
A TRIP BACK INTO HISTORY FROM A REPORT TITLED “MILITARY INJUSTICE” BY AFRICA WATCH (A BRANCH OF RESPECTED GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH) ON ONE OF THE UGLY FACES OF MILITARY DICTATORSHIP AND WHY PEOPLE CALLING FOR MILITARY TAKE-OVER BECAUSE OF OUR PRESENT SELF-INFLICTED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES MUST BE WARY OF SUCH EXTREMISM PROF. MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN’S SUIT AT THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE, CORAM, HON JUSTICE MORENKEJI ONALAJA (1933- 2017), HELPED SAVE FROM THE FIRING SQUAD OR HANGMAN, THE LIFE OF A VARLOUS FORMER MILITARY GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE, GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT. LEKWOT AND OTHERS HAD BEEN HAD BEEN UNJUSTLY SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE GENERAL IBRAHIM BABANGIDA MILITARY JUNTA FOR UNPROVEN AND 14 OTHERS OVER UNSUBSTATIATED ACTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE CONCERNING THE ZANGO KATAF ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS CRISIS THAT TOOK PLACE IN MAY, 1992. THE RETIRED GENERAL LIVES TODAY AS A FREE AND RESPECTED ELDER STATESMAN. TO GOD BE THE GLORY.
9th of December, 2024.
Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

March 30, 1993 Volume 5, No. 4
NIGERIA NIGERIA NIGERIA NIGERIA
MILITARY INJUSTICE MILITARY INJUSTICE MILITARY INJUSTICE MILITARY INJUSTICE
Major General Zamani Lekwot Major General Zamani Lekwot Major General Zamani Lekwot Major General Zamani Lekwot
and Others Face Government and Others Face Government and Others Face Government and Others Face Government----Sanctioned Lynching Sanctioned Lynching Sanctioned Lynching Sanctioned Lynching
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Fifteen Nigerians are currently imprisoned, awaiting death by hanging for their supposed
participation in ethnic/religious riots in Kaduna State, in northern Nigeria, in May 1992. The death
sentences were delivered by two Special Tribunals that tried some 70 suspects alleged to be involved in
the riots. All constitutional guarantees were suspended for the trials, and there is no right of appeal. The
farcical proceedings threaten to culminate in a government-sanctioned lynching. None of the trials even
approached the stringent due process requirements for the imposition of the death penalty that are
established by international standards.
The case of a group of six of those sentenced to death has attracted particular international
attention in part because of the distinguished record of one of its members, retired Major General Zamani
Lekwot, who was military governor of Rivers State in southern Nigeria in the 1970s and later held the title of
Ambassador-at-Large to Mauritania, Senegal, Cape Verde and Gambia. The trial of the six, before Benedict
Okadigbo, a retired judge, was characterized by an extraordinary level of abuse, including blatant bias and
hostility by the judge, a presumption of guilt and inadequate access to counsel.
A number of factors point to the involvement of Nigeria’s military government, led by President
Ibrahim Babangida, in ensuring the convictions of the Lekwot group. Most significant is the promulgation
of a military decree that barred any court from inquiring into abuses of constitutionally guaranteed rights
that occurred during the trial.
Human rights attorney Chief Mike A. A. Ozekhome, president of the Universal Defenders of
Democracy, a recently formed human rights group based in Lagos, has challenged the death sentences on
the grounds that Lekwot and the five others did not receive a fair trial. The suit has secured a stay of the
executions until March 31.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Political, ethnic and religious factors all contributed to the riots and the subsequent arrests,
convictions and death sentences. Nigeria’s tightly controlled transition to civilian rule has forbidden
Nigerians from forming parties of their own choice, including any parties based on ethnicity or religion. In
denying Nigerians a legitimate arena for the promotion of interests based on ethnicity, the government has
driven these ambitions underground. This has heightened tensions among the country’s more than 250
ethnic groups, which often see themselves as competing for political power.
In Kaduna State, as in northern Nigeria as a whole, the Hausa-Fulani ethnic group is the largest and
most politically powerful. The Katafs are one of the ethnic Christian minorities in the north, of which
General Lekwot is a member and for whom he has been for years a vocal leader and organizer. Zango-Kataf,
inhabited by both Hausas and Katafs, has been a center of tension ever since colonial days. It is there that
violence erupted in 1992.
Disagreements between the Hausas and Katafs over land ownership date back at least a century.
Katafs claim that Hausas are settlers on their land, which the Hausas deny. Katafs resent the regional
political system, a holdover from the colonial era, which vests authority over non-Muslims in Muslim
leaders. The Katafs and other non-Muslim ethnic groups in the north have been demanding for years that
they be allowed to elect a local chief of their choice. This right continues to be denied them.
A precursor to the May devastation occurred in February 1992, when approximately sixty Hausas
and Katafs died in communal violence. The immediate cause of the conflict was a plan to move the local
marketplace from the center of the Hausa district to a site where the Katafs were in the majority. Political
analysts stress that a struggle for political power in light of the impending hand-over to democratic rule
was also an important factor in the violence. In February 1992, the Nigerian government was promising to
leave office by the end of the year. National Assembly elections were to take place in July 1992,
Presidential elections were to be held in December and the new government was to take over in January
1993.1
Katafs were irritated by several procedural issues surrounding the seven-person commission of
inquiry established to investigate the violence. They complained that Kaduna Governor Dabo Lere
appointed a majority of Muslims to the Commission, thereby weighting it against the Katafs. They also
objected to the shift in the venue of the commission from Zongwa, the Zango-Kataf local government
council headquarters, to Kafanchan, a larger city nearby, and finally to the city of Kaduna, capital of Kaduna
state, where Muslims are the majority.
Both Muslims and Christians criticized the government’s inadequate response to the crisis. After
the February violence, Isa Kaita, a former federal minister and respected Muslim, and Kaduna’s Archbishop
Peter Jatau led meetings to help resolve problems between Christians and Muslims. They recommended
that joint Christian-Muslim committees be formed at all levels of government to resolve problems and sent
the recommendations to President Babangida, but no government action was taken.
1
This was not to happen. National Assembly elections went ahead as planned in July 1992, but after presidential
primaries were marred by widespread fraud, President Babangida announced in November 1992 that the hand-over to
a civilian government would be postponed, for the third time, to August 27, 1993.
2
March 30, 1993
News from Africa Watch
In mid-May, the violence spun out of control when a number of Katafs engaged in what was
apparently a killing spree against the Hausas in Zango-Kataf. The violence spread to the cities of Kaduna,
where some of the wounded were transported, and also to another large city, Zaria, also in Kaduna State. In
those cities the violence took on a more overtly religious–rather than ethnic–tone, with Hausa Muslims
apparently attempting to avenge the killings in Zango-Kataf by attacking Christians irrespective of their
ethnic identity. The government claimed that fewer than 300 died, but others contend that thousands lost
their lives. Calm was restored on May 20. On May 22, the governor, without legal authority, dissolved the
Zango-Kataf local government and appointed a sole administrator, Mallam Haruna Zok, to oversee the area.
THE TRIAL
THE TRIAL
On May 18, the Federal government established the Zango-Kataf Civil and Communal Disturbances
Tribunal in Kaduna City, with powers to try those allegedly involved in the bloodshed. In addition to the
Chairman, Justice Okadigbo, the other six members were: Godwin Alaye Graham-Douglas (Senior Advocate
of Nigeria), Alhaji Aminu Malumfashi, Hajia Tani Yusuf, Otunba A. Adeleke Adedoyin, Colonel Yusuf Abubakar
and Mustapha Wali. The composition of the Tribunal, which includes five Hausas, four of them Muslim, led
to a wide perception of bias against Lekwot and the five others.
General Lekwot was arrested on May 18, sent to Kuje Prison, nearly 200 miles away, and detained
incommunicado under Decree 2, which provides for virtually unlimited detention without charge or trial.
After pressure from human rights organizations and others, Lekwot and five other Kataf leaders were
arraigned on July 29 before the Tribunal and charged with unlawful assembly with intent to subjugate the
Hausa community in Zango-Kataf. Both before and during the trial, the defendants were held in abysmal
conditions in Kaduna prison, where they were not allowed access to their families or attorneys.
According to Mike Ozekhome, the human rights attorney, the government violated its own military
laws in establishing the Zango-Kataf Tribunal. Civil Disturbances Decree 53 of 1987, which provides the
legal basis for the Tribunal, requires the government to establish a commission of inquiry and conduct
investigations before bringing charges. That requirement was ignored when the Zango-Kataf Tribunal was
established.
The trial was subject to obvious political influence. In August, when it became apparent that there
was insufficient evidence to convict Lekwot and the others, the prosecution filed a motion not to pursue the
case. Meanwhile, however, as reported by the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights, a Nigerian
human rights group, the politically powerful Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki, and other prominent
Hausa-Fulanis publicly demanded that those responsible for the Zango-Kataf riots not be spared.2
Apparently in response Justice Okadigbo, in ordering that Lekwot and the others be released, said that the
“police would have to do their duty.” The six were immediately rearrested on the Tribunal premises and
placed in incommunicado detention in Kaduna Prison.3
2
3
“Urgent Call for the Release of General Lekwot and Others,” Committee for the Defense of Human Rights, October 5,
Ibid.
3
March 30, 1993
News from Africa Watch
On September 4, Lekwot and six others were charged in a new 22-count indictment, which included
a charge of culpable homicide, punishable by death. Lekwot was also accused of distributing guns and
ammunition to a riotous group and inciting a group of Katafs to violence. In December, virtually all the
charges were dropped except that of culpable homicide.
During the second trial, Justice Okadigbo repeatedly demonstrated his bias against the
defendants to the point of reportedly terrorizing the defense attorneys, the defendants and spectators. His
improprieties included telling the defendants during the trial that there would be “gnashing of teeth” on
the day of judgment, and threatening to jail defense lawyers if he did not like their lines of inquiry. On
September 29, the leading defense counsel, Chief G. O. K. Ajayi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, threatened to
withdraw from the proceedings which, according to him, had become “impossible from the point of view of
the defense.”
Mr. Graham-Douglas, one of the Christian members of the Tribunal, resigned early in the
proceedings, giving the reason that the other Tribunal members met privately without him and gave
judgments on cases they had heard together without seeking his opinion.
In late October, defense lawyers went before a Kaduna High Court to seek an injunction restraining
the Tribunal from further handling the case because the defendants were unlikely to receive a fair trial.
The Kaduna High Court refused to grant the injunction on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the
case.4 The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal on November 20, 1992. The defense then took their
case to the Supreme Court.
However, on December 1, while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the government
promulgated Decree 55 of 1992, which removed the authority of the regular courts, including the Supreme
Court, to hear any case regarding any abuse of constitutionally guaranteed rights by the Tribunal and in all
other cases involving military decrees.5 According to Decree 55, constitutionally guaranteed rights may
be obviated by military decree. The decree states in part:
For the avoidance of doubt, if any law enacted before 31st December 1983,
including the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 is inconsistent with any
Decree promulgated by the Federal Military Government, the Decree promulgated by the
Federal Military Government shall prevail and that other law shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency, be void.
3.-(1) No civil proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any court or tribunal for or
on account of, or in respect of any act, matter or thing done or purported to be done under
or pursuant to this Decree by or on behalf of the Federal Military Government.
The decree was made retroactive to July 30, 1991, a common practice of the government in promulgating
4
5
According to Civil Disturbances Decree 53 of 1987, which is the legal basis for establishing the Zango-Kataf tribunals,
all decisions of the tribunal are final.
Predictably, in Nigeria, where the most recent phase of military rule has lasted for ten years, military decrees form a
substantial portion of the laws of the land.
4
March 30, 1993
News from Africa Watch
News from Africa Watch 5 March 30, 1993
decrees. The complete text of Decree 55 is included as an appendix to this report.
In protest of the Decree and the mistreatment of their clients, all eleven defense counsel withdrew
on January 4, 1993. In announcing their withdrawal Ajayi said:
I have read and re-read Decree 55 of 1992 … The effect is that the accused persons
cannot challenge the proceedings of this Tribunal. It means that accused persons are
under the mercy of the Tribunal.
Having regard to my professional conduct and my stand to defend the
fundamental rights of Nigerians, I therefore feel that this Tribunal is not competent for me
to stand to discharge my professional duties.6
Colonel Yohanna Madaki (rtd.), another of the group’s defense attorneys and a former military governor of
Benue and Gongola States, characterized the Tribunal’s proceedings as “gangsterism.”
Asked by Okadigbo to comment on the withdrawal of counsel, one of the accused remarked:
…[I]t is an indication that we have only been brought here to be executed and not to stand
trial before the tribunal….Since we are here for execution and not trial, what then do we
have to say?7
According to Mike Ozekhome, the federal government tried to impose its own defense counsel on
the accused, but the offer was rejected and the trial was adjourned. The Tribunal did not sit again until
February 2, when its only act was to convict and sentence to death by hanging Lekwot and the five others
tried with him. Lekwot was convicted of culpable homicide, although, according to Mike Ozekhome, the
only evidence linking him to the killings was the uncorroborated testimony of one illiterate farmer who
claimed that Lekwot stabbed and cut the liver out of a Hausa Muslim, Rabiu Hassan. Also sentenced to
death were:
o Major James Atomic Kude, retired, the former Zango-Kataf supervisory councillor for education,
also convicted of culpable homicide.
o Yohanna Karau Kibori, a businessman and farmer.
o Marcus Mamman, a businessman and farmer.
o Yahaya Duniya, Zango-Kataf’s former officer of the Social Democratic Party.
o Julius Sarki Zamman Dabo, a member of the Zango-Kataf community.
6 Saxone Akhaine, Kaduna, “Zango-Kataf: Lekwot’s lawyers withdraw from suit,” The Guardian (Lagos), January
5, 1993.
7 Ibid.
News from Africa Watch 6 March 30, 1993
Juri Ayok, former chairman of the Zango-Kataf local government, was acquitted for lack of
evidence. Others sentenced to death by Justice Okadigbo in separate trials were Iliya Maza, a former
member of the military, sentenced on February 1, 1993, and Gakon Dawa Kurfi, a retired police officer,
sentenced on December 4, 1992.
A second Zango-Kataf Civil Disturbances Tribunal, chaired by Justice Adegbite, finished sitting in
early March. Although the trials were apparently not characterized by the same level of abuse as those
under Justice Okadigbo, it is responsible for sentencing to death with no appeal the following seven: Dan
Zachary Azimi, sentenced on March 11; Bagwai Samaida, sentenced on February 15; Shubu Abubakar,
sentenced on February 15; Shubu Ali, sentenced on February 15; Ayuba Tashie, sentenced on March 8;
Jonathan Yashin, sentenced on March 8; and Bala B. Bonnet, sentenced on March 8.
The death sentences contravene internationally accepted standards of human rights, including
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.8 Although Nigeria has not ratified the Covenant, the
Covenant’s due process provisions are widely accepted as establishing minimum standards. Article 6-2 of
the Covenant states:
In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may
be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the
time of the commission of the crime…. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a
final judgment rendered by a competent court.
The nature of such a “competent court” was clarified by the UN Economic and Social Council in the
form of a resolution, enacted in 1984, entitled “Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those
Facing the Death Penalty.” Among the Safeguards are the following points:
- Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person
charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative
explanation of the facts. - Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment
rendered by a competent court after legal process which gives all possible safeguards to
ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of anyone suspected of or
charged with a crime for which capital punishment may be imposed to adequate legal
assistance at all stages of the proceedings. - Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to appeal to a court of
higher jurisdiction, and steps should be taken to ensure that such appeals shall become
mandatory. All of these provisions were breached by the Special Tribunal proceedings.
8 Africa Watch opposes the death penalty in all cases, and is particularly opposed to cases in which the death penalty is
imposed in violation of international standards.
THE AFTERMATH
THE AFTERMATH
The reports of both tribunals were sent to Nigerian Attorney-General and Secretary for Justice
Clement Akpamgbo, who will review them and send them with his recommendations to the National
Defense and Security Council (NDSC), which in January 1993 replaced the Armed Forces Ruling Council.
The NDSC may then decide whether to grant clemency. The government has not indicated when it will
make its decision.
Since the death sentences were pronounced, both Christians and Muslims have indicated that
whichever way the decision goes, it is likely to cause unrest. A number of protests have been staged,
including one in Kaduna on February 8 in which some 300,000 Kataf women took part. Nigerian and
international human rights groups and many prominent Nigerians, including former military leaders, have
protested the death sentences. On February 10, Lars Brinkenberg, Danish Ambassador and representative
of the European Community, delivered a letter to Chief Ernest Shonekan, head of the Transitional Council
(which in January 1993 became the official executive branch of government, although Babangida retains
absolute power over the nation), expressing concern about the death sentences. Shonekan told
Blinkenberg that the government would give “due consideration” to the appeals for clemency. The U.S. has
made no public statements condemning the killings but, according to the State Department, has raised the
issue privately.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and Jamatu Nasril Islam (loosely translated
from Hausa as Movement for the Victory of Islam), both headed by the Sultan of Sokoto, have called for the
death sentences to be carried out.
On February 3, 1993, Mike Ozekhome named President Babangida, Chief Shonekan, Justice
Okadigbo and Attorney-General Akpamgbo in a suit brought in the Lagos High Court to revoke the death
sentences of Lekwot and the other five and to release them because they did not receive a fair trial. In the
suit, Ozekhome argues:
…that the purported trial,'
conviction,’ and `sentence,’ of Lekwot, Kude, Kibori, Mamman,
Duniya and Dabo by [Justice Okadigbo] are most barbaric, shameful, despicable, illegal
and constitute a violent violation of their fundamental right to life and to a fair trial
recognized by sections 30 and 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1979, Articles 4 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Article 10 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
He also asserts that Decree 55:
…is a repulsive and draconian piece of legislative judgment promulgated and delivered
specifically and retroactively to convict Lekwot, Kude, Kibori, Mamman, Duniya and Dabo,
without any right of Appeal and is consequently a bad law made ‘ad homine’ which is
repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience, and to various sections of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which Nigeria as a supposed decent
Nation within the international community is a signatory.
At a hearing of the case on March 3, the court granted the six a stay of execution until a hearing on March 17.
7
March 30, 1993
News from Africa Watch
On that day, the Director of Legal Services of the Department of Justice, representing the government,
requested a further extension in order to prepare the government’s arguments. The judge granted the
request and extended the injunction, barring the executions until March 31, when another hearing is
scheduled.
The Constitutional Rights Project (CRP), a Nigerian human rights group based in Lagos, has
attempted to take the cases of Lekwot and others to the international arena. The CRP sent a petition for a
review of the case to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, arguing that the Okadigbo
Tribunal was unfair. The Nigerian member of the African Commission, Professor Umezurike, then wrote to
Attorney-General Akpamgbo urging that the death sentences not be carried out until the African
Commission has had time to review the case. There was no indication when that review would occur.
In late February, in response to statements by the head of Kaduna Prison that he would not be able
to ensure the safety of the prisoners in Kaduna, Lekwot and the other five convicted with him were
transferred from Kaduna by black maria, a poorly ventilated police vehicle, to Port Harcourt Prison in Rivers
State, where Lekwot served as governor. Lekwot apparently became ill from the arduous trip, was treated
in a hospital and returned to prison. The others who have been sentenced remain in Kaduna Prison.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Nigeria is currently undergoing tremendous tension, primarily due to a deteriorating economy and
increasingly vocal dissatisfaction with the military government and its stalled transition to civilian rule.
Many Nigerians believe that the tension will be used as an excuse by the government to continue in office
beyond August. Because of the emotions they have provoked on both sides, the Lekwot trial’s death
sentences are a flashpoint for unrest. Whether the government is willing to honor its international legal
obligations by revoking the death sentences of Lekwot and the others and releasing them from prison will
be a significant indicator of its stated commitment to reestablish the rule of law in Nigeria.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT