HENRY OKAH: How MTN, ANC, South African Judiciary, Oil Multinationals, Jonathan Allegedly Conspired To Perpetuate Scam Of The Century And Subvert Niger Delta Struggle – Chigachi Eke (OPINION)

Introduction

Exactly 15 years after his arrest, a relatively unknown Ijaw Nation Forum (INF) on 1st October 2025 hand-delivered to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, a petition that demands the immediate, unconditional and safe release from unlawful imprisonment of Henry Emomotimi Okah. Okah is the assumed leader of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), a militant group based in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.

On 1st October 2010, MEND had claimed responsibility for two car bombings at the Eagle Square, Abuja, venue of Nigeria’s 50th Independence Anniversary Celebration. The following day South African security agents swooped down on Okah, subjecting him to South Africa’s justice system. His trial culminated in a conviction and the court’s imposition of an effective twenty-four (24) year prison term.

Ostensibly, Okah was accorded a fair trial; including opportunities to appeal against his convictions in South Africa’s Supreme and Constitutional Courts – both of which courts confirmed the correctness of his convictions by His Lordship Claassen J of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg. In this regard, the INF’s demand that President Ramaphosa extra-judicially overturn the verdict of South Africa’s Apex Court and effect Okah’s release from a presumable lawful imprisonment appears, at first glance, ludicrous; particularly as South Africa prides itself as a constitutional democracy with respect for rule of law.

This article takes a critical look at the real reasons behind Okah’s arrest and the legitimacy or lack thereof of his trial and subsequent imprisonment. It further explores possible ramifications of President Ramaphosa’s disregard of the INF’s demand, or, in the event of serious harm befalling Okah whilst in the custody of the South African State.

The INF is an online platform that affords all persons of Ijaw extraction an equal opportunity to air their views on matters pertinent to the Ijaw/Izon nation. Unlike the Ijaw National Congress (INC) and Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) that are susceptible to Nigerian government interference, the INF is relatively independent and can thus be deemed to be the voice of mainstream Ijaw Nation.

Okah’s Involvement in Armed Struggle

Born 22nd March 1965 in the Military Hospital, Yaba, Okah is the third son of an Ijaw Naval Commander. His notable siblings include a retired Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri in the United States of America, Julie Okah-Donli, former Director-General of the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP), and Charles Okah who currently is serving a life term of imprisonment in relation to the alleged offences for which Henry Okah is imprisoned in South Africa. He attended Command Children’s School Ann Barracks, Yaba; St Gregory’s College, Obalende and Federal Government College, Ijanikin; all in Lagos State. Okah thereafter graduated from the Maritime College of Nigeria, Oron, Akwa Ibom State and for a brief period served as Shipboard Marine Engineer on the vessels of the Nigerian National Shipping Line (NNSL).

His foray into the Niger Delta militancy is traceable to the Ijaw-Itsekiri conflict, 1997-2003, in Delta State where his timely intervention easily tipped the scales in favour of Ijaws, at the conflicts inception, outgunned by the Itsekiris who were assisted by fighters of the Odua People’s Congress (OPC). Even at this initial stage, Okah was seen by many, including former Minister of the Niger Delta, Godsday Orubebe, to oppose the inter-ethnic conflict. He favoured a common front, comprising of all tribes within the Niger Delta Region, against what was generally seen to be a brutal and repressive Nigerian government, supported by its military; and acting in collusion with International Oil Multinationals (IOMs).

With the Big Picture in mind, Okah converted Government “Tompolo” Ekpemupulo ’s “Camp 5,” hitherto used in training Ijaw fighters during the Ijaw-Itsekiri conflict, into a training ground for fighters from Bayelsa and Rivers States. His aim was to raise a pan-Ijaw army capable of protecting his people from heavy-handed state actors. The Ijaw country hosts the majority of Nigeria’s oil and gas fields and this rendered Ijaw villagers the target of state-sanctioned killings carried out with impunity. In theory, Okah’s plan to transform Tompolo’s base to a launch pad for a resistance movement was sound. In reality, however, it ran into turbulence as Tompolo was allegedly obsessed with power for personal gain. Exerting a considerable and adverse influence over Tompolo at the time, were two of his better educated relatives.

Rather than forward weapons provided by Okah to be distributed to commanders in Rivers and Bayelsa States, except for those allocated to Dokubo Asari, Tompolo was said to have withheld such, then attempted to extract from intended beneficiaries, a traditional oath of allegiance to himself rather than the Ijaw cause- inadvertently attempting a coup d’ etat of sorts against his boss, Okah. Tompolo’s alleged treachery created a rift in their relationship and forced Okah to establish a camp in Rivers State headed by Farah Dagogo over who Tompolo had no control. A humiliated Tompolo thereafter covertly began to assist the Nigerian government towards capturing or killing Okah.

In January 2007, Tompolo seconded three of his loyalists to the State Task Force headed for Okah’s hometown of Amassoma in Bayelsa State with a mandate to execute the capture of Okah who was expected at his own father’s funeral. The anticipated arrest, however, was not to be. Okah, having sufficiently deceived Tompolo into believing he intended to sneak in and out of Amassoma, unexpectedly appeared from the creeks of the Niger Delta in a show of force. Accompanying him were scores of heavily armed fighters who, prior to their departure from Amassoma, publicly discharged hundreds of rounds of ammunition in honour of their leader’s departed patriarch- the unexpected spectacle is to this day spoken of in Amassoma and its neighbouring villages. Okah had knowingly walked into an ambush and sauntered out unscathed. This act of bravery was to the consternation and admiration of the Task Force operatives, who undoubtedly were overawed by his bold entrance and spectacular exit.

Okah’s Arrest in Angola and Release Following Amnesty

On 3rd September 2007, Okah was arrested at the Luanda International Airport, Angola, as he attempted to board a flight for his base in South Africa. He reportedly made that trip to inspect a ship he intended to purchase for late Captain Edward Atatah, a friend and former colleague in the NNSL. At the time of his arrest, the Angolan authorities were unaware of the reasons for Nigeria’s desperation to secure his arrest.

Angolan investigations revealed that Okah had committed no crime on Angolan soil by which he could be prosecuted in the courts of that country, yet he was on 14th February 2008, without just cause and in the absence of judicial proceedings, transferred by rendition to Nigeria aboard a Nigeria Air Force (NAF) Hercules C130 transport plane. On board, he was chained to the aircraft bulkhead for the duration of the flight from Luanda to the Aminu Kano International Airport, Nigeria; from where he was transported under heavy escort to the Obienu Army Barracks in Bauchi State, in the North Central Nigeria.

As with the 2021 abduction and rendition from Kenya of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu by late President Muhammadu Buhari, Okah’s unlawful transfer from Angola was shrouded in secrecy by the Nigerian government which has a history of co-opting corrupt African governments to perpetuate international terrorism against dissenting voices amongst its exiled citizenry.

In 2009, Nigerian President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua proclaimed a Presidential Amnesty for Niger Delta militants willing to lay down their arms and embrace dialogue. Okah’s subsequent release from detention in the barracks on 13th July 2009 followed months of intense negotiations between the Nigerian government and militant groups. Okah himself accepted government’s offer of amnesty. However, unlike the other beneficiaries, he flatly refused to renounce armed struggle as a means of attaining the goals of the Niger Delta peoples. He refused to sign the renunciation of militancy form prepared by the government as a precondition for receipt of amnesty- thus making him the only beneficiary whose pardon was unconditional in the true sense of the word. In essence, and to Okah’s mind, by the terms of his agreement with the Nigerian government, any expectation of peace was dependent upon the willingness of the other party to urgently address the vexing issues that for decades have plagued the Niger Delta Region.

Yar’Adua’s Duplicity

Late in 2009, however, Okah became disillusioned after President Yar’Adua, in a meeting brokered by Mr Nduka Obaigbena, craftily attempted to bribe him with an offer of oil concessions in the Niger Delta. For the highly informed Ijaw revolutionary, Yar’Adua’s duplicitous action was a slight and the tipping point. He was being offered as bribe what rightfully belonged to him and the Peoples of the Niger Delta. But unaware that a good number of his commanders were already compromised by Yar’Adua during his incarceration, he reported to his comrades Yar’Adua’s brazen attempt to bribe him.

After Yar’Adua died, the Ijaw-born Goodluck Jonathan, who fortuitously rode on the crest of the Niger Delta struggle to become Nigerian Vice President, sent emissaries to South Africa soliciting for Okah’s support. Jonathan was apprehensive of being cheated out of his constitutional right to ascend to the position of Nigerian President. In his desperation to become President, Jonathan had, in exchange for support from the northern elites, promised to destroy the Niger Delta struggle and needed Okah’s assistance to halt all attacks against oil infrastructure in the Niger Delta – at least until the expiration of his tenure in office.

Okah, however, politely explained to Godsday Orubebe that he was not a thug to be bribed. He promised to continue fighting; especially if Jonathan who hailed from the Niger Delta was unable to resolve the myriad of challenges besetting the Region. Okah rebuffed Jonathan’s overture believing it was not in the best interests of the Region. His refusal triggered a face-off that formed the background of Okah’s 2nd October 2010 arrest in his Johannesburg residence.

Prisoner of War in South Africa

In the wee hours of 30th September 2010, Okah’s Johannesburg home was stormed by operatives of the South African Police Services (SAPS), accompanied by officers of the South African branch of the International Police (Interpol). The purpose of this legally unauthorised invasion allegedly was to ascertain Okah was not storing weapons, explosives and narcotics in his home. Obviously, the South African authorities had been so misled by the government of Nigeria; or perhaps, someone in Nigeria hiding under the cover of the Nigerian State.

An 11-hour search conducted by dozens of policemen and about 5 narcotics detecting dogs yielded nothing incriminating. For no apparent cause, the SAPS team led by one Lieutenant Colonel Zeeman urged officers of the Interpol, which is the only Agency authorised under South African law to make an arrest in respect of a crime allegedly committed outside South Africa’s borders, to effect Okah’s arrest. But Lieutenant Colonel Mabaso of the Interpol refused to accede as Okah was not wanted by any country and as such, his arrest would have been unlawful.

The SAPS returned on 2nd October 2010, this time unaccompanied by the Interpol, to effect Okah’s arrest on the basis of a warrant issued by a South African magistrate in terms of section 43 of the South African Criminal Procedure Act No 51 of 1977 (CPA), for crimes of terrorism, as defined in South Africa’s Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act No 33 of 2004 (POCDATARA), allegedly committed by Okah within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of Nigeria. In effecting his extraterritorial arrest where there was no formal complaint made by Nigeria nor any other State, the South African government relied on a subjective reading of POCDATARA that allows a South African court to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of acts of terrorism.

The problems associated with South Africa’s application of this law to Okah’s criminal matter were:

1. Okah is not a South African national and there was no nexus between the MEND attacks that occurred in Nigeria, and South Africa.
2. Nigeria categorically stated it never lodged a complaint with South Africa against Okah as prescribed by section 15(5) of POCDATARA -a prerequisite for effecting an extraterritorial arrest.
3. As per the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in paragraph 70, Prosecutor V Dusko Tadic , Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, case number IT – 94 – 1 – AR72, and Prosecutor V Fatmir Limaj, case number IT – 03 – 66 – T, as well as jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court ( ICC), the situation in the Niger Delta is an ongoing armed conflict as defined in International Humanitarian Law. This meaning that Okah could only be prosecuted in a Nigerian court had he been apprehended within the territory of Nigeria, or extradited thereto, or, in the ICC under International Humanitarian law. And most certainly, not under South Africa’s domestic anti- terrorism law. In other words, no South African court had jurisdiction to try him, nor hear appeals resulting from the gross illegality of him having been tried under South African domestic law.
4. On 8th February 2011, following a meeting in Abuja with a delegation from South Africa led by Advocate Anton Ackerman of the South African National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice; Mohammed Bello-Adoke, on behalf of the Nigerian government, entered into an agreement with South Africa that stipulated that Okah be tried under International Humanitarian Law – in which regard, his trial under South Africa’s domestic law was unconstitutional, with regard being had to section 231(4) of the South African constitution.

The ICC functions complementarily to States’ judicial systems. This complementary principle alternatively permitted a South African court’s consideration of “the situation” in the Niger Delta with a view to prosecuting under South Africa’s Implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC Act No. 27 of 2002 (ICC Act), serious violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the context of the armed conflict by all parties to the Niger Delta conflict, inclusive of the Nigerian military and Nigeria’s President. South Africa’s law applicable to the Niger Delta conflict was, however, unpalatable to Nigeria being a rogue state.

In terms of International Humanitarian Law and South Africa’s own domestic law, South African courts lacking the jurisdiction to hear Okah’s matter renders judgements arising from his trials and appeals processes nullities- in layman’s terms, non-existent; placing Okah in a position not dissimilar to one kidnapped for ransom.

As acknowledged by the court at 1172 in Mcfoy V United Africa Co Ltd, 1961(3) ALL E.R. 1169, the judgements of all South African courts being nullities, an order of a court declaring them to be such is merely for sake of convenience, otherwise Okah is entitled by South African law to simply walk out of his prison to freedom. It is for this reason that the INF’s demand is valid and meritorious. His arrest and trial were analogous to one visiting France on holidays only to be arrested, tried and imprisoned under French law for a crime, lacking complaint and complainant, allegedly committed in Japan.

The nullum crimen sine lege principle of criminal law, enshrined in section 35(3)(l) of the South African constitution takes heed of the legality principle- the cornerstone of criminal justice systems of all civilized States, that demands that laws be sufficiently defined so as to afford citizens a reasonable apprehension of the consequences of their actions in order to accordingly regulate their conducts. Paramount to this critical principle is the applicability of laws appropriate to a particular circumstance. For instance, It was impossible for Okah, involved in legitimate struggle in Nigeria, to have imagined he could someday be prosecuted under South African law for alleged infractions which correctly fall within the sole jurisdiction of Nigerian courts, so as to regulate his own conduct in accordance with South African law. Such absurdity imposes on one the impossible burden of regulating one’s conducts in accordance with the laws of every country, regardless of how absurd some of those laws may be.

Corruption from Abuja to Tshwane (Pretoria)

Okah’s illegal trial and ongoing unlawful detention raises the question of how South Africa consciously became entangled in such a shameful debacle. The simple answer is corruption. Prior to his arrest, Nigeria, as reported by the Sahara Reporters, threatened to nationalize the assets in Nigeria of the South African MTN group, which then had as its Chairman the current South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. To evade the dangling sword, Ramaphosa solicited President Jacob Zuma’s interference with the South African judiciary in order to effect Okah’s arrest.

Okah’s contention that Zuma, Ramaphosa, some South African judges and highly placed members of the African National Congress (ANC) were bribed by Jonathan and subsequent Nigerian Presidents to perpetuate his captivity is, in the light of the following evidence, sustainable:

1. Days after Okah’s arrest, an oil concession in the Niger Delta was under questionable circumstances gifted by Jonathan to a South African company named SACOIL Ltd, now trading as Efora Energy Ltd. Another oil concession was gifted following the dismissal in High Court of Okah’s appeal against the Regional Court’s dismissal of his bail application.
2. Directors, past and present, of SACOIL and Efora Energy Ltd include Mr. Vusimuzi Pikoli; one-time head of the South African National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and, relatives of South Africa’s former Deputy Chief Justice; Dikgang Moseneke and Justice Minister Jeff Radebe.
3. In September 2014, approximately $10m in cash was confiscated by customs officials at the Lanseria airport in South Africa. The plane which transported the raw cash belonged to Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor (see “Arms Smuggling Jet Caught With $10Million in South Africa Linked to CAN President, Ayo Oritsejafor,” Sahara Reporters, 15th September 2014). The cash was, in fact, a bribe from Jonathan headed to Zuma. A Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) belonging to Zuma’s second wife, Nompumelelo Ntuli – Zuma, received millions of United States dollars from this windfall. Bribing the ANC to perpetuate Okah’s captivity persisted throughout entire period of Jonathan’s presidency and continues till date.
4. The so-called trial itself was not devoid of controversy. The trial judge on 21st November 2012 made a ruling to the effect that Okah’s witnesses, namely, Governor Timipre Sylva, Charles Okah and Obi Nwabueze, were prevented by the Nigerian government from appearing in court in South Africa to testify in his defence and consequently directed the defence to close its case. The defence complied and to the bewilderment of Okah’s lawyers, he was convicted. Subsequent to the trial, where the court was functus officio, Justice Claassen did the unthinkable by setting aside his own earlier judgement of 21st November 2012, and unlawfully substituting same with a fresh ruling that in effect exonerated the Nigerian government, and placed the blame for the absence in Court of Okah’s witnesses from Nigeria squarely on his shoulders. It was this legal aberration that South Africa’s Constitutional Court in paragraph 88-89 of its judgement in S V Okah [2018] ZACC3 relied on in dismissing Okah’s appeal to that Court. An “error” so gross made by experienced justices of South Africa’s Apex court can only be attributable to a corrupt judiciary. Interestingly, Justice Edwin Cameron who drafted and read the invalid judgement of the Constitutional Court that “dismissed” Okah’s appeal is a member of the ANC, and on retirement was appointed the Inspecting Judge of South Africa’s Correctional Services Department- a position he occupies to this day.
5. The South African government consistently sabotaged Okah’s efforts to regain his freedom; going as far as compromising his lawyers. In a desperate bid to deny Okah access to uncompromised justices of the Constitutional Court, erstwhile Chief Justice of South Africa, Raymond Zondo, personally supervised the mutilation of his applications filed in the Constitutional Court to ensure their failure.

Role of Jonathan

For more than a decade Jonathan misled the Ijaw nation into believing that his animosity towards Okah stemmed from the alleged burning of his home in Otuoke, Bayelsa State, on Okah’s instructions. However, unbeknownst to Ijaws, Jonathan secretly accepted an apology from Tompolo who allegedly ordered a militant called Young-Shall-Grow to carry out the attack on account of Jonathan’s delay in paying an agreed monthly “protection fee” demanded by Tompolo from the Bayelsa State government.

Jonathan’s interest in Okah’s unlawful detention is rooted in his morbid fear of Okah. Also perturbing to Jonathan at the time was the possibility of his former boss and ex-Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha running for the Office of Nigerian President with Okah’s support; Okah being Alamieyeseigha’s cousin. Jonathan had in 2005 conspired with former President Olusegun Obasanjo to imprison Alamieyeseigha in London, England- and the backlash that followed Alamieyeseigha’s removal from office as governor, firmly implanted in Jonathan a crippling fear of Okah, who presumably was the MEND leader.

During his 2009 visit to Okah in Johannesburg, Jonathan, who in the presence of former Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva, apologized over the unceremonious manner Alamieyeseigha was removed from office; nonetheless never believed that Okah had truly forgiven him. And if Alamieyeseigha was to rise from the ashes, everyone believed it would be with Okah’s aid. Such a frightening prospect convinced Jonathan and certain Ijaw elites into believing that Okah’s imprisonment or death was imperative. It was the recent discovery of Jonathan’s true motives that triggered the INF’s determination to ensure that Okah is at any cost released from captivity in South Africa.

Implications of Okah Suffering Harm in South African Prison Facility

The South African government may at a stage have contemplated murdering Okah but for the consequences to South African investments and nationals in Nigeria; considering that MEND had in 2012 threatened to attack MTN and other South African interests. This threat is also believed to be directly responsible for Okah’s ten-year detention in solitary confinement under inhumane conditions.

No responsible principality should deliver its national to another to be tortured or murdered, but for over fifteen years Okah, who had been subjected to a farcical trial, has endured unrelenting physical, mental and emotional tortures at the hands of a mafia-like government in South Africa. What is, however, astonishing is the fact that South Africa was able to hoodwink the entire Nigerian legal fraternity into accepting that its courts had a conflicting interest over a matter that correctly falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nigeria’s domestic courts and/or the ICC. The actions of the South African state in trying Okah is, in fact, an affront to Nigeria’s judiciary; as well as to its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

By intervening in the Niger Delta conflict and unlawfully imprisoning Okah, South Africa clearly made a grievous error of judgement underestimating Okah’s resolve and tenacity; and the attendant risks associated with its provocation of the Ijaw Nation- the majority tribe in the Niger Delta and Nigeria’s fourth largest tribe by population. On account of bribes received by its leaders, South Africa deliberately turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Peoples of that Region, and insultingly now attempts to rewrite history by labelling Okah a terrorist whilst in Nigeria as a whole he is widely regarded as a hero.

The warped reasoning of an obviously racist Justice Claassen is reflected in the 2013 sentence judgement wherein he likened Okah to Nelson Mandela and other ANC leaders of the 1960s who, despite having the benefit of hindsight, he saw fit to describe in 2013 as terrorists. Claassen was doing the ANC’s dirty work by imprisoning Okah for which reason that organization, renown in recent times for brazen and unbridled corruption, was unable to rise to the defence of its revered leaders of old.

As aptly previously described, the Niger Delta Region is awash with small arms and remains an active theatre of war (see “Arms Race in the Niger Delta.” BusinessDay, 20th September 2023). South Africa appears to be grossly misinformed about the true situation in the Niger Delta and apparently harbours the misplaced belief that holding Okah hostage will forestall attacks on its investments in Nigeria. Such distorted reasoning is more likely than not to backfire with ferocity such that not even their hostage (Okah) will be in a position to assist in arresting.

Amidst the pervading bitterness in the Ijaw Nation generated by Okah’s abduction by the South African State; compounded by wide-spread poverty, the unceasing decimation of the environment of the Niger Delta Region and South Africa’s xenophobic treatment of Nigerians, the government of Nigeria presides over a peace of the graveyard. Its divide and rule practice of awarding pipeline surveillance and security contracts to a few compromised Ijaws to the chagrin of millions of Ijaws and members of other excluded minority tribes will fail. How much longer this uneasy calm will prevail is a matter of speculation.

Each month the Nigerian government squanders billions of Naira that could have been better spent on developing the Niger Delta Region on a single Ijaw “security” contractor who, contrary to Nigeria’s constitution, owns and operates a private army. Amidst the chaos prevailing in the Niger Delta, the Nigerian government continues to mislead the South African government and the rest of the world into believing that their investments in that Region of Nigeria were safe; whereas such investments are, in reality, seated atop a keg of gunpowder ready to detonate at the slightest spark.

In brokering the deal that resulted in Okah’s ongoing captivity, President Ramaphosa succeeded not only in unlawfully imprisoning Okah as desired by Jonathan and some Western interests, but also in placing MTN Nigeria and its facilities firmly in the sight of the Region’s militant groups that remain rabidly loyal to Okah 15 years after his capture.

Rendering any hope of reconciliation impossible has been Okah’s needless mistreatment at the hands of the South African authorities. Amongst the innumerable violations of his fundamental rights, Okah was without provocation on 14th September 2023 brutally attacked by about ten prison warders led by one Captain Mphuti. Batons were utilised in the assault to inflict permanent injury to a facial nerve, resulting in an incurable deformity. The attack which was ordered by the Head of Prison Security, who thereafter prevented Okah from receiving medical attention should have been taken before a court in a criminal trial, but was instead suppressed by the National Commissioner of South Africa’s Department of Correctional Services who, not minding medical evidence and eye-witness accounts, denied the assault.

Section 35(2)(d) of the South African constitution is a non-degradable guarantee derived from Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that entitles one who asserts that he or she is unlawfully detained to be speedily brought before a court of law in order for the lawfulness of such detention to be determined, and to be released without delay if such detention is found to be unlawful. This is a position affirmed by the South African Constitutional Court in Zealand v Minister of Justice [2008] ZACC 3.

Okah is being unlawfully detained on an order of the South Africa’s Apex Court, which infers that he must appear in person before a CORAM of Justices of that Court. However, despite having since 2018 asserted that he is unlawfully detained, Okah’s access to that Court has been impeded by successive Chief Justices; including the present Chief Justice Mandisa Maya- who in terms of the rules of South Africa’s Constitutional Court, is responsible for assigning dates for the hearing of matters to be heard by that Court. This loophole enables a compromised Chief Justice to perpetually hold an applicant at bay in order to prevent or delay his or her release by a dispassionate CORAM comprising of a minimum of nine Justices of the Constitutional Court. The number of justices who hear a matter in the Constitutional Court make extremely difficult the bribing of the entire CORAM. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court will have to act contrary to its own jurisprudence, South Africa’s domestic law and Customary International Human Rights Law in order to dismiss Okah’s valid application to be released from a patently unlawful ongoing detention.

It cannot be gainsaid that Chief Justice Maya is desperately trying to avert the deluge of appeals that will follow from other cases where convictions relied on that Court’s invalid judgement in SV Okah [2018] ZACC 3, should that judgement’s invalidation be granted as sought by Okah. Adding to the embarrassment of the Constitutional Court having to invalidate its reported judgement, the South African State will be obliged to pay Okah monumental compensation on account of him having been unlawfully imprisoned for 15 years.

From the outset the government of South Africa was fully aware that its actions were unlawful. But rather than negotiate with Okah at an earlier stage, it chose to collude with its Chief Justices in the hope that the cruel and inhumane treatment meted out to Okah over the last 15 years would coerce him into accepting release on parole- an offer, which to the astonishment of South African government, he categorically rejected on 25 March 2025.

Conclusion

At the 2017 hearing of Okah’s appeal in South Africa’s Constitutional Court, Advocate Premhid representing the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC), an amicus curiae, alerted that Court to the fact that notwithstanding his convictions, Okah was deemed by the International Committees of Red Cross (ICRC) to be a Prisoner of War protected by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. This implies that in the opinion of the ICRC, South Africa intervened in the Niger Delta conflict, be that Okah’s arrest and trial were unlawful. The disclosure of Advocate Premhid to an unbiased Court would have sounded the alarm bells. Okah’s claim to prisoner of war status is made in terms of Article 4.A(2) of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 read with Article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I and Paragraph 4(e) of the Operational Code of Conduct for the Nigerian Army of 1967.

Okah may be a terrorist in the eyes of President Ramaphosa, the corrupt ANC, Jonathan, the MTN group and IOMs destroying the Region’s environment whilst plundering its resources, but certainly not to the Peoples of the Niger Delta whose lives he protected. Only in the courts of an exceedingly corrupt African state such as South Africa, could Okah have been convicted.

South Africa is currently in the grip of a crime pandemic resulting in the daily murder and rape of hundreds. As can be deduced from the disgraceful conduct of its compromised leaders, that country is in no position to serve as a moral compass for Nigeria; nor for any other State for that matter.

Its undesirable intrusion into Nigeria’s internal affairs is in breach of at the very least; the Charter of the United Nations, the Rome Statute of the ICC, Article 3 (2) of the Second Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention (Additional Protocol II), Article 75 (7) (a) of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention (Additional Protocol I); and all the United Nations Conventions pertaining to the transnational crime of terrorism.

In terms of Article 6 (5) of Additional Protocol II, the granting of amnesty is subsequent to a peaceful settlement of the armed conflict, which never occurred in the Niger Delta. In this regard, Yar’Adua’s granting of amnesty technically does not preclude a disenfranchised ex-militant from returning to armed struggle.

Nigeria’s so-called Amnesty programme is a massive fraud from the outset designed to bribe a group of people into collaborating with their oppressors towards limiting damage to oil infrastructure. Monies expended on such bribery should have been used for the development the Region.

Okah’s unlawful arrest and captivity in South Africa should present a source of concern to every single Nigerian for the mere fact that if left unchallenged, no one who opposes successive brazenly corrupt governments of Nigeria is safe anywhere in the world. Nigerians should collectively take a firm stand against the xenophobic South African government for its collusion with Nigeria to wrongfully imprison Okah, as such will send a stern warning to other corrupt African States against acting likewise.

Rather than scoff at the INF’s demand for Okah’s immediate release which has the backing of prominent citizens of that Region; notably King A.P. Diete-Spiff, the Amanyanabo of Twon Brass, on whose territory the Nigeria-Morocco Gas Pipeline originates, President Ramaphosa will be well advised to see it as a last means to save face; and, possibly safeguard South Africa’s investments in the Niger Delta protected by the oppressed and impoverished Peoples of that Region rather than the government of Nigeria, as erroneously may be assumed.

EKE, Phone: +234 81 3515 9313; Email: chigachieke@yahoo.co.uk; writes from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.