforce this law There are rules that come on immigration. Most of these people riding these back are not even Nigerians and not even Nigerians They are shardians Nigerians and the rest and the rest of them We have said that to consider the cosmopolitan nature of Lagos and consider the maker of our roots and that there's a way which you go who are called regularizing and registering those data into that tree for example You could we could register them at the riders at the look government because let's be let's face reality our public transport system can Handle the volume of commuters that we have it take us we can't we can't Government must come up with a structure a structure in which that these people are registered They are legitimately registered There can be counter treason not that somebody would just sit somewhere and we We will import people from the jail from chat and we bring them to different parts of this country And then all you just do is to keep them a bike and the ride bike and the delivery It's the same thing with people that that collect arms on the street But we wait to see how government we enforce is known with respect with respect to that They are aware of all parks All you need to do is to say your cameraman and an reporter to go around and do And and do something around and look at the nationality Of these occurred and riders I can tell you for a fact and I can give you evidence From different parts that can be verified From different parks that have been overweb Faber junction In the faculty I look government In the faculty I look government in legacy It's a god it's a god but the junction in the faculty I look I've given you just three parts I've given you just that you can go right as I'm talking to you And you check the nationality of the people and they all spread around But I've heard this narrative over and over and over again Especially on the radio where I also have a program and I've asked those who come up with this Saying that most of the majority of the bikemen the Ocada riders we see in legal state are not Nigerians Where is your proof? Did you go around to conduct a research?  Did you have a sample size your lectures? So you understand the methodology for coming up with such Conclusions are we sure we're not, you know You know, we're not guessing or conjecturing here The most powerful true Of data garden of garden evidence Now when you interpret your data it comes to you that the most powerful tool that god has given to man The most potent research tool is observation Is observation That's one That's why when you give up to a kid a kid does not put the food in his nose The kid puts the food in his mouth because he has he has observed And see that people around him are putting food in their mouth and not in their nose or in their eyes Now that's one of the major in fact the primary tool of journalism is observation The primary tool of knowledge acquisition is observation to Like you said it's survey and i'm giving you three locations Three locations in terms of field study. It's my own personal experience I don't most people drive all the time I don't drive all the time sometimes I take bike and ask my son to bring the car to school Because I want to know what is happening in my environment as a researcher as a journalist I want to know what is happening in my environment So I take private buses sometimes I take nappet sometimes and I take and I take bike Sometimes in actual sense when I'm driving to school and the traffic is heavy I pack the car and I take bike and ask my son to bring the car or I leave the car at home So i'm talking from inspiration point of view So i'm sure what i'm talking about. They are not Nigerians. You can't say you report that All right, let's move away from this You can send me one of your reporter and I'll take your reporter out. I'll drive. I'll personally drive the reporter Gday Johnson Let's quickly move away from this and and look at the order issues on the front pages of national dailies I mean on the leadership newspaper. It talks about the governor of kaduna state nazi or edulfi confirming the presence of terrorist and You know the ansaru terrorizing the entire place And being responsible for when it was beating the voting when it was beating the voting criminality Negotiating with bandits when bandits are terrorizing southern kaduna Everything was politicized for political go now you have raced a Frankenstein muster And that has become a major problem for you. It's it's it's clear It's clear power to 2019 election that we see cognizance in this in the northwest part of the country going into The forest to negotiate with is only in Nigeria actually world criminality now the government is crying out now that two local government Have been taken over by terrorists in the state by the ansaru terrorists In the north is your government ansaru terrorist In the north is your bukwara in the north west and part of north center, which is neither you have You have this ansaru terrorist because over time state agents have negotiated with non-state actors And you have embodied them and it seems that it pays more to be To to it pays to commit crime than to to to respect law in in in Nigeria You see the quickness with which the police will react to arrest prosecute people For minor infractions, but here you see people committing crime against the state And yeah, they have been rewarded So it's not in him and it's not a surprise to me that terrorist has taken over To state it's not a true state. The government is doesn't economic have its truth There are two local governments in the Inignor state whatever Niger state Whatever we have in In his empire state and that's that's an impeachable There's an impeachable offence. It's an impeachable offense because every every government at every level promise to to protect the territorial integrity of the nation, one, which they have been made in France, two, to protect lives and property of the citizen, failure to do that government at whatever level. We seem to be having a disconnect with GD Johnson, but as soon as we're able to establish contact with him, we continue with sharing his thoughts as the breakfast on plus CV Africa. We're looking at the front pages of a national dealies. I mean, very interesting headlines if you asked me on the dealies this morning from the fact that you have the Kaduna state governor crying out about terrorists occupying some local government in the state and to other issues of the Ocada clash and to also the issues of the APC and the PDP. Of course, the APC to be precise asking for a shift of time for the timetable. Kofi, let's also look at that particular one. We've also spoken with Festus Okoye, who has also stated that, you know, INEC is very stable at this point in time. I mean, very static with the situation, very, very decisive, saying that they're not shifting grounds as regards addressing the timetable for primaries for political parties. Absolutely, absolutely. But I'm told we have GD Johnson back on Zoom. GD Johnson, are you there with us, please? Yes, I'm with you. I'm going to the primary enrichment series that I've been with you for a while. Well, I love to resolve INEC. And let the parties be careful, because if judging from what INEC did in 2019, we could see that there is a determination on the part of INEC to ensure that they do things according to the rules. Now, INEC did not make the law. It is the National Assembly that has membership from PDP and APC, the ruling party APC and the opposition party PDP. And to my knowledge, this is one of the electoral act that we have that is progressive in the church, that is more concentrated, that involved a lot of stakeholders, that a lot of things were put in it before we have been, we call that the last electoral act we had was in 2011, that's 11 years ago. So the parties themselves, we want to truncate the process and I love the resolve of INEC. Let the parties, whether they like, let them comply, let them not comply. It is very clear. In Zappara state, APC did not have candidate. In River state, they did not have candidate. And so let any party fail to abide by the rules and then they will forfeit their opportunity. Didi Johnson, interesting that you've landed on the electoral act. So let's stay there. On the front page of the punch in this paper, it's focusing on presidential primaries which will come to a conclusion on June 3. That's a deadline like Messi has said and you've also commented on an in shifting ground. But the paper is saying there is uncertainty over the APC and PDP delegates list because the president has delayed assigning the electoral act. And you know that a small matter of whether those occupying elected positions are allowed to be delegates to vote at the party primary. Said the president has received the bill passed by, the amendment passed by the National Assembly but is not signing it. Even still with this electoral act, they had a Supreme Court regarding section 84, subsection 12, right in the middle of the electionary season. What's going on? Now, why do we need contention over section 84, subsection 12? It's very clear. You can't be appointed and be using state resources to run your campaign. That is very clear. And I'm sure the Supreme Court, we agree with the appellate court because the AP court has ruled that that's subsection states. And I think the Supreme Court, we agree with that now. Let's leave that. On the issue of the amendment that was done by the National Assembly with respect to, you know, we spoke about it. I think last week about the super delegate, elected representative on the normal. That's the norm. There are some things that are not needed to be. It's not that we will write. That's the norm. They are super delegate because one, they've tested voters. The people have elected them compared to the party delegates who are elected by party members. These, as of rep members, as of assembly members, the president and the vice president, they've been elected by the people. These are actually the true representative of the people. Why should Senator and as of rep members, and as of assembly members, should not be, and look who come in there man, should not be part and parcel of the National Convention of their party in picking their families. I think we don't need any debate concerning that. The party should go ahead and include them in their delegates and let the court decide whether he vote parties. That's what we call, it is not everything the court will rule on. There's what we call political solution. This is what is required by political solution. For example, the DDP and APC, the Interparty, what the Interparty, the IPAC, the Interparty Advocacy Council, if they all come together and say, you know what, we are going to include all this as part of our delegates. Is there, it's clear in the constitution of the parties. But Gidea Johnson, you're talking about a political solution. You have rightly reminded us of Fiasco that the 2019 election was for the APC in Zamfara state and in River state. Would any political party who goes contrary to this law, you know, the amended law, that does not allow the teacher delegates, like you've called them superdelegates to vote, to be delegates at the primaries. Wouldn't they be setting themselves up if they go against the law as it has been passed you know, for a repeat of 2019? Well, what guides the party, the electoral act or their party constitution in picking their candidates or guides the party. In the first instance, we have said that the National Assembly had no business legislating over this. In actual sense, that particular section should be expunged completely. I said it last week because we reviewed it. What guides the party? Without the party, there won't be the National Assembly because it is the party that's sponsored candidates to go to the National Assembly. So there are rules that govern party. Parties have their constitution. And if that happens, the party can approach the court and I'm sure the court will rule in favor of the party because it is the party that select candidates. A quick one on this, are we not seeing? These are not. Julie Johnson, are we not seeing the National Assembly get away easily because it seems the focus has not been on them. If you remember some months ago, this was seen as the electoral act was seen as a way for the National Assembly to members to stand up to the governors who call the shots as to who among them can return to either the green chamber or the red chamber. We're not seeing that play out again in some of these acts or these clauses that have been inserted into. Is this a ploy away by the National Assembly members to control their political destiny? Now let me let you know this. Even if you could see in one of the stories, I don't know which newspaper it is. We heard that reps for the Senate and reps ticket their pressure on governors, particularly APC governors for the ticket. Look, the most powerful block in the entire political landscape is 1999. The governors, we said it. They control the party, they control the National Assembly. They are key members of the federal executive council. You know how many former governors are in the federal executive council? You know how many former governors are in the Senate? You know how many governors that are going back to the Senate? Now again, you know, even the wife of governors that are contested, at least the wife of governor, former governor of the state, is a three-term senator. Still currently ongoing. The wife of the governor of the state where I'm presently is contested in the most state. So it's the structure of the party and the nature of governors that we have. The governors are powerful. So there's not anybody can do about that, but there are super delegates, elected representative of the people. We should get the list of the delegates elected at the conventions of the party that there's no contestation about that. That's the reason why they are delicate. The essence of those national delegates is for them to participate in national convention either to elect national executive of the party or to elect the flag bearers of their party at national elections. And that's what it's all about. But with respect to how parties conduct themselves, because it's just like legislating to see that all parties must run the same way. The way the PPC must be run, the way PDP. Parties operate based on their own ideology and everybody has their own ideology. It is that ideology that shapes their constitution and their constitution is what guides their internal arrangement. So the national assembly cannot legislate. It is an over key. It is outside the oversight responsibility of the national assembly or the INE to legislate on how parties are governing their principles. What INE would do is that the party would submit their constitution and what I need to do is that are you abiding by the rules of your constitution? But in Nigeria, we want to legislate about everything. It is not everything you can legislate on. There are some norms, there are some principles and there are some values that govern party system. Okay, G.D. Johnson, let's also look at the daily independent news paper this morning, despised promotion, a magus case still on. That's what the police minister has quoted to say, says he will face persecution if indicted by the salami panel. Now, this is actually, I mean, we're talking about this because Zemaikar was indicted with the issues of fraud and fonts involved at the end of the day. And this also got a lot of people talking about the promotion of magus. But what do you make of this case? You're saying that there's not even, there's no immunity against his persecution. In this case, that the case is not finished. Well, you still have him in the system. What does this really mean? I've never worked in the civil service but I'm aware of some certain things that guide civil service. I have not, to not let you go but I'm aware of some certain. One, once you're under investigation, you cannot be promoted. You cannot be promoted. Someone is under investigation. The panel has accepted to look into it when you're promoted the person. Why are they in the order to promote the person? If eventualism is vindicated, then you can do double promotion or triple promotion. We've seen cases of people getting triple and double promotion in the civil service. But you know, like I said, we take 10 steps forward and we take 100 steps backward. What justification, what moral justification does the police service, what have you, have to promote it now? To prove what? Because the matter is still being investigated. Do you reward someone that has been accused of an infraction? That's my view on that. I don't think that the police service commission should have done what they have done. If you have waited until the final report is written and if Margo is vindicated, then you will be promoted accordingly. We have seen situations where people are promoted. Probably five years after I know the areas have paid. So there's nothing new, but why are they in the order? I don't know, I don't know. But if they're saying that the case is not finished, I mean, there's no immunity against his prosecution. That means that even with the fact that he's been promoted or he's still part of the system, anything can still happen. I mean, justice can still have his way. Well, justice will surely have his way. Justice will surely have his way. No doubt about that. Justice will surely have his way. But the most important thing is that what signal are we setting? Are we fighting corruption? Are we encouraging corruption? Are we embedding corruption in the system? Someone has been accused of corruption. Someone has, and then what do we need to do? What we need to do is to ensure that we send the right signal to people. We send it, we communicate appropriately to people that cover these serious about dealing with issues that has to do with financial impropriety. Now, if the person that had the agency has been accused of that, and then you are promoting the person, what signal are you sending to the rack and file of the ESCC, to the rack and file of security agency?  I don't think it's good for the service, and I don't think it's good for the nation, and I don't think it's good for the optics. All right, General Johnson, let's go over to the South Eastern states of Nigeria. The point she's across dedicated some space on this front page to talk about the Southeast. You have IPOB on one hand, you have the enforcers of the Monday seat at home, or so-called unknown gunmen, on the other hand, you have Charles Solodou in the picture, you have WF Kumi, you believe it or not, he's also in the picture as well. One day shall never end. But let's start with Solodou's approach to the violence in a number of states. He began his tenor as governor with a hard stance. He declared, unilaterally, declared an end to the Monday seat at home, a seat at home that he did not start, but he declared that it was over, and gave sort of an ultimatum to gunmen to come out, else they will be dealt with. And we know what happened. Carnage and terror was increased in a number of states. Even the governor's own local government council, his home local government council was not scared. They attacked the building and they burned stuff there. He went to visit the IPOB leader, Namdi Kanu, in DSS detention. Now, he has given a 60-day peace offer to the gunmen in Anambra state. A change of tactic, you might call it. But the headline on the front page of the punch is that the Anambra gunmen have shunned Solodou's 60-day peace offer and they're continuing their reign of terror. Tara, what are your thoughts on this? Well, it's very important for all statehooders, political, traditional, religious, and traditional institutions on the surface to come together to address this problem. This was our bookworms started. We did not east, and we could see how it has developed and what it has developed into. It has developed into Frankenstein monster. It cannot be contained. I think that for the good of the Southeast, there must be stakeholders, what do they want? How do we approach this issue? What is the goal? If you ask people, if you are fighting Nigerian and you are telling people in your region not to go about their business on a certain day, you are only outing yourself.  And I think that the need for that critical stick would have to be this product. But what we have seen is that all the Southeast governors, they are working independent of one another. There's no common place amongst them. And this is the time that the people from the east need to drop their Republican post job and adopt a common law post job. All of them will come together and talk about how to address this particular issue. We have it in Himo State. We have it in Anambra State. Now, it's just a matter of time. It might spread to the government of any good things. It's not, I'm not affected or the government of a point of things, I'm not affected or the government of their things. I'm not affected. It's just a matter of time. So it is important for all these critical stakeholders. And it's important to appeal to these people that are perpetrating this kind of, to understand that if they destroy that community, if they destroy that state, if they destroy that Southeast, what legacy do they want to leave for their children? Is that the legacy their father has there for them? Because it's important for us to point this out. I don't think there's need for us to solve any problem by violence. Even the ones that you have for World War I, World War II, who are resolved on a table, everything will be resolved and be kept. But the table, so why do they increase the peace part that the governor has thrown at them? And I think that the governor really wants us to work. And I think that the federal government should join and work and in hand with the governor of Anambra State to find this solution to this problem. All right, Jini Johnson, IPOB has released a statement urging the military to go after these so-called unknown gunmen, which to some people may be a surprise because before now IPOB and the military were like cats and mouse. Also, the leader, the general VCF, I wouldn't call it that, of the deeper Christian life ministries has been warned against holding his crusade in the Southeast, and IPOB is saying to see we don't want anyone to be attacked or to be killed by gunmen. If you're killed by gunmen, you will now come and say that it's IPOB. When we know nothing about this. Has IPOB, are they reaping in the Southeast? Are they reaping the fruit that they planted because I remember that people, not a few people said, hey, this thing you're doing, be careful about tomorrow. You might start to rare, or you might rare a monster that you might not be able to tame in the future. So should the people in the South is reflecting on what they started that has now snowballed into an untamed monster? Can you see, we started from Caduna, where the government, governors was negotiating and paying bandits. And today the governor is crying that two local governors taken over by terrorists. For the first time he called them terrorists. Now, the issue of the Southeast, we pointed this out, that there are different tactics that really warfare does not work in 21st century. There are better ways and better ways of resolving issue of solving problem. So we have pointed this out over time. So as a result of that, we have seen what it has turned into. IPOB as an agenda, and some other people without that, the fierce criminal intention, have taken over what, have taken off from where IPOB stopped from. So I think it's appropriate and it's right for them to call, to partner with federal government to deal with this, this Frankenstein monster that must be cut before it destroy to the Southeast. And that's the reality. And that is also important for the political class as we are going towards to understand that the people they recruit for their political aspirations, if they are not properly taken care of, they'll become a menace to the society. All right, Jedeh Johnson, let's also take a look at the punch newspaper this morning. It talks about the fact that families and friends of passengers abducted from the Abuja Kaduna train are saying that they're not pleased and are asking that the service should not resume because of the experience and demanding that if there should be resumption, then those who are in captivity of terrorists should have been released. But we can also ignore the fact that, I mean, the federal government had said that they spent 1.7 billion Naira per kilometer for that construction. And to some extent, we're very indebted. Well, it's an opportunity that we gloss over at the loss of lives and people that have been abducted and not released. And then what we'll be interested in is the assumption of activities by Nigerians with cooperation for the Kaduna-Abuja line. It's unfortunate that we won't be discussing that. Just imagine the outrage that happened. It is happened in the United States of America in London, in Australia, but even in South Africa down here, I don't understand. Is it the commercial activity and the revenue that comes from it that the government is much more interested or is it about the protection of some property of an hybrid Nigerian? What measure has the government put in place? There was no press conference. There was no statement. And there was nothing from the president, from the president. I mean, the president himself, I'm not talking about his speech, from the president with respect to that. There's nothing. But if something happened, if that happened to some people in Ghana, our president would have visited Ghana or must have seen something about Ghana. If that happened in Mali, our president would have seen something. But where it happened in Nigeria, he glows over it and then he would think life will turn to normal. And because Nigeria have the capacity to absorb whatever comes their way. For me, it's insensitive of government to talk about resumption of activities on that real life, without dealing with the issue of those that are kidnapped, those that are abducted, and those that have been killed. And what composition are we giving to those family? You know, if the families, if they are well organized, they should organize themselves and take Nigerian recuperation to court, and take the minister of transportation to court, and take the federal government to court. It might take them years, but I'm sure they will get compensation for government failure to secure their lives. Now you have a government transportation system and the people enter into government transportation system and their lives and property could not be secured. They should sue the government. Government is an entity that can be sued, excuse me. So they should ban to get out and sue the government, sue the government at various levels, agnostic government, federal government, minister of transportation, you join them. You get a good lawyer. It might take you years. You get compensation at the end of the day. Okay, but if that's the case, I mean, it's not that we're having it differently with the roads because, I mean, shortly after, you know, this announcement of the train service being, you know, there's a plan to resume the train service, you also have the attack on the roads. Should we also, you know, talk about that? Should I tell you, I've said that every accident I have on Nigerian would have said it, that we should sue minister of, minister of, minister of works. Because some of the nature of the roads are terrible. And then if it's within the state, you sue the state government because we elect people into public office and they appoint people to superintend over some of the government and pay our taxes. I tell you, I didn't see it in any picture of these people. A truck of a major organization killed 10 people as I was traveling to a place, 10. 10, not was told. And I told those that care to listen, that you won't see this on the pictures of these people. It won't be reported by any media organization. What is the value of an average Nigerian life? 10 is a major, a major organization that has been reported for their trailer skinning. In natural sense, their trailer killed some student in, in, in, in, in, on those stages in Agungba. You, you know what I'm talking about. All right. 10 years to be. Interesting, Gina Johnson. But when the major organization has its trailers, and I, I, I think I know the organization you're talking about. And if you look at, at the history, they bought these trailers and gave it out on a sort of a higher purchase agreement to these drivers who drive roughly, you know, and, and, and the organization may not be able to control these people who drive trailers. Drawer drivers all over Nigeria.   You know what? Let me tell you what my 19-year-old son said. Let me tell you from, from the thinking of a 19-year-old son, is there, is there a blood connection between the money? Is this not money in withdrawal? That's what, that's the first year because that's how we do our song. I don't, I don't mean to, I don't, I don't mean to, to, to downplay the importance of, of, of life. It's, it's a sad one. And indeed you're right when you say that the trailers have a notoriety. But Gina Johnson, the question I'm asking is, is it about, is sacred? Yeah, no, Gina, the question I'm asking, yeah, Gina, the question, yeah, Gina, the question I'm asking is, is it about the, this organization in, in question, you know, unnamed organization, is it about the way a trailer and truck drivers drive? It's about, it's about, it's about your name organization. It's about the nature of our road.  They are not about federal road safety. It's about federal revenue, federal revenue commission. Because the way they stop your, you can't take your camera. In other words, when I'm talking about I'll do a recording myself. Now, it's not about safety, it's about revenue. That's what it's all about. Then you also look at the type of roads they construct. And you see the millions of Naira that are being collected to construct those roads. Why do we have government in place when government could not provide basic infrastructure? What I'm saying is that, you can still commit at every level for anything. And that's what I'm saying. And until we develop to the point that cities can provide cases, I can't recall the name, can provide cases against the state and suit the state for the failure of the state to do what the state ought to do. Our public officials, elected and appointed, we know we come with a responsibility. And that's the reality. Let's have a look. Okay, should I tell you another one? Should I tell you another one? Now, as we are approaching a war, another thriller killed an Okada, destroyed them. You will see that the pages of the newspaper. No media will report it. Is this from the same organization? I'm talking about between Ijebote. Listen to me, please. I'm talking about between Ijebote and about 184 or 198 kilometers of road. You have over close to about 20 Nigerians losing their lives just yesterday. Is this second accident, unfortunately, as it is from the trailer, a truck owned by the same organization in question? Different organizations. It's unfortunate, really sad one. Different organizations, really sad one. Now, what I'm saying, in fact, is that, now, if you have federal road safety, that in short compliance, without trucks you move, with the speed trucks you maintain, you have this. That's where the government aspect comes to it. Then if you have the timeline with which trucks can move, and then you have trucks, with which trucks, okay, all trucks must keep the right. All trucks must be on the right. All trucks must be on the right. G.D. Johnson, thank you so much for being part of the show this morning. We have to let you go at this point in time. We appreciate your thoughts as always. G.D. Johnson has achieved lecture in Niger in the Institute of Journalism. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you very much, thank you. Well, that's the size of the press. We will definitely return on Monday for the interesting headlines, generating different reactions of different spaces and also bringing you in-depth analysis. We'll take a breakdown when we return the breakfast until you stay with us.