LETTER: Some facts about the tribunal that condemned Saro-Wiwa
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Michael Birnbaum, QC
Sir: The Independent of 6 December published a lengthy advertisement by the Nigerian High Commission justifying the conviction by a Civil Disturbances Special Tribunal of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others. It made the remarkable claim that the tribunal was lawful and "recognised under the Nigerian Judicial system".
Under the Nigerian constitution, a defendant is entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal. In a case of murder, the trial must take place in a State High Court. Before or during the trial, the accused can seek judicial review of the decisions of the trial judge. After conviction, he can appeal. In a capital case, that appeal lies as of right first to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Supreme Court.
However, in recent years, successive military governments have used a system of decrees and special tribunals to undermine these constitutional rights. In the Saro-Wiwa case, the government invoked Decree 2 of 1987. President Abacha personally nominated the members of the tribunal. Two were judges; the third, as required by the decree, was a military officer.
Section 8 of the decree provides that the validity of any decision of the tribunal may not be questioned in any court of law. Hence, no right to judicial review or to appeal. Hence, the inevitable failure of all attempts by the defence to challenge in the ordinary courts the legality of the tribunal and its decisions. Hence, the execution of the defendants within only 10 days of the convictions.
Curiously, the High Commission has experienced a recurrent difficulty in accurately describing to the public the nature of the tribunal. For example, in January it circulated a brief entitled "Trial of Ken Saro- Wiwa in the Civil Disturbances Special Tribunal", claiming that the tribunal was "made up of two serving High Court Judges". As in the advertisement the existence of a third, military, member was omitted.
It is important to publicise the true facts, not only in the interests of accuracy but of justice: reliable reports suggest that in January the same tribunal will embark on the trial for capital murder of 19 other Ogoni defendants.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Birnbaum
Temple
London, EC4
6 December
The writer was an observer at the trials of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others on behalf of the Bar human rights committee and the Law Society.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments