Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Rotimi Amaechi has raised an issue that should concern every Nigerian who believes that bail must remain meaningful rather than become detention by another name. Whatever anyone thinks of Malam Nasir El-Rufai politically, the principle is bigger than one man. When a court grants bail but attaches conditions that...

ADCVanguard_'s profile picture

ADC Vanguard

228,197 subscribers

16,507 views • 9 days ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

YOU BE THE JUDGE! A Judge of the High Court of Kaduna State has repeatedly and vehemently refused to grant bail to Malam Nasir Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai CON. The judge presiding over one of the cases filed by the ICPC against Mallam El-Rufai has so far rejected every bail application made even though the charges against Mallam El-Rufai before the court are bailable. In denial bail, he has verbatim sided with the ICPC's position - essentially agreeing that Mallam Nasir El-Rufai is a flight risk - which is absolutely preposterous - especially in view of the fact that Mallam El-Rufai voluntarily returned to the country to honor the invitation by the anti-graft agencies. It gets more curious when one considers the fact that Mallam El-Rufai has at least two other cases - one at the Federal High Court Kaduna brought by the same ICPC and another one by the DSS at Federal High Court Abuja. In both of the above cases (including the one by the ICPC of a similar nature in FHC Kaduna), Mallam El-Rufai had been granted bail. Never mind the impossible bail conditions. That's a totally different conversation. It is more than curious that the presiding Judges in both cases (including the one by the ICPC of a similar nature in FHC Kaduna) did not consider Mallam El-Rufai a flight risk. It is the Judge in the state high court Kaduna that adjuges that Mallam El-Rufai is a flight risk and who has repeatedly denied him bail, again for clearly bailable offences. You be the judge, here. Meanwhile, aside from refusing bail, the bail rulings by the Judge in question have been characterised by the use of words that essentially amount to convicting Mallam before the trial even commences. It is for this reason that Mallam’s lawyers filed an application for the judge to recuse himself from trying the case - and rightly so - because there is zero confidence of Mallam getting a fair trial under him. We continue to demand that proper due process should be followed. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, including Mallam Nasir El-Rufai. Bail, where applicable - as it clearly is in the case of Mallam El-Rufai - is a right. Denying him bail on untenable grounds amounts to imprisonment without conviction, abuse of his fundamental rights and injustice.
1:15

YOU BE THE JUDGE! A Judge of the High Court of Kaduna State has repeatedly and vehemently refused to grant bail to Malam Nasir Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai CON. The judge presiding over one of the cases filed by the ICPC against Mallam El-Rufai has so far rejected every bail application made even though the charges against Mallam El-Rufai before the court are bailable. In denial bail, he has verbatim sided with the ICPC's position - essentially agreeing that Mallam Nasir El-Rufai is a flight risk - which is absolutely preposterous - especially in view of the fact that Mallam El-Rufai voluntarily returned to the country to honor the invitation by the anti-graft agencies. It gets more curious when one considers the fact that Mallam El-Rufai has at least two other cases - one at the Federal High Court Kaduna brought by the same ICPC and another one by the DSS at Federal High Court Abuja. In both of the above cases (including the one by the ICPC of a similar nature in FHC Kaduna), Mallam El-Rufai had been granted bail. Never mind the impossible bail conditions. That's a totally different conversation. It is more than curious that the presiding Judges in both cases (including the one by the ICPC of a similar nature in FHC Kaduna) did not consider Mallam El-Rufai a flight risk. It is the Judge in the state high court Kaduna that adjuges that Mallam El-Rufai is a flight risk and who has repeatedly denied him bail, again for clearly bailable offences. You be the judge, here. Meanwhile, aside from refusing bail, the bail rulings by the Judge in question have been characterised by the use of words that essentially amount to convicting Mallam before the trial even commences. It is for this reason that Mallam’s lawyers filed an application for the judge to recuse himself from trying the case - and rightly so - because there is zero confidence of Mallam getting a fair trial under him. We continue to demand that proper due process should be followed. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, including Mallam Nasir El-Rufai. Bail, where applicable - as it clearly is in the case of Mallam El-Rufai - is a right. Denying him bail on untenable grounds amounts to imprisonment without conviction, abuse of his fundamental rights and injustice.

uche diala

13,030 views • 1 month ago

"Mr. President, I stood with you during the election. I travelled across every part of Kaduna State campaigning for your victory, while my husband also gave you his support. Is this the outcome our family deserves? The decision is in your hands, Mr. President. We believe you are a father who understands compassion, and we know that if you choose to act, this situation can be handled fairly. We are not asking you to interfere with the judicial process or stop any prosecution. Our only appeal is that my husband be granted the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution you pledged to protect. Let him be given bail on reasonable terms that he can meet. If he is guilty, let the court establish that. If he is innocent, let the court clear his name. Justice should be allowed to take its full course." — Hajiya Asiya El-Rufai, wife of former Kaduna State Governor , appealed to yesterday, urging him to ensure her husband receives fair and affordable bail conditions while allowing the courts to determine his case.
1:45

"Mr. President, I stood with you during the election. I travelled across every part of Kaduna State campaigning for your victory, while my husband also gave you his support. Is this the outcome our family deserves? The decision is in your hands, Mr. President. We believe you are a father who understands compassion, and we know that if you choose to act, this situation can be handled fairly. We are not asking you to interfere with the judicial process or stop any prosecution. Our only appeal is that my husband be granted the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution you pledged to protect. Let him be given bail on reasonable terms that he can meet. If he is guilty, let the court establish that. If he is innocent, let the court clear his name. Justice should be allowed to take its full course." — Hajiya Asiya El-Rufai, wife of former Kaduna State Governor , appealed to yesterday, urging him to ensure her husband receives fair and affordable bail conditions while allowing the courts to determine his case.

Verydarkman

55,743 views • 2 months ago

#WATCH | Jaipur, Rajasthan: On Umar Khalid, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud says, "They've been inside for five years. I'm not criticising my court...you can impose conditions to ensure that the conditions for bail are not abused, but you must necessarily take into consideration that they have the right to an expeditious trial. And if an expeditious trial is not possible under present conditions, then bail should be the rule and not the exception." "... During my period of 24 months, we disposed of about 21,000 bail applications. There are cases which people don't think about when they criticise the Supreme Court for not granting bail in a particular case. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera was about to be arrested. He was boarding a flight, I believe, at Guwahati, and he was about to be arrested. The paramilitary forces had surrounded his aircraft. His lawyer came and mentioned before us, soon after we assembled after lunch, that he's about to be arrested for having said something. The lawyer said that this is unforgivable. It's uncivil. It's not a case for arrest. And we protected him against arrest. That was a leader of the opposition who had said something which was uncivil. But everything uncivil is not something which is an offence under our law. And we protected them against this." "Example number two- Teesta Setalvad was denied bail by the Gujarat High Court. But they gave her time until 12 midnight on a particular day to surrender... The matter came up to me as Chief Justice of India when I was attending a music recital... I said, this is a case where she's entitled to be heard whether she gets bail or not is for that court to decide. We constituted a bench at 9 o'clock at night and she was granted bail..."
6:40

#WATCH | Jaipur, Rajasthan: On Umar Khalid, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud says, "They've been inside for five years. I'm not criticising my court...you can impose conditions to ensure that the conditions for bail are not abused, but you must necessarily take into consideration that they have the right to an expeditious trial. And if an expeditious trial is not possible under present conditions, then bail should be the rule and not the exception." "... During my period of 24 months, we disposed of about 21,000 bail applications. There are cases which people don't think about when they criticise the Supreme Court for not granting bail in a particular case. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera was about to be arrested. He was boarding a flight, I believe, at Guwahati, and he was about to be arrested. The paramilitary forces had surrounded his aircraft. His lawyer came and mentioned before us, soon after we assembled after lunch, that he's about to be arrested for having said something. The lawyer said that this is unforgivable. It's uncivil. It's not a case for arrest. And we protected him against arrest. That was a leader of the opposition who had said something which was uncivil. But everything uncivil is not something which is an offence under our law. And we protected them against this." "Example number two- Teesta Setalvad was denied bail by the Gujarat High Court. But they gave her time until 12 midnight on a particular day to surrender... The matter came up to me as Chief Justice of India when I was attending a music recital... I said, this is a case where she's entitled to be heard whether she gets bail or not is for that court to decide. We constituted a bench at 9 o'clock at night and she was granted bail..."

ANI

523,933 views • 7 months ago

When a law professor & former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission makes this kind of allegations against a former Governor-ie El-Rufai, it is very difficult to ignore. Where is Dadiyata Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai ? Can someone respond to the claim that Agom Adara -a traditional ruler in Kaduna State, Nigeria was kidnapped after a meeting with former Governor El-Rufai & at least let the world know this was not a case of organised conspiracy as it looks. These are serious allegations that should not be ignored AT ALL. Odinkalu made this allegations on national TV.
1:17

When a law professor & former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission makes this kind of allegations against a former Governor-ie El-Rufai, it is very difficult to ignore. Where is Dadiyata Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai ? Can someone respond to the claim that Agom Adara -a traditional ruler in Kaduna State, Nigeria was kidnapped after a meeting with former Governor El-Rufai & at least let the world know this was not a case of organised conspiracy as it looks. These are serious allegations that should not be ignored AT ALL. Odinkalu made this allegations on national TV.

Laolu Akande

13,705 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | 2024 Pune Porsche crash case | Jabalpur, MP: On bail to the juvenile accused and viral video of celebration by his family, Suresh Koshta, father of Ashwini - one of the deceased, says, "It must be a practice in their society to kill two people and then celebrate...They are mocking the common citizens. Law is locking the common man because it is the law which grants them provisions to avoid punishment, that if one is a juvenile, they can do anything...Supreme Court should pass a judgment which would instil fear of law among the people. There is no fear of law anymore. If one is awarded punishment by the High Court, they are let go by Supreme Court. This encourages crime...Until laws like those in Muslim countries - blood for blood - are brought in India, nothing is going to improve...How can this be reined in, how can a message be sent out if the law is not strict?...His bail should be revoked and his parents should be jailed. If it comes before the Supreme Court, they should not be granted bail..."
7:13

#WATCH | 2024 Pune Porsche crash case | Jabalpur, MP: On bail to the juvenile accused and viral video of celebration by his family, Suresh Koshta, father of Ashwini - one of the deceased, says, "It must be a practice in their society to kill two people and then celebrate...They are mocking the common citizens. Law is locking the common man because it is the law which grants them provisions to avoid punishment, that if one is a juvenile, they can do anything...Supreme Court should pass a judgment which would instil fear of law among the people. There is no fear of law anymore. If one is awarded punishment by the High Court, they are let go by Supreme Court. This encourages crime...Until laws like those in Muslim countries - blood for blood - are brought in India, nothing is going to improve...How can this be reined in, how can a message be sent out if the law is not strict?...His bail should be revoked and his parents should be jailed. If it comes before the Supreme Court, they should not be granted bail..."

ANI

166,614 views • 3 months ago

JUST IN: Court grants El Rufai N100m bail in DSS charges of Alleged National Security Breach The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, in the sum of N100 million with one surety in the same amount. The former governor, who publicly admitted on national television to wiretapping the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, is facing prosecution by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly breaching national security. In her ruling on the bail application, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik imposed several strict conditions that must be fulfilled before the bail can be perfected. The court ruled that the proposed surety must reside in either Maitama or Asokoro in Abuja and deposit the original Certificate of Occupancy of a landed property with the court registry. Additionally, the surety must be a federal civil servant of Grade Level 17 or above and is required to submit proof of salary payments for at least the past three months, supported by an authentication letter from the branch bank manager within the court’s jurisdiction. The court further directed the surety to swear to an affidavit of means, sign a bail bond, and provide a recent passport photograph to the court registry. El-Rufai has also been ordered to surrender all his valid passports to the court. Other conditions include the submission of a verification letter from the surety’s immediate department and a tax clearance certificate for the last six months. Justice Abdulmalik ordered the defendant to report to the DSS headquarters on the last Friday of every month by 10 a.m. to sign the attendance register until the case is concluded. The judge cautioned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate revocation of the bail. The court also required El-Rufai to submit a letter of attestation from the Chairman of the Kaduna State Traditional Council. Finally, the court ordered an accelerated hearing of the case.
2:06

JUST IN: Court grants El Rufai N100m bail in DSS charges of Alleged National Security Breach The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, in the sum of N100 million with one surety in the same amount. The former governor, who publicly admitted on national television to wiretapping the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, is facing prosecution by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly breaching national security. In her ruling on the bail application, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik imposed several strict conditions that must be fulfilled before the bail can be perfected. The court ruled that the proposed surety must reside in either Maitama or Asokoro in Abuja and deposit the original Certificate of Occupancy of a landed property with the court registry. Additionally, the surety must be a federal civil servant of Grade Level 17 or above and is required to submit proof of salary payments for at least the past three months, supported by an authentication letter from the branch bank manager within the court’s jurisdiction. The court further directed the surety to swear to an affidavit of means, sign a bail bond, and provide a recent passport photograph to the court registry. El-Rufai has also been ordered to surrender all his valid passports to the court. Other conditions include the submission of a verification letter from the surety’s immediate department and a tax clearance certificate for the last six months. Justice Abdulmalik ordered the defendant to report to the DSS headquarters on the last Friday of every month by 10 a.m. to sign the attendance register until the case is concluded. The judge cautioned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate revocation of the bail. The court also required El-Rufai to submit a letter of attestation from the Chairman of the Kaduna State Traditional Council. Finally, the court ordered an accelerated hearing of the case.

ARISE NEWS

36,062 views • 3 months ago

We strongly condemn the reported attempt to stop El-Rufai’s wife from giving him food while he remains in custody. No matter the politics, no matter the allegation, no matter who is involved, this kind of treatment is unacceptable in any democracy that claims to respect human dignity. Anti-corruption agencies are not punishment centres. ICPC is not a torture chamber. Detention is not a licence to humiliate suspects, punish families, or turn investigation into psychological intimidation. Even when a man is under investigation, he remains a human being. He remains a citizen. He remains entitled to dignity, welfare, access to lawyers, and fair treatment. Let it be clear: nobody is asking that El-Rufai should be above the law. If there is evidence against him, charge him properly. If there is a case, prosecute him openly. If there are questions to answer, let him answer them before a competent court. But denying or restricting basic access to family support, especially food, creates the impression that this is no longer just investigation. It begins to look like vengeance. This is how institutions lose public trust. When agencies behave with emotion instead of procedure, Nigerians stop seeing justice and start seeing political persecution. The rule of law is not tested by how government treats its friends. It is tested by how government treats its critics, opponents, and those it disagrees with. Today, the target is El-Rufai. Tomorrow, it can be any Nigerian whose politics offends those in power. That is why this must be condemned now, loudly and clearly. ICPC must explain what is happening. The government must respect due process. Charge him, release him, or treat him strictly within the limits of the law. A government that uses custody to break people is not fighting corruption. It is abusing power.
1:04

We strongly condemn the reported attempt to stop El-Rufai’s wife from giving him food while he remains in custody. No matter the politics, no matter the allegation, no matter who is involved, this kind of treatment is unacceptable in any democracy that claims to respect human dignity. Anti-corruption agencies are not punishment centres. ICPC is not a torture chamber. Detention is not a licence to humiliate suspects, punish families, or turn investigation into psychological intimidation. Even when a man is under investigation, he remains a human being. He remains a citizen. He remains entitled to dignity, welfare, access to lawyers, and fair treatment. Let it be clear: nobody is asking that El-Rufai should be above the law. If there is evidence against him, charge him properly. If there is a case, prosecute him openly. If there are questions to answer, let him answer them before a competent court. But denying or restricting basic access to family support, especially food, creates the impression that this is no longer just investigation. It begins to look like vengeance. This is how institutions lose public trust. When agencies behave with emotion instead of procedure, Nigerians stop seeing justice and start seeing political persecution. The rule of law is not tested by how government treats its friends. It is tested by how government treats its critics, opponents, and those it disagrees with. Today, the target is El-Rufai. Tomorrow, it can be any Nigerian whose politics offends those in power. That is why this must be condemned now, loudly and clearly. ICPC must explain what is happening. The government must respect due process. Charge him, release him, or treat him strictly within the limits of the law. A government that uses custody to break people is not fighting corruption. It is abusing power.

ADC Vanguard

12,480 views • 3 months ago

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || info@vendr.ng ||
9:20

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || [email protected] ||

Trending Explained

103,162 views • 1 year ago

VIDEO | Pune Porsche car crash case: Family of victim Anish Awadhiya still awaiting justice. His mother Savita Awadhiya says, “The system there is completely flawed because, one by one, everyone is getting bail. It has been almost two years, and my son still has not received justice. All the people who were inside (jail) are gradually being granted bail. It feels as if Agarwal had influenced people with money earlier, and perhaps even now he may have influenced the new judge because, Shivani Agarwal got bail, and all the doctors and others involved also gradually received bail. Our demand was that since the accident was caused by a minor, a law should be made so that people learn not to give vehicles to underage children or allow them such freedom. When a child is drinking heavily in pubs and driving an expensive car, the parents are also responsible because they allowed it. Then after such an incident, they say the child is a minor. A law should be made so people understand they should not allow their children to behave this way.” (Full video available on PTI Videos -
2:44

VIDEO | Pune Porsche car crash case: Family of victim Anish Awadhiya still awaiting justice. His mother Savita Awadhiya says, “The system there is completely flawed because, one by one, everyone is getting bail. It has been almost two years, and my son still has not received justice. All the people who were inside (jail) are gradually being granted bail. It feels as if Agarwal had influenced people with money earlier, and perhaps even now he may have influenced the new judge because, Shivani Agarwal got bail, and all the doctors and others involved also gradually received bail. Our demand was that since the accident was caused by a minor, a law should be made so that people learn not to give vehicles to underage children or allow them such freedom. When a child is drinking heavily in pubs and driving an expensive car, the parents are also responsible because they allowed it. Then after such an incident, they say the child is a minor. A law should be made so people understand they should not allow their children to behave this way.” (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

26,774 views • 3 months ago

Presumption of innocence: justice should not become punishment before trial A legitimate question for the duty bearer is this: Does due process permit an accused person to be publicly named, paraded in handcuffs, photographed, and have the allegations against them publicly listed before they have had a meaningful opportunity to present their side of the story? This question is not merely about preferred law-enforcement practice; it touches directly on a constitutional guarantee. Article 29(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that everyone has the right “to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court.” Constitutionally, therefore, a person who has been accused, arrested or detained does not become a criminal simply because allegations have been made against them. They remain presumed innocent unless and until a competent court establishes their guilt. If an accused person is expected to wait until appearing before a competent court to present their defence, should a similar degree of restraint not apply to public authorities? Why should allegations be communicated in ways that may create an impression of guilt before the evidence has been examined and tested through the judicial process? This is where the duty bearer should explain how the public presentation of suspects is reconciled with the presumption of innocence, human dignity, due process and the right to a fair trial. Law enforcement and public accountability are essential. Society must be protected, offences must be investigated, and those against whom sufficient evidence exists should face justice. But these objectives must be pursued within constitutional safeguards. How justice is administered matters just as much as the objective of holding people accountable. There is also a deeper human and social dimension that deserves attention. Could some of these practices unintentionally create or recycle wounds within individuals, families and communities? An arrest may last a few days or months, but a photograph, accusation or headline can remain online for years. In the digital age, the consequences of public exposure can outlive the criminal proceedings themselves. Search engines and social media do not necessarily distinguish between someone who was arrested and someone who was ultimately convicted. This raises an important question; What happens when someone who has already been publicly presented as an alleged offender is subsequently acquitted, or when the charges are dropped? Can the State fully restore that person’s reputation, employment opportunities, relationships and standing in the community? More importantly, will an acquittal receive the same publicity as the original arrest? The courts may ultimately clear someone, but society may continue remembering the photograph of that individual in handcuffs. We must also consider the consequences for families, particularly children. What does it mean for a child to repeatedly encounter photographs of a parent publicly displayed as an alleged criminal, only for that parent later to be cleared? The resulting humiliation, anger, mistrust and psychological wounds may extend far beyond the individual who was arrested. Sometimes, when we encounter adults struggling with anger, mistrust or other forms of difficult behaviour, we concentrate on what they are doing today without asking what they experienced when they were young. Institutions therefore have a responsibility to think not only about administering justice today, but also about the social and psychological consequences their methods may unintentionally carry into tomorrow. None of this means that suspected offenders should not be arrested, investigated or prosecuted. Where there is evidence, the law must take its course. Nor does the presumption of innocence prevent authorities from informing the public about legitimate investigations. The fundamental question is one of proportionality and constitutional principle: Can law enforcement remain firm, transparent and effective without turning arrest and accusation into a form of public punishment before a competent court has determined guilt? Article 29(1)(b) reminds us why that distinction matters. An accusation is not a conviction. An arrest is not proof of guilt. And the presumption of innocence must mean something not only inside the courtroom, but also in how institutions communicate and exercise their authority before judgment. 📹 Credit to Kigali Today
0:47

Presumption of innocence: justice should not become punishment before trial A legitimate question for the duty bearer is this: Does due process permit an accused person to be publicly named, paraded in handcuffs, photographed, and have the allegations against them publicly listed before they have had a meaningful opportunity to present their side of the story? This question is not merely about preferred law-enforcement practice; it touches directly on a constitutional guarantee. Article 29(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that everyone has the right “to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court.” Constitutionally, therefore, a person who has been accused, arrested or detained does not become a criminal simply because allegations have been made against them. They remain presumed innocent unless and until a competent court establishes their guilt. If an accused person is expected to wait until appearing before a competent court to present their defence, should a similar degree of restraint not apply to public authorities? Why should allegations be communicated in ways that may create an impression of guilt before the evidence has been examined and tested through the judicial process? This is where the duty bearer should explain how the public presentation of suspects is reconciled with the presumption of innocence, human dignity, due process and the right to a fair trial. Law enforcement and public accountability are essential. Society must be protected, offences must be investigated, and those against whom sufficient evidence exists should face justice. But these objectives must be pursued within constitutional safeguards. How justice is administered matters just as much as the objective of holding people accountable. There is also a deeper human and social dimension that deserves attention. Could some of these practices unintentionally create or recycle wounds within individuals, families and communities? An arrest may last a few days or months, but a photograph, accusation or headline can remain online for years. In the digital age, the consequences of public exposure can outlive the criminal proceedings themselves. Search engines and social media do not necessarily distinguish between someone who was arrested and someone who was ultimately convicted. This raises an important question; What happens when someone who has already been publicly presented as an alleged offender is subsequently acquitted, or when the charges are dropped? Can the State fully restore that person’s reputation, employment opportunities, relationships and standing in the community? More importantly, will an acquittal receive the same publicity as the original arrest? The courts may ultimately clear someone, but society may continue remembering the photograph of that individual in handcuffs. We must also consider the consequences for families, particularly children. What does it mean for a child to repeatedly encounter photographs of a parent publicly displayed as an alleged criminal, only for that parent later to be cleared? The resulting humiliation, anger, mistrust and psychological wounds may extend far beyond the individual who was arrested. Sometimes, when we encounter adults struggling with anger, mistrust or other forms of difficult behaviour, we concentrate on what they are doing today without asking what they experienced when they were young. Institutions therefore have a responsibility to think not only about administering justice today, but also about the social and psychological consequences their methods may unintentionally carry into tomorrow. None of this means that suspected offenders should not be arrested, investigated or prosecuted. Where there is evidence, the law must take its course. Nor does the presumption of innocence prevent authorities from informing the public about legitimate investigations. The fundamental question is one of proportionality and constitutional principle: Can law enforcement remain firm, transparent and effective without turning arrest and accusation into a form of public punishment before a competent court has determined guilt? Article 29(1)(b) reminds us why that distinction matters. An accusation is not a conviction. An arrest is not proof of guilt. And the presumption of innocence must mean something not only inside the courtroom, but also in how institutions communicate and exercise their authority before judgment. 📹 Credit to Kigali Today

Joseph Nkurunziza Ryarasa

42,113 views • 22 days ago

No religious organisation, political party, or powerful institution—regardless of its influence or following— has the right to dictate how the Republic administers justice. The rule of law belongs to the Filipino people, not to any organisation that believes its political weight entitles it to special treatment. By publicly rallying behind Senator Rodante Marcoleta while the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice move towards filing plunder and indirect bribery charges, the Iglesia ni Cristo has chosen institutional loyalty over accountability. Instead of affirming that the law should take its course, it has created the unmistakable impression that one of its own should be shielded from the full force of the justice system. This is not an isolated matter. Senator Marcoleta has repeatedly attracted controversy—from his conduct during the Senate’s flood control inquiry, where he was accused of diverting scrutiny from key personalities and relying on discredited testimony, to serious questions surrounding undeclared campaign funds and other matters now under official investigation and an impending indictment for plunder and bribery. These allegations deserve to be tested in court, free from political or religious pressure. That is why the INC’s intervention is so troubling. A religious institution that deploys its influence to defend a politician facing grave criminal allegations, rather than insisting that justice be allowed to run its course, abandons the moral ground from which it claims to speak. It ceases to be merely a religious body and becomes a political actor seeking to influence the administration of justice. Where was this moral outrage when thousands of Filipinos died during the previous administration’s bloody drug war? Where was the INC when the Vice President was accused, replete with evidences, of corruption in office and threatened the life of a sitting President and his family? Where was this uncompromising defence of righteousness when corruption, abuse of power, and the erosion of democratic institutions demanded moral courage? Silence then, followed by political mobilisation now, is not righteousness. It is selective morality. If the INC truly believes in justice, it should welcome an independent investigation, not to resist it. Senator Marcoleta deserves due process—not immunity. He deserves a fair trial— not institutional protection. No one is above the law. Not a senator. Not a religious organisation. Not anyone who believes influence is a substitute for accountability. The rule of law must prevail over political pressure, religious influence, and institutional loyalty—every single time. Should the INC be allowed to dictate upon the government under threat of weaponising its people if their capricious objectives are not met? The INC was gifted with free expression and was put under no obligations to pay taxes for the exercise of its purpose. But the same INC is now threatening to rupture the nation into another decade of chaos and destruction. Let the INC and its leaders be warned— you have the right to choose what you want to do, but you have no right to choose the consequences of those actions.
3:14

No religious organisation, political party, or powerful institution—regardless of its influence or following— has the right to dictate how the Republic administers justice. The rule of law belongs to the Filipino people, not to any organisation that believes its political weight entitles it to special treatment. By publicly rallying behind Senator Rodante Marcoleta while the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice move towards filing plunder and indirect bribery charges, the Iglesia ni Cristo has chosen institutional loyalty over accountability. Instead of affirming that the law should take its course, it has created the unmistakable impression that one of its own should be shielded from the full force of the justice system. This is not an isolated matter. Senator Marcoleta has repeatedly attracted controversy—from his conduct during the Senate’s flood control inquiry, where he was accused of diverting scrutiny from key personalities and relying on discredited testimony, to serious questions surrounding undeclared campaign funds and other matters now under official investigation and an impending indictment for plunder and bribery. These allegations deserve to be tested in court, free from political or religious pressure. That is why the INC’s intervention is so troubling. A religious institution that deploys its influence to defend a politician facing grave criminal allegations, rather than insisting that justice be allowed to run its course, abandons the moral ground from which it claims to speak. It ceases to be merely a religious body and becomes a political actor seeking to influence the administration of justice. Where was this moral outrage when thousands of Filipinos died during the previous administration’s bloody drug war? Where was the INC when the Vice President was accused, replete with evidences, of corruption in office and threatened the life of a sitting President and his family? Where was this uncompromising defence of righteousness when corruption, abuse of power, and the erosion of democratic institutions demanded moral courage? Silence then, followed by political mobilisation now, is not righteousness. It is selective morality. If the INC truly believes in justice, it should welcome an independent investigation, not to resist it. Senator Marcoleta deserves due process—not immunity. He deserves a fair trial— not institutional protection. No one is above the law. Not a senator. Not a religious organisation. Not anyone who believes influence is a substitute for accountability. The rule of law must prevail over political pressure, religious influence, and institutional loyalty—every single time. Should the INC be allowed to dictate upon the government under threat of weaponising its people if their capricious objectives are not met? The INC was gifted with free expression and was put under no obligations to pay taxes for the exercise of its purpose. But the same INC is now threatening to rupture the nation into another decade of chaos and destruction. Let the INC and its leaders be warned— you have the right to choose what you want to do, but you have no right to choose the consequences of those actions.

The King

10,699 views • 2 months ago

THE FULANI AGENDA IN NIGERIA It’s getting clearer every day. The Islamic Fulani Sharia councils, led by the Sultan of Sokoto, have reportedly rejected attempts by the DSS to investigate Senator Shehu Buba over serious allegations concerning terrorism, banditry and kidnapping in Nigeria. If this is true, then Nigerians have every reason to ask. Why should any religious or traditional council have the power to stop or intimidate a government security agency from investigating serious allegations? If Senator Shehu Buba has nothing to hide, let the DSS investigate him and establish the facts. If the allegations are false, the investigation will clear his name. But if there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, the law must take its course. Nigeria cannot defeat terrorism, banditry and kidnapping when powerful individuals or institutions are perceived to be shielding people from investigation. Nobody should be above the law ,not politicians, not religious leaders, not traditional rulers and not powerful interest groups. The Nigerian people deserve the truth.
1:02

THE FULANI AGENDA IN NIGERIA It’s getting clearer every day. The Islamic Fulani Sharia councils, led by the Sultan of Sokoto, have reportedly rejected attempts by the DSS to investigate Senator Shehu Buba over serious allegations concerning terrorism, banditry and kidnapping in Nigeria. If this is true, then Nigerians have every reason to ask. Why should any religious or traditional council have the power to stop or intimidate a government security agency from investigating serious allegations? If Senator Shehu Buba has nothing to hide, let the DSS investigate him and establish the facts. If the allegations are false, the investigation will clear his name. But if there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, the law must take its course. Nigeria cannot defeat terrorism, banditry and kidnapping when powerful individuals or institutions are perceived to be shielding people from investigation. Nobody should be above the law ,not politicians, not religious leaders, not traditional rulers and not powerful interest groups. The Nigerian people deserve the truth.

Bia Pulse

17,618 views • 3 days ago

#WATCH | Delhi | 2017 Unnao rape case | Nirbhaya's mother, Asha Devi says, "This is a new rule that is being made... This should not happen... Whether you are 500 km away or at home, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you have committed a crime and you have been punished... The court should hold an impartial hearing on this, considering the victim and what happened to her. There should be no bail at all... That family is still in danger... It has happened many times that the lower court and the high court have punished the victim, but then they got relief in the Supreme Court... The court itself is making a joke of how such a decision can be made..." Delhi High Court suspends the sentence of the 2017 Unnao rape case accused, former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The High Court has directed that Sengar will not enter the 5-kilometre area where the victim resides in Delhi.
3:30

#WATCH | Delhi | 2017 Unnao rape case | Nirbhaya's mother, Asha Devi says, "This is a new rule that is being made... This should not happen... Whether you are 500 km away or at home, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you have committed a crime and you have been punished... The court should hold an impartial hearing on this, considering the victim and what happened to her. There should be no bail at all... That family is still in danger... It has happened many times that the lower court and the high court have punished the victim, but then they got relief in the Supreme Court... The court itself is making a joke of how such a decision can be made..." Delhi High Court suspends the sentence of the 2017 Unnao rape case accused, former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The High Court has directed that Sengar will not enter the 5-kilometre area where the victim resides in Delhi.

ANI

139,593 views • 8 months ago

Message to the IGP Inspector General of Police, Mr. Christian Tetteh Yohuno, I respectfully appeal to you to ensure that the law takes its course in this matter. If Papa Angola is alleged to have committed a criminal offence, he should be investigated and, where the evidence supports it, prosecuted before a court of law. Likewise, the individual who allegedly called for Christians to be killed should also be investigated and prosecuted if the evidence establishes a criminal offence. Going to the National Chief Imam to apologize may help with reconciliation, but an apology does not automatically replace due process or the criminal justice system. We must be consistent: whether the victim is Christian or Muslim, and regardless of who the accused person is, anyone suspected of inciting violence or making threats against a religious community should be dealt with according to Ghanaian law. I therefore respectfully call on the Ghana Police Service to investigate these matters professionally, without fear or favour, and allow the courts to determine guilt or innocence. Justice, due process and equal protection under the law must prevail. #GhanaPoliceService #IGP #Justice #RuleOfLaw #Peace #ReligiousTolerance #Ghana
1:59

Message to the IGP Inspector General of Police, Mr. Christian Tetteh Yohuno, I respectfully appeal to you to ensure that the law takes its course in this matter. If Papa Angola is alleged to have committed a criminal offence, he should be investigated and, where the evidence supports it, prosecuted before a court of law. Likewise, the individual who allegedly called for Christians to be killed should also be investigated and prosecuted if the evidence establishes a criminal offence. Going to the National Chief Imam to apologize may help with reconciliation, but an apology does not automatically replace due process or the criminal justice system. We must be consistent: whether the victim is Christian or Muslim, and regardless of who the accused person is, anyone suspected of inciting violence or making threats against a religious community should be dealt with according to Ghanaian law. I therefore respectfully call on the Ghana Police Service to investigate these matters professionally, without fear or favour, and allow the courts to determine guilt or innocence. Justice, due process and equal protection under the law must prevail. #GhanaPoliceService #IGP #Justice #RuleOfLaw #Peace #ReligiousTolerance #Ghana

Kofi Nunoo-Mensah 🇬🇧 🇬🇭

13,658 views • 18 days ago

🚨 THE EU IS ESCALATING ITS WAR ON INFORMATION 🚨 The European Court of Justice has now confirmed that the EU ban on Russia Today can apply not only to television broadcasters or major media companies, but to ordinary individuals who make RT content publicly available online. The Court’s position is clear: a person can be treated as an “operator” for publicly distributing RT material even when the activity is non-commercial, donation-funded, small in scale, or limited in duration. This is not about private viewing. It is about public sharing, publishing, and distribution, including on online platforms. And that should concern every journalist, editor, researcher, and citizen in Europe. The EU says RT is propaganda. Fine. Then confront it with facts. Expose its falsehoods. Debate its arguments. Challenge it publicly. Let citizens compare competing narratives and decide for themselves. That is how democracy is supposed to work. We watch clips from mainstream outlets every day. We analyze them, criticize them, and sometimes reject their arguments. Why should RT content be treated differently? Why should Brussels decide that people are not mature enough to see it, discuss it, or challenge it? Once governments make the public dissemination of a media outlet a legal risk, they are not merely targeting one network. They are creating a precedent. Today it is RT. Tomorrow it could be any journalist, platform, researcher, or citizen who shares material that contradicts the approved narrative. Democracy is not protected by banning information. It is protected by giving people access to information, and trusting them to think.
4:20

🚨 THE EU IS ESCALATING ITS WAR ON INFORMATION 🚨 The European Court of Justice has now confirmed that the EU ban on Russia Today can apply not only to television broadcasters or major media companies, but to ordinary individuals who make RT content publicly available online. The Court’s position is clear: a person can be treated as an “operator” for publicly distributing RT material even when the activity is non-commercial, donation-funded, small in scale, or limited in duration. This is not about private viewing. It is about public sharing, publishing, and distribution, including on online platforms. And that should concern every journalist, editor, researcher, and citizen in Europe. The EU says RT is propaganda. Fine. Then confront it with facts. Expose its falsehoods. Debate its arguments. Challenge it publicly. Let citizens compare competing narratives and decide for themselves. That is how democracy is supposed to work. We watch clips from mainstream outlets every day. We analyze them, criticize them, and sometimes reject their arguments. Why should RT content be treated differently? Why should Brussels decide that people are not mature enough to see it, discuss it, or challenge it? Once governments make the public dissemination of a media outlet a legal risk, they are not merely targeting one network. They are creating a precedent. Today it is RT. Tomorrow it could be any journalist, platform, researcher, or citizen who shares material that contradicts the approved narrative. Democracy is not protected by banning information. It is protected by giving people access to information, and trusting them to think.

Kevork Almassian

34,998 views • 2 months ago

"Nasir El-Rufai is a Nigerian citizen and I do believe that no citizen should be above the law and as such he is entitled to legal protection and to due process, I'm happy he's taking recourse to the courts as is his right , a right he denied others when he was Governor of Kaduna State. I do not wish his oppression, I want the facts to be investigated and let the chips fall where they may but I will not grant him impunity blustery because he is now part of an emergency opposition as he is subject to the laws of Nigeria. The only lesson to learn is that Power is Transient." Prof Chidi Odinkalu, Former DG Human Rights Commission #seunokinbaloye #politicstoday #channelstv
2:58

"Nasir El-Rufai is a Nigerian citizen and I do believe that no citizen should be above the law and as such he is entitled to legal protection and to due process, I'm happy he's taking recourse to the courts as is his right , a right he denied others when he was Governor of Kaduna State. I do not wish his oppression, I want the facts to be investigated and let the chips fall where they may but I will not grant him impunity blustery because he is now part of an emergency opposition as he is subject to the laws of Nigeria. The only lesson to learn is that Power is Transient." Prof Chidi Odinkalu, Former DG Human Rights Commission #seunokinbaloye #politicstoday #channelstv

SeunOkin Channels tv

28,090 views • 6 months ago

#WATCH | On SC Collegium recommending transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma of Delhi HC to his parent High Court in Allahabad after an adverse report against him, Retired Justice SN Dhingra says "What is there to say in this. Corruption in Judiciary is well known. Not just from today but from a long time. Action should be taken on this; they are also aware of it, but no such measure has been taken to correct it and to remove corruption. Till date, corruption is increasing and the common man has to bear the brunt of it...First of all, there are no rules for the judges of High Court and Supreme Court. When currency notes were caught in this, the Supreme Court should have immediately taken permission to register an FIR. Just like an FIR is lodged against a common man, similarly permission should be given to lodge an FIR against a judge and further action should be taken along with it. The Supreme Court should have done this..."
3:39

#WATCH | On SC Collegium recommending transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma of Delhi HC to his parent High Court in Allahabad after an adverse report against him, Retired Justice SN Dhingra says "What is there to say in this. Corruption in Judiciary is well known. Not just from today but from a long time. Action should be taken on this; they are also aware of it, but no such measure has been taken to correct it and to remove corruption. Till date, corruption is increasing and the common man has to bear the brunt of it...First of all, there are no rules for the judges of High Court and Supreme Court. When currency notes were caught in this, the Supreme Court should have immediately taken permission to register an FIR. Just like an FIR is lodged against a common man, similarly permission should be given to lodge an FIR against a judge and further action should be taken along with it. The Supreme Court should have done this..."

ANI

135,169 views • 1 year ago

VIDEO | Delhi: Addressing a press conference on Supreme Court granting anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, says, "This case also reminds us that when reputational damage is an issue, the beginning of this case, the heart of this case is alleged reputational damage. So it reminds us that when that is the issue, arrest should not be the first but the last resort. And a last resort on what test? Can you achieve the objects of proper investigation without arrest? Is arrest the only way I can investigate his alleged defamatory comment? Is arrest the only way because this case is bristling with flight risk? That if I do not arrest him and custodially interrogate him, he will flee. Arrest is the only way because I will not be able to summon him and sit with him and interrogate him without arrest. Arrest is the only way because he will tamper with documents or with witnesses. Lawyers call it the triple test. Now on the face of it, when this test is not satisfied. Let us assume there was an error. Let us assume the right is this or the right is that. Irrespective of that, the press conference which is alleged to have caused reputational damage, had everything in the public sphere transparently documents are also transparently demonstrated or used." (Full video available on PTI Videos -
2:58

VIDEO | Delhi: Addressing a press conference on Supreme Court granting anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, says, "This case also reminds us that when reputational damage is an issue, the beginning of this case, the heart of this case is alleged reputational damage. So it reminds us that when that is the issue, arrest should not be the first but the last resort. And a last resort on what test? Can you achieve the objects of proper investigation without arrest? Is arrest the only way I can investigate his alleged defamatory comment? Is arrest the only way because this case is bristling with flight risk? That if I do not arrest him and custodially interrogate him, he will flee. Arrest is the only way because I will not be able to summon him and sit with him and interrogate him without arrest. Arrest is the only way because he will tamper with documents or with witnesses. Lawyers call it the triple test. Now on the face of it, when this test is not satisfied. Let us assume there was an error. Let us assume the right is this or the right is that. Irrespective of that, the press conference which is alleged to have caused reputational damage, had everything in the public sphere transparently documents are also transparently demonstrated or used." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

18,103 views • 4 months ago

To the lawyers on here, I’m looking to learn: kindly help me understand the Buganda Road Magistrate’s reasoning here. The State Attorney, Joan Keko, informed Court that investigations in the MALE MABIRIZI Ug &East Africa RULE OF LAW CHAMPION case were still ongoing. Basically, the state wasn’t ready to prosecute a case they themselves brought before court and deprived a citizen of liberty. 1-The Magistrates Court Act, Section 75 says that: “a magistrate’s court before which a person appears or is brought charged with any offense other than the offences specified in subsection (2) may, at any stage in the proceedings, release the person on bail, on taking from him or her a recognisance consisting of a bond with or without sureties, for such an amount as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case to appear before the court, on such a date and at such a time as is named in the bond.” Why is it that the first thing Magistrates do is remand people even when it’s clear the state isn’t ready to try them? Why not lead with respect for individual liberty-as guaranteed in the constitution-and grant accused persons bail? 2. Section 77 (2) of the same act talks about matters “to consider in deciding whether bail should be granted or refused” None of these includes filing documents on ECMIS. Why did she shut down the Uganda Law Society Vice President’s bail submissions on account of that? Is it now a precedent in Ugandan courts that technology has amended the written laws? OR was she simply bent on throwing MALE MABIRIZI Ug &East Africa RULE OF LAW CHAMPION in jail just to please her superiors who, it appears, were the complainants? But also, why hand out custodial sentences (remand to me counts as serving a punishment before conviction) on behalf of a Chief Justice and a Court of Appeal Justice on a matter of speech? These people have surely read: Lohé Issa Konaté v. The Republic of Burkina Faso. Surely they understand that in Uganda, custodial sentences for speech shouldn’t be a thing. No?
4:47

To the lawyers on here, I’m looking to learn: kindly help me understand the Buganda Road Magistrate’s reasoning here. The State Attorney, Joan Keko, informed Court that investigations in the MALE MABIRIZI Ug &East Africa RULE OF LAW CHAMPION case were still ongoing. Basically, the state wasn’t ready to prosecute a case they themselves brought before court and deprived a citizen of liberty. 1-The Magistrates Court Act, Section 75 says that: “a magistrate’s court before which a person appears or is brought charged with any offense other than the offences specified in subsection (2) may, at any stage in the proceedings, release the person on bail, on taking from him or her a recognisance consisting of a bond with or without sureties, for such an amount as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case to appear before the court, on such a date and at such a time as is named in the bond.” Why is it that the first thing Magistrates do is remand people even when it’s clear the state isn’t ready to try them? Why not lead with respect for individual liberty-as guaranteed in the constitution-and grant accused persons bail? 2. Section 77 (2) of the same act talks about matters “to consider in deciding whether bail should be granted or refused” None of these includes filing documents on ECMIS. Why did she shut down the Uganda Law Society Vice President’s bail submissions on account of that? Is it now a precedent in Ugandan courts that technology has amended the written laws? OR was she simply bent on throwing MALE MABIRIZI Ug &East Africa RULE OF LAW CHAMPION in jail just to please her superiors who, it appears, were the complainants? But also, why hand out custodial sentences (remand to me counts as serving a punishment before conviction) on behalf of a Chief Justice and a Court of Appeal Justice on a matter of speech? These people have surely read: Lohé Issa Konaté v. The Republic of Burkina Faso. Surely they understand that in Uganda, custodial sentences for speech shouldn’t be a thing. No?

Anthony Natif

36,131 views • 7 months ago