How police lied concerning man who named dog Buhari, lawyer reveals

– Barrister Inibehe Effiong, lawyer  and activist handling Joe Iroko Chinakwe’s case, has punctured a statement released by the police on why his client was arrested

– Iroko was arrested and arraigned by the police for allegedly naming his dog after President Muhammadu Buhari

– The police denied this, claiming that Iroko was arrested and arraigned for conduct likely to cause breach of peace

The lawyer and activist handling the case against Joe Iroko Chinakwe has described the statement released by the police on the reason the former was arrested as a ruse.

In a first statement, the police, through Abimbola Oyeyemi, said Iroko was arrested and charged to court after efforts to resolve the crisis amicably proved abortive.

He said the action of the police was to forestall further issues that could occur as a result of the allegations against the suspect.

In another release, this time, through the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG), Zone II, Abdulmajid Ali, the police again said that Iroko was not arrested for naming his dog ‘Buhari’, but for conduct likely to cause breach of peace.

The Police described comments linking President Muhammadu Buhari to the prosecution of the man as unfair.

According to the police: “It is fundamental to state that the man was not charged to court for christening his dog, Buhari, but for his behaviour and circumstances surrounding the matter. He has been living in conflict with his neighbour, the complainant, and he named his dog, Buhari, his neighbour’s father’s name.

“He inscribed Buhari on both sides of the dog, and started parading the dog with swagger among his neighbours and traders, who are mostly northerners.

“Joe was actually attacked by the people around for his action before he was rescued by the police. The timely intervention of the police prevented a crisis or inter-tribal crisis.”

But Inibehe Effiong, in his reply made available to NAIJ.com, described the police statement as a tissue of lies.

READ ALSO: Falana berates presidency over arrest of Joachim Iroko

He said:

I have dispassionately peruse the misleading press release by the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO), Ogun State Police Command, Mr. Abimbola Oyeyemi, dated August 29, 2016 on the case of Joachim Iroko Chinakwe.

Below is my my response to this latest attempt to mislead credulous members of the public:

1. The statement just released by the PPRO Ogun State on Chinakwe’s case is materially misleading and contradictory. We are not credulous.

2. Iroko DID NOT admit inscribing the name of the complainant’s father on his dog. He told the Police that he named it after President Buhari.

3. The PPRO in Ogun previously said “the average Northerner will feel bad about it”. Did the PPRO contemplate the complainant’s father here?

4. The PPRO failed to disclose that Iroko in his statement stated that he named his other dogs, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Joe (after himself).

5. In his new statement, the PPRO SAID NOTHING about the earlier allegation that Iroko paraded his dog in the Hausa section of Ketere market.

6. The PPRO said efforts to resolve the issue failed. But Iroko was freed after it was resolved by the Commissioner of Police after meeting the community leaders.

7. The PPRO should tell Nigerians the person that ordered the re-arrest and prosecution of Iroko when the AIG requested for the case file?

8. Saying that President Buhari has no link to the case is playing to the gallery. If the dog’s name was not ‘BUHARI’ there would have been no case.

READ ALSO: Buhari is my mentor, says man who named dog after president

9. You cannot insulate President Buhari as long as Iroko’s position is that he named the dog after him and the police has not proved its case.

10. The PPRO is inconsistent. The law is in favour of Iroko because he is presumed innocent until proved guilty and the burden is on the police to prove their allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

11. The police cannot use the media to convict Iroko. If they insist on pursuing the case, they should prove their mere allegations in court.

12. It is shameful that the Police has been overzealous over what Mallam Garba Shehu described as a “LAUGHABLE INCIDENT” when serious cases are there.

13. The claim that the issue was about to degenerate into crisis has only been invented today. For me, it remains false until proved in court.

14. Iroko NEVER made any hate statement against the complainant or his father. It was the same PPRO who introduced ethnicity into the case.

15. The new statement by the PPRO implies that any person who gives his dog a name that is borne by his neighbour, can be prosecuted.

16. This case is in court, the police should either withdraw it or allow the court to determine it. The media trial is really unfortunate.

17. Nigerians are conversant with how the police has been faring in investigation of cases & treatment of accused persons. I’m not credulous.

18. There is nothing special about the name ‘Buhari’. This is an attempt to intimidate a citizen for exercising his legal rights.

19. The Police can end this embarrassing drama or continue it. But we want to see them act with equal passion in REAL criminal cases.

20. Nigeria is not a zoo. The human rights community will never sit back and watch the violation of the rights of our people. I am not afraid.

READ ALSO: Dog named Buhari: PMB has no hand in man’s arrest – Shehu

21. Lastly, I supported the emergence of the current regime because it promised change. We want to see more of that change and less of TYRANNY.

Concerning the statement by the AIG (Zone 2), Barrister Effiong further told NAIJ.com: “First, the accused person, Joachim Iroko, does not have any duty whatsoever to prove his innocence. This is a settled law.

“The legal burden of proof in this case lies exclusively with the police which must been discharged beyond reasonable doubt. All what the police has been saying are nothing but mere contradictory allegations.

“Second, it is utterly troubling that the AIG of Zone 2 can publicly declare that a Nigerian citizen was attacked by people but the police till date has not deemed it proper to arrest and prosecute those who committed the assault.

“This clearly shows that the police was never interested in the justice of this case. They were never committee to enforcing the law in this case.

“It also means that the complainant and those who ‘attacked’ Iroko are above the laws of the country.

“Third, the insinuation by the zone that Iroko has been having conflicts with the complainant is totally false.

“This cock and bull story cannot save the police from the embarrassment they have brought upon themselves and the country by going after an innocent citizen who merely exercised his constitutional rights.

“Four, the allegation that Iroko was parading his dog ‘with swagger amongst his neighbours and/ traders who are mostly northerners’ is completely false. No such thing ever happened.

“The onus is on the police to prove their allegation beyond reasonable doubt.”

The post How police lied concerning man who named dog Buhari, lawyer reveals appeared first on Nigeria News today & Breaking news | Read Naij.com 24/7.