By OnyekachiEze
Even as the Imo State House of Assembly is yet to resume after weeks of break, there are strong indications that fresh division has crept into the State lawmaking body over salient issues bordering on the controversial Administration of Criminal Justice Law, ACJL No. 2 of 2020.
The State had been engulfed in claims and counter claims from different quarters following reactions on the passage of the said bill into law.
Recall that early March 2020, Uzodimna was sworn in newly as the Executive Governor, he signed it into law, registering it as his first bill to be assented.
It was a Private Member Bill, chiefly sponsored by the Member representing Oguta State Constituency, Hon. Frank Ugboma.
However, the law is said to be raising serious dust, by attracting diverse views in the public.
It became controversial when some persons claimed the law allegedly empowered the Governor to detain at pleasure, while others, especially the lawmakers indicated that the Bill they passed never had such clauses and sections contained in the final Law.
However, controversy is trailing certain sections of the provisions relating to “Pleasure”, permitting the State Governor to detain suspects at his pleasure.
Section 484 of the Law provides; “Where any person is ordered to be detained during the Governor’s pleasure he shall notwithstanding anything in this Law or in any other written law contained be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Governor may direct and whilst so detained shall be deemed to be in legal custody”.
In addition, the Law provides that a detainee may only be discharged if granted license by the Governor.
In Section 485, it was believed to give room for the following;
“A person detained during the Governor’s pleasure may at any time be discharged by the Governor on license”
“A license under subsection (1) of this section may be in such form and may contain such conditions as the Governor may direct”.
“A license under this section may at anytime be revoked or varied by the Governor and where license has been revoked the person to whom the license relates shall proceed to such place as the Governor may direct and if he fails to do so, may be arrested without warrant and taken to such place”.
This, Trumpeta learnt, has caused seeming crack among the lawmakers.
At first, Ugboma denied ever having the either of Section 484, pointing out that his bill ended on 372.
He said, “For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill I presented had about a total of 372 Sections. How and where it was amended, recreated and reshaped into Section 484 and beyond remains a mystery and a legislative wonder of our time as what I presented and circulated to my colleagues during plenary, both in the First and Second readings did not contain such obnoxious and embarrassing Section 484. Neither was it deliberated in the House Committee of the whole. It indeed never existed in the House.
“No one has been able to explain to the members of the 9th House how and at what stage the said Section 484 was inserted into the Bill. It smacks of an evil manipulation to throw Imo people into the dungeon.
“As a Lawyer, I have had cause to fight against such obnoxious laws and as an activist there is no way this section would have scaled through plenary in the 9th House which I am part of. All of us are already available victims of this obnoxious sections. Not even those who practiced this calculated affront on the Constitution are exempted”.
Another member of the 9th House, Hon. Anyadike Nwosu said, “However, what beggers belief is how a particularly obnoxious and offensive section,(Chapter 13) ( Section 484) and (section 485 )was contemptuously smuggled into this law; a development which has ruffled feathers and created an atmosphere of discontent in the state.
“This section is not only repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience but portrays this law as draconian and anti-people.
“From the original bill shared to our colleagues at the plenary, the above contentious section was not contained in the original bill (See Hon Barr Frank Ugboma’s disclaimer to the above-mentioned section, as the Chief Sponsor of the bill).We the minority and other colleagues disassociate ourselves from the contentious section of this AJCL law and equally call for its review or total expunging from the AJCL law, for it runs against the grains of the democracy which Imolites welcomed with joy”.
While Hons; Kennedy Ibeh, Solomon Anukam, and Okey Onyekanma questioned where Section 484 and 485 emanated from, Hon. Ngozi Obiefule submitted that there is more to it, hence, the call for the Clerk of the House to answer the many questions.
On the contrary, the Speaker, through his spokesperson, Emeka Ahaneku dropped his comment, before the House Committee Chairman on Information and Judiciary, Hon. Dominic Ezerioha confirmed that the two sections (484, 485) were on the original bill the House debated and passed the bill into law.
Ezerioha faulted his colleagues claim saying, “No one smuggled in anything. We passed the bill with the said sections therein”.
On his part, the Speaker disclosed that there was nothing like discrepancy, adding that the bill passed through the normal procedures before its passage.
Against this backdrop, Members see the development as a ridicule on their part which the leadership owes them an explanation.
Trumpeta further learnt that the matter has polarized the members with those sympathetic to the governor either keeping mute or making statements in favour of the governor.
In one publication, the Deputy Speaker Amara Iwuanyanwu believed to be the eye of the governor in the House, exonerated Senator Uzodinma while his colleagues are of the view that the State may be in the know of how the controversial sections came into the law.
