ICJ: Nigeria pledges commitment, accepts ruling

International Court of Justice - ICJ

Nigeria on Thursday pledged its continued commitment to supporting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as demonstrated by acceptance of the court’s ruling on the border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon.

Nigeria’s Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the UN, Amb. Samson Itegboje, made this known while delivering the country’s statement on “The Report of the International Court of Justice” in New York.

Itegboje said: “Nigeria will continue to abide by her commitment to the promotion of international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes, as a State Party to the Statute of the ICJ.

“By accepting the Court’s ruling on our border dispute with Cameroon, we have demonstrated our conviction and commitment to the precepts and principles of the Court.

“We encourage all member states to continue to offer their support to the activities of the court in its efforts to promote international justice and the rule of law,” he said.

According to him, the ICJ is an important part of the United Nation’s mechanisms for the promotion of the rule of law and the maintenance of international peace and security through the administration of international justice.

“To be sure, the court has made tremendous contributions to the promotion of and respect for the rule of law at the international level,” he said.

The Nigerian envoy said that over the years, the court has continued to play a vital role in the maintenance of international peace and security through its rulings and judicial notices.

“It has also contributed remarkably to the corpus of international jurisprudence,” he said.


Burundi first country to quit ICC

Burundi is officially the first country to withdraw from the International Criminal Court following a notice a year ago but key rights groups are displeased.

The pullout takes effect Friday, after President Pierre Nkurunziza signed a decree in 2016. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, withdrawal takes effect a year after notification.

Burundi’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove the country from the court’s jurisdiction.

The move was unprecedented in a continent whose leaders often complain that the court disproportionately targets Africans.

But Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying the withdrawal shields agencies from accountability.

“Burundi’s official withdrawal is the latest example of the government’s deplorable efforts to shield those responsible for grave human rights violations from any kind of accountability,” associate director Param-Preet Singh said.

“We urge the ICC to take a progressive approach in interpreting its jurisdiction so victims maintain a viable path to justice.”

In April last year, the court opened a preliminary investigation into Burundi, focusing on killings, imprisonment, torture, rape and other sexual violence, as well as enforced disappearances.

The ICC said political violence had killed about 450 people and forced hundreds of thousands to flee.

Amnesty International said the “cynical ICC withdrawal” will not derail wheels of justice.

“The government has made a cynical attempt to evade justice by taking the unprecedented step of withdrawing from the ICC,” said organisation head Matt Cannock.

Cannock added that perpetrators, including members of the security forces, cannot so easily “shirk their alleged responsibility for crimes” under international law committed since 2015.

“Withdrawal from the Rome Statute does no, in any way, absolve Burundi of its obligations to end ongoing widespread human rights violations, or to address its abject failure to deliver justice for victims at the national level.”

The official noted ICC can continue its preliminary investigations regardless of Burundi’s efforts to stop its work by pulling out.

“Even if Nkurunziza’s government will not cooperate, the ICC has ways and means to investigate and prosecute crimes committed.”

Source:  The Star


Deliberate Famine Should Be a War Crime: UN Expert

Conflicts have proliferated around the world and with them has come a rise in food insecurity. Credit: Reuters

The deliberate starvation of civilians could amount to a war crime and should be prosecuted, said an independent UN human rights expert.

In a new report, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Hilal Elver, examined the right to food in conflict situations and found a grim picture depicting the most severe humanitarian crisis since the UN was established.

“Contrary to popular belief, casualties resulting directly from combat usually make up only a small proportion of deaths in conflict zones, with most individuals, in fact perishing from hunger and disease,” she said.

Conflicts have proliferated around the world and with them has come a rise in food insecurity.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the proportion of undernourished people living in countries in conflict and protracted crises is almost three times higher than that in other developing countries.

In five conflict-stricken countries alone, approximately 20 million are facing famine and starvation.

Another estimated 70 million people in 45 countries currently require emergency food assistance, a 40% increase from 2015.

Since the human right to food is a universal one, Elver noted that countries and other parties to conflicts must act and avoid using food as a weapon of war.


“If the famine [occurs] from deliberate action by state or other players, using food as a weapon of war is an international crime and there is an individual responsibility to that,” she said.

“The international community should make it clear that this is a war crime or a crime against humanity, otherwise we will give a certain permission [to it],” Elver continued.

In Yemen, rates of acute malnutrition have increased dramatically since the beginning of the civil war in 2015, making it the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Approximately 60% of the population are food insecure while seven million are at risk of famine and acute food insecurity, a situation that is expected to worsen without an increase in emergency food assistance.

According to the World Food Programme, over three million children and pregnant or nursing women are acutely malnourished, making them susceptible to communicable diseases such as cholera.

Already, a severe cholera outbreak that began in April has killed over 2,000 people and has exacerbated the nutrition crisis.

Parties to the ongoing conflict have played a significant and deliberate role in the decreased access to food, including a Saudi Arabia-imposed aerial and naval blockade on a country which previously imported 90% of its food.

Air strikes carried out by the coalition have also targeted the country’s agricultural sector including farms, further limiting access to food, while sieges by Houthi fighters in numerous cities have prevented staple items from reaching civilians.

Ta’izz, the Middle Eastern country’s second-largest city, was besieged by Houthi fighters for over a year, causing blockages in supply routes and dire food shortages.

Elver said that Yemen is a “clear situation” where famine constitutes a crime against humanity in which both the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis are responsible.

She noted, however, that there is still widespread impunity in situations when famine is deliberately caused and pointed to the International Criminal Court as an example which has not prosecuted individuals responsible for such crises.

Though UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has included the Saudi-led coalition in his annual shame list for violations against children, Elver called for the creation of legal mandates to prevent famine and protect people’s right to food.

This includes the development of international legal standards to reinforce the norm that deliberate starvation is a war crime or a crime against humanity and the referral of the most serious cases to the ICC for investigation and potential prosecution.

The formal recognition of famine as a crime can prevent the tendency of governments “to hide behind a curtain of natural disasters and state sovereignty to use hunger as a genocidal weapon,” the report states.

“We can see the famine coming, it doesn’t just happen in one day,” Elver said.

Source: The wire


Central African Republic: Conditions in Central African Republic Continue…

The United Nations reports conditions in Central African Republic have continued to deteriorate since a serious outbreak of inter-communal violence in mid-May between the Muslim Seleka and largely Christian anti-Balaka armed groups.

Fighting in some parts of Central African Republic has become so intense that United Nations and private aid agencies have had to suspend their activities. The U.N. humanitarian coordinator in the C.A.R., Najat Rochdi, says security has become so bad in the East, agencies have had to change their mode of operations.

“We cannot do it anymore business as usual having bases, you know, here and there, but rather strengthening some hubs actually, around a number of cities where the security is much more important and from there fly in special emergency teams, a kind of surge teams,” she said.

Since January, the United Nations reports a 50 percent increase in the number of internally displaced people to 600,000. Refugee numbers also have increased to nearly one-half million.

Rochdi says humanitarian operations in the country are suffering from severe under-funding. She says only 39 percent of the nearly $500 million appeal for this year has been received. Because of the lack of funding, she says food rations have been cut in half.

“And that there are places where actually we have stopped the food distribution. We already had very serious worsening of the malnutrition situation. For example, unfortunately, in the southeast, we started already seeing children dying from severe malnutrition,” said Rochdi.

Humanitarian coordinator Rochdi says there are unconfirmed reports that 10 children have died from malnutrition-related causes in the town of Zemio in southeastern C.A.R. She says shelter and protection concerns also are growing.

Another cause for alarm is education. She says 400,000 children are not going to school. She warns nearly a whole generation of children who have lost out on education may not have a viable future. And this, she says, will spell disaster for the whole country.

Source: All African News


Gambia: Campaign to Bring Yahya Jammeh and Accomplices to…

Survivors of human rights violations under the Jammeh regime and international human rights lawyers and advocates, have created the ‘Campaign to Bring Yahya Jammeh and accomplices to Justice.

The Gambia Center for Victims of Human Rights Violations, the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, Article 19 West Africa, Coalition for Change, The Gambia, TANGO, EG (Equatorial Guinea) Justice, Trial International (Switzerland), Human Rights Watch, Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers, Aid-Free World and La Fondation pour l’egalite chances en Afrique, were present at the launching ceremony held at a hotel in Kololi on Saturday, 21st October 2017.

The joint communiqué was read by Fatoumatta Sandeng, daughter of the late Ebrima Solo Sandeng who said the victims of human rights violations during the Jammeh regime and human rights lawyers and advocates, met on October 19th and 20th 2017, in Banjul, to deliberate on strategies to hold ex-president Yahya Jammeh and his accomplices accountable for alleged crimes including disappearances, torture, kidnapping, sexual violence and murder, during his regime. She added that they have decided to create the “Campaign to Bring Yahya Jammeh and his Accomplices to Justice”; that they are all committed to attain their ultimate goal, which is to ensure that Yahya Jammeh, as well as those who bear the greatest responsibility in the crimes of his twenty two year old regime, are brought to trial with all due process guaranteed; that they are aware that before Yahya Jammeh could get a fair trial in the Gambia, the rule of law, political, security and institutional concerns must first be addressed.

She called upon Government to exert diplomatic and political leverage to ensure that Yahya Jammeh faces justice with all due process guaranteed. She further called on the Government of Equatorial Guinea to allow Yahya Jammeh to face justice with all due process guaranteed. In addition, she called on ECOWAS, the African Union, the United Nations and all friends of the Gambia, to support the aspirations of the survivors of abuses by the former Jammeh Government.


Human Rights Abuses by Army: Presidential Panel Begins Sitting…

The Presidential Investigation Panel instituted to review compliance of the Armed Forces with human rights obligations and rules of engagement on Tuesday began sitting at Ikeja High Court in Lagos. The seven presidential investigation panels were inaugurated by the Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo on Aug. 11 as Acting President.
The panels will be sitting in the six geopolitical zones of the country on various dates from Sept. 11 to Nov. 3 with the Southwest Panel sitting in Lagos from Oct. 23 to Oct. 26. It is to hear at least six petitions of alleged human rights abuses brought against the Armed Forces by various individuals. The panel’s terms of reference are to review extant rules of engagement applicable in the Armed Forces of Nigeria and extent of compliance thereto. Also, it is to investigate alleged acts of violation of international humanitarian and human rights law under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Geneva Convention Act, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other relevant laws by the Armed Forces in local conflicts and insurgencies.

It is also to investigate matters of conduct and discipline in the armed forces in local conflicts and insurgencies and recommend means of preventing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in conflict situation. They are also expected to make further recommendations in line with the terms of reference as may be deemed necessary. The eight-man panel headed by Justice Biobele Georgewill of the Court of Appeal include retired Maj.-Gen. Patrick Akem, Mr. Olawale Fapohunda and Prof. Hauwa Ibrahim. Others are Prof. Jibrin Ibrahim, Mrs. Ifeoma Nwakama, Mr. Abba Ibrahim and Mr Adamu Abdulkadir.

Source: Vanguard;


Director-General rescinds Goodwill Ambassador appointment

WHO statement
22 October 2017

Over the last few days, I have reflected on my appointment of H.E. President Robert Mugabe as WHO Goodwill Ambassador for Noncommunicable Diseases in Africa. As a result I have decided to rescind the appointment.

I have listened carefully to all who have expressed their concerns, and heard the different issues that they have raised. I have also consulted with the Government of Zimbabwe and we have concluded that this decision is in the best interests of the World Health Organization.

It is my aim to build a worldwide movement for global health. This movement must work for everyone and include everyone.

For me, what is important is to build political leadership and create unity around bringing health to all, based on WHO’s core values.

I remain firmly committed to working with all countries and their leaders to ensure that every one has access to the health care they need.

We must build bridges that bring us together and help us move forward in our quest to achieve universal health coverage.

I thank everyone who has voiced their concerns and shared their thoughts. I depend on constructive debate to help and inform the work I have been elected to do.


Rights of 12 Million Displaced people in Africa Ignored:…

The rights of Africa’s 12 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are often ignored and their demands are left unmet, International Committee of the Red Cross President Peter Maurer said in a new report released Wednesday.

Maurer presented the report to the African Union Peace and Security Council, which focused on the implementation of the Kampala treaty – an African Union treaty signed in 2009 to protect the IDPs and provide them access to humanitarian services.
He noted that armed conflict had been one of the major causes of internal displacement in Africa.
“These challenges arise with respect to IDPs’ movements both en route to the place of displacement and at the place of displacement – [particularly during movements in and out of IDP camps] – as well as in the screening of IDPs,” the report said, without listing any specific countries.
“The rights of the IDPs are not always fully understood or respected in practice, with the result that consideration of these rights, when faced with security concerns, may be less rigorous than is required.
“One very real and practical challenge during armed conflict is that of maintaining the strictly civilian and humanitarian character of IDP camps and other settings,” it said, noting the permanent presence of armed forces inside such camps.
Speaking at a news conference after meeting the AU Security Council, Maurer said: “Often states lack legal and policy frameworks to respond to the needs of IDPs.”
The ICRC chief, who visited Nigeria and Niger, added: “Authorities should consult and actively engage with IDPs and host communities to ensure their participation in decision-making. All ages, genders, religious and ethnic groups should be included.”
He gave the example of Mali where, he said, authorities had organised mobile schools to allow internally displaced youth to continue their education; Ethiopian authorities too “have allowed IDP children without identity documents to attend school, avoiding a disruption to their education.”

Source News Express


Burundi-ICC: The legal consequences of opening of the investigation…

1. Background


Since Nkurunziza Pierre’s decision to run for a third term in violation of the constitution and the historic Arusha peace and reconciliation agreement of Burundi, in April 2015, Burundi has been plunged into an unprecedented crisis with an escalating violence. According to estimates by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), between 26 April 2015 and 30 August 2016, at least 564 cases of executions have been registered. By the end of April 2016, the OHCHR office in Burundi had documented 36 enforced disappearances, 3477 arbitrary arrests or detentions, 651 cases of torture and 19 cases of sexual violence since the beginning of the crisis.

Burundi has been a State party to the Rome Statute since 1 December 2004. The International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the ICC) has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide and war crimes committed on territory of Burundi or by Burundian nationals as from that date.

The evolution of the situation in the country has thus legitimately attracted the attention of the ICC Prosecutor who twice expressed his concerns about the Preliminary examination is the initial phase of any proceeding before the ICC, in which the ICC Prosecutor’s Office determines “whether there is a reasonable basis for initiating an investigation”

The reaction of the Burundian state was not long in coming and on October 7, 2016, he announced his intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute. On October 12, 2016, the two Houses of Parliament of Burundi had already passed the bill of withdrawal, in an unprecedented rush, President Nkurunziza promulgated the law on October 18, 2016. On October 27, 2016, Burundi officially notified its withdrawal to the Secretariat United Nations.

In the past, threats of such action have not been lacking, but so far no state has so clearly demonstrated its willingness to complete the withdrawal. However, following the steps taken by Burundi on 21 October 2016, South Africa expressed the same desire and the day itself became the first country to formally withdraw from the Rome Statute, 11 opening the door to a “Domino effect”. Indeed, this road has already been undertaken by The Gambia, which announced its intention to withdraw on 25 October 2016. Fortunately, it recanted itself in favor of the change of institutions that took place in that country with the overthrow of the President Yahya Jammeh,


The South African justice also invalidated the government’s decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute, to say that ultimately only Burundi actually withdrew

The purpose of this contribution is to explore the legal consequences of Burundi’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the ICC on the current preliminary examination and the possible continuation of the proceedings, by analyzing the relevant provision of the Rome Statute (1). °). It aims to probe the avenues that are opening up in such a situation, including the possibility of continuing the preliminary investigation and the initiation of the investigation itself. This despite the expiration of a period of one year after notification of withdrawal to the Rome Statute. It will finally question the future of the international justice system based on the ICC, once the ICC does not use its prerogatives to prosecute the perpetrators of serious crimes committed in Burundi since April 2015

  1. The possibility for Burundi to withdraw to the Rome Statute

The Rome Statute expressly provides for the possibility of a State withdrawing from the treaty and specifying its terms and limitations. According to what Art. 127 (1), “Any State Party may, by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute”.

Burundi’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court responds to a wish of the African Union because it deems it biased. But the withdrawal can not be formulated by the set of States, because the accession was made individually and the withdrawal is done individually

Art. 127 (1) goes on to say that “the withdrawal takes effect one year after the date on which the notice was received, unless the notice provides for a later date”. Thus, only from the receipt of the withdrawal instrument the period of one year begins to run. The withdrawal will not be effective for Burundi until 27 October 2017. Until the expiry of the deadline, Burundi remains a State party  with all the obligations arising therefrom..

The South African court also invalidated the government’s decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute, which means that only Burundi has effectively withdrawn.

  1. The consequences of the Withdrawal from Burundi to the Rome Statute

According to Art. 127 (2), the withdrawal “shall not relieve the State of its obligations under the … Statute while it was a Party, including financial obligations incurred, and shall not affect cooperation established with the Court in criminal investigations and proceedings in respect of which the State had a duty to cooperate and which began before the date on which the withdrawal took effect; the withdrawal shall not affect the continuation of the examination of cases which the Court had already begun to consider before the date on which it took effect “.

From this provision we can see many consequences, in particular the obligations incurred by him when he was a party to it, including the financial obligations incurred (1), the obligation to cooperate with the Court in investigations and criminal proceedings in respect of which the State had a duty to cooperate and which began before the date on which the withdrawal took effect (2) and the obligation not to affect in any way the continuation of the examination of cases which the Court had already begun to consider before the date on which it took effect (3)

For the moment allow us to analyze the last two obligations as these are both apparently relevant to the case in this case

The obligation of cooperation with the Court in criminal investigations and proceedings in respect of which the State had a duty to cooperate and which began before the date on which the withdrawal took effect

It can be emphasized here that Art. 127 (2) of the Statute thus provides that the withdrawal does not affect the State’s co-operation obligations arising from criminal investigations and proceedings initiated before the one-year period has expired.

It is clear that the preliminary examination already begun on Burundi is part of the investigation to which Burundi has an obligation to cooperate with the court from beginning to end.

From this obligation to cooperate one can deduce the possibility of continuing the investigation in spite of the delay of one after the notification

Extension of the preliminary examination

This would seem to be the only way that the ICC would undoubtedly continue to exercise its jurisdiction once the withdrawal is executed.  This means that if the preliminary investigation was initiated before the expiry of one year after notification of the withdrawal, Burundi should cooperate from the preliminary phase until the closure of the case, to the judgment of either the conviction or acquittal of the alleged perpetrators of crimes under international law.

The obligation not to affect in any way the continuation of the examination of cases which the Court had already begun to consider before the date on which it took effect

The second paragraph of Art. 127 provides that “the withdrawal shall not affect the continuation of the examination of cases which the Court has already begun to consider” before the withdrawal is effective. The doctrine seems to agree on one point: what the editors of the Statute wished to express with this sentence remains vague.  The preparatory work does not seem to help in this sense.

First, although doubts were expressed,  it might fairly easily be considered that when Art. 127 (2) refers to the “Court”, the Office of the Prosecutor would be understood, in particular because of the use of the term “Court” throughout the Rome Statute. It could also be said that a preliminary examination is indeed an examination of a “matter”. Although the English version of the provision uses the term “matters” to create some confusion, the term “case” is used in many provisions of the Statute to indicate either a specific case.

Thus, in principle, there would be no objection to the possibility that this sentence might legitimize the continuation of the preliminary examination of the situation in Burundi which had begun before the withdrawal of the Statute became effective. Such a result would flow from the “ordinary meaning to be attributed to the terms of the treaty” and would be most consistent with its object and purpose.

However, this could be nothing but a simple academic exercise. Indeed, as Whiting correctly noted, as soon as the one-year period expires without an “investigation or criminal proceeding” within the meaning of the second paragraph, Burundi would no longer have the “duty to cooperation “under Chapter IX

Would the result change if an application for authorization to initiate an investigation by the Prosecutor acting proprio motu, submitted before the withdrawal took effect, namely on 27 October 2017, would be pending before the Pre-Trial Chamber?

An unambiguous answer can not be given. It can certainly be maintained that under the last sentence of Art. 127 (2), the withdrawal may not affect the further consideration by the Pre-Trial Chamber of the application for leave to commence an investigation. But if a positive decision of the Chamber does not intervene before the withdrawal of Burundi is effective, the fate of the investigation remains uncertain. According to Kolb, “a State which has freed itself from its treaty obligations can no longer be obliged to cooperate in an investigation or proceedings initiated after the date on which its withdrawal took effect”

  1. General international law: a means of supporting the court to open the investigation despite the end of one year after notification of the withdrawal of Burundi to the Rome Statute

In support of the second paragraph of Art. 127, one might be tempted to resort to general international law,  including relevant customary law, as codified by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter CVDT)

Art. 70 of the CVDT provides that “Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the fact that a treaty has terminated under its provisions or in accordance with this Convention: (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal position of the parties created by the execution of the treaty before it has ended ”

According to Clark, under this general rule, the ICC would in no way lose jurisdiction over crimes committed before the withdrawal was effective regardless of whether an investigation had been opened.This argument would be based on the fact that the mere commission of a crime falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC creates “a legal situation of the parties” to which withdrawal can not be infringed.In this way, Clark seems to suggest that the withdrawal ” would have no impact on the ICC’s competence with respect to crimes ex Art. 5 of the Statute allegedly committed on Burundian territory or by Burundians before the one-year time limit expired on 27 October.

Sanctions that may be opened up against other states parties, especially the African Union in the event of non-cooperation Article 86 of the Rome Statute states that “In accordance with the provisions of the present Statute, States Parties shall cooperate fully with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions of crimes within its jurisdiction. “The article states that states parties to the Rome Statute are under an obligation to cooperate fully with the court in the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of crimes under its jurisdiction. As a result, countries that would act against this provision would be subject to sanctions, as was the case in countries such as Chad and Malawi, which were sanctioned by the Court for breaching their legal obligation to arrest and surrender El BECHIR to the Court

  1. Towards the collapse of the international justice system

The case of Burundi could set a potentially very dangerous precedent for the international justice system based on the Rome Statute. Beyond the question of the mass withdrawal of African States from the Statute, which is a very questionable question outside the scope of this note, the Burundian case might suggest to other States that face (or will face) a preliminary consideration that it would be sufficient to withdraw immediately from the Rome Statute so that the initiation of an investigation could be effectively avoided. Indeed, as stated above, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation before the withdrawal takes effect

It should be recalled that, in order for the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation on his or her own initiative, once it has concluded that there is a reasonable basis for proceeding, it is required to “submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber an application for leave to do so  “. As stated above, this request will probably not be sufficient for the Court to retain its jurisdiction: a positive decision authorizing the initiation of the investigation would seem necessary.

But the Prosecutor would not need such permission from the Pre-Trial Chamber if other actors of the international community, such as other States parties to the Rome Statute or the UN Security Council, responsibility for the fight against impunity in recalcitrant countries.

Although until then the States parties to the Statute have only referred cases directly affecting them, under Art. 14 of the Statute, a State Party may properly refer to the Prosecutor a situation such as that prevailing in Burundi. Once determined that there would be a reasonable basis for initiating an investigation, the Prosecutor could proceed without the need for prior judicial review by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Alternatively, responsibility could be assumed by the United Nations Security Council. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council may also refer a situation to the ICC and no authorization would be required for the initiation of an investigation. Today, this approach has been initiated only for the situation in Darfur (Sudan) in 2005 and for the situation in Libya in 2011.



Source: Burundi Coalition on the ICC



Boko Haram: Nigeria, Turkey in partnership to deal with…

President Muhammadu Buhari and his counterpart from Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan have agreed partnership in the area of defence and security.

Speaking at a joint press conference after the meeting the meeting, Buhari said he was ‘‘very pleased’’ that the defence ministers of both countries held extensive discussions on developing new strategies for counter-terrorism.

President Muhammadu Buhari and his counterpart from Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan have agreed partnership in the area of defence and security.

Speaking at a joint press conference after the meeting the meeting, Buhari said he was ‘‘very pleased’’ that the defence ministers of both countries held extensive discussions on developing new strategies for counter-terrorism.

A statement sent to DAILY POST by Buhari’s Senior Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu quoted the president as saying the two leaders also discussed the prospects of increasing their bilateral trade, which has exceeded 779 million USD in the first eight months of 2017.

According to Buhari, ‘‘We are very pleased with the progress of the meeting so far and we are going to wait for the details of meetings between the two countries.

‘‘We will as a result of the meeting between the ministers and officials of both countries strengthen rapidly whatever their recommendations are.’’

Commenting on the degradation of Boko Haram in Nigeria, Buhari said the improved security situation in the North East was an eloquent testimony to the efforts of his administration in combating terrorism since he came into office in May 2015