The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 repealed the Terrorism Act 2011, the Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2013 and provides an enhanced framework to prevent, prosecute and punish acts of terrorism. However, some of its provisions raise concerns. Section 64 of the Act provides for investigation and search of a premises by the officer of a relevant agency without warrant, in a case of verifiable urgency, threat to life, or in order to prevent the commission of an offence under the Act. Under this provision, a search may commence while a warrant is being sought. While the rationale for this course of action may be valid, enforcement may still be subject to abuse. It is important to objectively define situations that fall under the purview of this provision for clarity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Section 66 provides for the detention of a\nsuspect for a terrorism-related offence for a period of 60 days using an order\nobtained through an ex-parte application to the Court. Such detention is\nintended to last until the conclusion of investigation and prosecution of the\nmatter. It further provides for a renewal of the detention period but requires\nthe involvement of the Attorney-General of the Federation by the relevant\nenforcement agency for renewal. This provision appears to be in contravention\nof section 35(4) and (5) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, which provide that\na person arrested and detained for a criminal offence be charged to court\nwithin a reasonable time (1 to 2 days). It also raises the issue of the\npossibility of arbitrariness by enforcement agencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Section 56 of the Act empowers the Registrar\nGeneral of the Corporate Affairs Commission or the Director of the Special\nControl Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML) to sign a certificate refusing or\nrevoking the registration of a\nnon-profit organisation based on criminal intelligence reports, grounds of\nnational security or reasonable suspicion of terrorist links. Although the\naffected organisation may apply to the Court for a review of this decision, the\nprovision still raises concern about the possibility of abuse by the\ngovernment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management)\nAct 2022 generally provides the legal and institutional framework for the\ngovernment to recover and manage proceeds derived from unlawful activities, as\nwell as unclaimed properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime. A\nprovision of concern in the Act is section 74, which places the burden of proof\non a defendant in proceedings under the Act, to prove that he or she is the\nlegitimate owner of goods suspected to be proceeds of crime or derived from\nunlawful activity, or to prove that the assets are of legitimate origin. This\nprovision appears to contradict section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution which\nprovides that a person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed\ninnocent until proven guilty. The position of Nigerian law on burden of proof\nis that a person who makes an allegation has the responsibility to prove it.\nThis principle is embedded in section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The rationale of placing the burden of proof on\nthe defendant in section 74 of the Terrorism Act 2022, appears to be the\nNigerian government expanding the scope of liability and basing it on the need\nto conform with Article 12(7) of the United Nations Convention against\nTransnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) which provides that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
States Parties may\nconsider the possibility of requiring that an offender demonstrate the lawful\norigin of alleged proceeds of crime or other property liable to confiscation<\/em>, to the extent that\nsuch a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law and\nwith the nature of the judicial and other proceedings.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it is clear that this provision is merely\nadvisory and cannot override the principles of natural justice and rule of law\nrecognised in the Nigerian Constitution. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 repealed the Terrorism Act 2011, the Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2013 and provides an enhanced framework to prevent, prosecute and punish acts of terrorism. However, some of its provisions raise concerns. Section 64 of the Act provides for investigation and search of a premises by the officer of a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2694,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2690","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2690"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2690\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2695,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2690\/revisions\/2695"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2694"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}