This is how a former White House technologist envisions a future in which Apple loses its privacy battle with the US government. The year is 2026. You get in your new Tesla for a milk run. You place your fingertip on the door handle, the door unlocks, and the car knows it’s you as you step inside because it read your fingerprint. The car, on its own, pulls out of the garage while you scroll through live streams broadcast by your friends on whatever app has succeeded Instagram. The doors lock. The car passes the convenience store and its dairy aisle. Instead, it makes two lefts then a right before pulling up to the local police station. The cops are waiting outside. They got a judge to make Tesla update your car’s self-driving software to lock the doors and deliver you to the local precinct. You looked like a guy caught on surveillance camera and the police had a few questions. According to Ashkan Soltani, an engineer by trade who spent the past year working on privacy policy for the US government, this world might not be the realm of science fiction. If Apple loses its brawl with the US government over whether it must write code to defeat the security system of an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino shootings, Soltani sees that kind of scenario as a terrifying possibility. That fight officially begins on Tuesday when Apple and government lawyers meet for the first time in a southern California federal court. Soltani has some grounding here. He won a Pulitzer prize for helping the Washington Post sort through documents leaked by Edward Snowden and has published papers on privacy technology through Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard. He isn’t just a guy who watched too many dystopian films. He and others make a compelling case that the Apple fight isn’t really about surveillance, or encryption, or who else may have known about the horrific killing of 14 people in a southern California office complex on 2 December. It’s about who can manipulate the 1s and 0s that control our ever-increasing number of devices that track how we drive, when we’re home and if the door is locked. “We already have a hard enough time trusting our technology and understanding what it’s doing,” says Soltani, who worked on regulation for the Federal Trade Commission with a brief stint at the White House. “What the government is asking Apple to do in some way is to further undermine that.” Consumers rationally enough gave up this agency when they allowed Microsoft to push automatic Windows updates or Apple to upload a U2 album on to every iPhone. The Apple case will decide if that power stops with a digital product’s maker, or if it can extend to the federal government. Washington, though it would never say it this way, effectively wants Apple to make its programmers agents of the state in its San Bernardino investigation. If the FBI wins, Apple would fool gunman Syed Farook’s work iPhone into accepting a benign-seeming software update, the kind Apple regularly ships out to the nearly 1bn iPhones it has sold since 2007. But in this case, the software sent by Apple would disable certain iPhone security measures to make it easier for the government to guess the phone’s four-digit passcode. Because of Apple’s security features, only Apple can push such a system tweak to one of the phones. As the government acknowledges, courts operate on precedent. So if the FBI wins this time, it means it is more likely to win the next. This year, a favorable ruling could decide whether laptop cameras can be conscripted as spies or smartphones become permanent homing beacons. In a year or two, the same ruling may have laid the groundwork for whether your car becomes your police van or your home becomes your holding cell. Obviously, predicting the ripple effects of a court case that hasn’t started is perilous. The courts, for instance, could rule against Apple in this extraordinary case but decide to be silent on the broader questions about control of technology. Or Congress could find a middle ground with an update to woefully outdated wiretap law written for a pre-smartphone era. Apple could very well win in a sweeping supreme court decision that puts computer code outside the reach of law enforcement officials. Or it could persuade Congress to craft new law protecting tech companies from law enforcement. That of course would raise its own issues about the power of private corporations. One current federal prosecutor predicted a lot of “bad guys are better off and we only get the dumb ones”. Stewart Baker, a former attorney for the National Security Agency, took Soltani’s Tesla warning to the opposite extreme. Baker, now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, asked: “Would you rather live in a world where the Tesla could be packed full of explosives, programmed to drive through the fence and into the White House” and the secret service unable to get Tesla to remotely stop the vehicle? Either way, Americans will have to decide if they are OK with technology creating walled-off spaces. That can be now, or it can be the next time Silicon Valley gets in the way of a criminal investigation. This is something both Apple and the government agree on. As Apple lawyers recently wrote, the case pits “what law enforcement officials want against the widespread repercussions and serious risks their demands would create”. Or as James Comey, director of the FBI, told Congress in March, the case is about “this collision between public safety and privacy”. Public opinion polls commissioned by Pew and the Wall Street Journal/NBC News show that Americans narrowly back the FBI over the iPhone maker. The problem for Apple and its backers is that consumers tend to put perceived near-term risks, such as mass shootings, over theoretical ones – like Big Brother. Science fiction writer Bruce Bethke, who coined the term “cyberpunk” in 1983, doesn’t think like a typical consumer. “Does your water meter report you to the local public utilities commission if you’re illegally watering your lawn on a Tuesday? It will. Does your cellphone call your health insurance provider if its GPS coordinates indicate you’ve just entered a tobacco shop? It will,” he wrote in an email. “Does your toilet report you to your doctor when you’re not getting enough fiber in your diet? It will.” Americans are connecting more and more of their devices – their refrigerators, their thermostats, their cars, their door locks – to the internet. Nick Harkaway, the British author of The Blind Giant: Being Human in a Digital World and currently writing a novel based on a surveillance state, said that if Apple loses, “Everything connected in your life now belongs to law enforcement: your phone, your satnav, your DVR,” or digital video recorders for TV reruns. Such views aren’t just fantasies created by authors. At a recent security conference in San Francisco, several leading cryptographers – the programmers and mathematicians who use complicated algorithms to make encryption work – pondered the deeper meanings of the Apple case. Moxie Marlinspike, the developer behind the secure messaging app Signal and the encryption protocol used by Facebook’s WhatsApp messenger, worried that if Apple loses, the government could compel the company to alter programs downloaded from the App Store, such as his own, to be more surveillance friendly. “The thing about the world where the FBI doesn’t miss anything, that’s a world where the FBI knows everything,” he said. He for instance noted that now accepted social movements – such as gay rights and the movement to end slavery – began as illegal forms of civil disobedience. If keeping a secret isn’t possible, these movements can’t start, he reasoned. “I think it should be possible to break the law,” he said. On stage, Whitfield Diffie, the godfather of modern encryption donning a suit and long, groomed white hair, chimed in sternly. “In a tyranny you build mechanisms to deny people opportunities to take control of their actions,” he said. Barack Obama and other Washington officials obviously aren’t proclaiming they want to create a surveillance state. The world they describe is one of balance. Consumers generally maintain digital privacy, but in times of duress, criminal suspects might lose theirs. But where they draw that line becomes less clear as Americans connect more and more of their devices – their refrigerators, their thermostats, their cars, their door locks – to the internet. James Clapper, America’s top spy, told the US Senate in February that all of these things become inviting targets for intelligence agencies for “identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment”. What may be a far-out spy trick today, has a history of becoming a tool for police departments five years later. Even if Americans decide that’s a future they want, an Apple loss nevertheless could create a world in which consumers may no longer be able to trust the gadgets they buy are working for them. “That’s something we’re going to have to get right as we embed these systems into our lives,” Soltani, the former tech regulator, said. “Otherwise we go back to this world where we keeping going, ‘What the hell is this thing doing?’” Soltani, who left the White House in February, is taking some time off from government and plans to travel the untamed west coast in a camping van he alone controls. He will bring his smartphone. Thanks for reading.
Beyond surveillance: what could happen if Apple loses to the FBI
This is how a former White House technologist envisions a future in which Apple loses its privacy battle with the US government. The year is 2026. You get in your new Tesla for a milk run. You place your fingertip on the door handle, the door unlocks, and the car knows it’s you as you step inside because it read your fingerprint. The car, on its own, pulls out of the garage while you scroll through live streams broadcast by your friends on whatever app has succeeded Instagram. The doors lock. The car passes the convenience store and its dairy aisle. Instead, it makes two lefts then a right before pulling up to the local police station. The cops are waiting outside. They got a judge to make Tesla update your car’s self-driving software to lock the doors and deliver you to the local precinct. You looked like a guy caught on surveillance camera and the police had a few questions. According to Ashkan Soltani, an engineer by trade who spent the past year working on privacy policy for the US government, this world might not be the realm of science fiction. If Apple loses its brawl with the US government over whether it must write code to defeat the security system of an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino shootings, Soltani sees that kind of scenario as a terrifying possibility. That fight officially begins on Tuesday when Apple and government lawyers meet for the first time in a southern California federal court. Soltani has some grounding here. He won a Pulitzer prize for helping the Washington Post sort through documents leaked by Edward Snowden and has published papers on privacy technology through Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard. He isn’t just a guy who watched too many dystopian films. He and others make a compelling case that the Apple fight isn’t really about surveillance, or encryption, or who else may have known about the horrific killing of 14 people in a southern California office complex on 2 December. It’s about who can manipulate the 1s and 0s that control our ever-increasing number of devices that track how we drive, when we’re home and if the door is locked. “We already have a hard enough time trusting our technology and understanding what it’s doing,” says Soltani, who worked on regulation for the Federal Trade Commission with a brief stint at the White House. “What the government is asking Apple to do in some way is to further undermine that.” Consumers rationally enough gave up this agency when they allowed Microsoft to push automatic Windows updates or Apple to upload a U2 album on to every iPhone. The Apple case will decide if that power stops with a digital product’s maker, or if it can extend to the federal government. Washington, though it would never say it this way, effectively wants Apple to make its programmers agents of the state in its San Bernardino investigation. If the FBI wins, Apple would fool gunman Syed Farook’s work iPhone into accepting a benign-seeming software update, the kind Apple regularly ships out to the nearly 1bn iPhones it has sold since 2007. But in this case, the software sent by Apple would disable certain iPhone security measures to make it easier for the government to guess the phone’s four-digit passcode. Because of Apple’s security features, only Apple can push such a system tweak to one of the phones. As the government acknowledges, courts operate on precedent. So if the FBI wins this time, it means it is more likely to win the next. This year, a favorable ruling could decide whether laptop cameras can be conscripted as spies or smartphones become permanent homing beacons. In a year or two, the same ruling may have laid the groundwork for whether your car becomes your police van or your home becomes your holding cell. Obviously, predicting the ripple effects of a court case that hasn’t started is perilous. The courts, for instance, could rule against Apple in this extraordinary case but decide to be silent on the broader questions about control of technology. Or Congress could find a middle ground with an update to woefully outdated wiretap law written for a pre-smartphone era. Apple could very well win in a sweeping supreme court decision that puts computer code outside the reach of law enforcement officials. Or it could persuade Congress to craft new law protecting tech companies from law enforcement. That of course would raise its own issues about the power of private corporations. One current federal prosecutor predicted a lot of “bad guys are better off and we only get the dumb ones”. Stewart Baker, a former attorney for the National Security Agency, took Soltani’s Tesla warning to the opposite extreme. Baker, now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, asked: “Would you rather live in a world where the Tesla could be packed full of explosives, programmed to drive through the fence and into the White House” and the secret service unable to get Tesla to remotely stop the vehicle? Either way, Americans will have to decide if they are OK with technology creating walled-off spaces. That can be now, or it can be the next time Silicon Valley gets in the way of a criminal investigation. This is something both Apple and the government agree on. As Apple lawyers recently wrote, the case pits “what law enforcement officials want against the widespread repercussions and serious risks their demands would create”. Or as James Comey, director of the FBI, told Congress in March, the case is about “this collision between public safety and privacy”. Public opinion polls commissioned by Pew and the Wall Street Journal/NBC News show that Americans narrowly back the FBI over the iPhone maker. The problem for Apple and its backers is that consumers tend to put perceived near-term risks, such as mass shootings, over theoretical ones – like Big Brother. Science fiction writer Bruce Bethke, who coined the term “cyberpunk” in 1983, doesn’t think like a typical consumer. “Does your water meter report you to the local public utilities commission if you’re illegally watering your lawn on a Tuesday? It will. Does your cellphone call your health insurance provider if its GPS coordinates indicate you’ve just entered a tobacco shop? It will,” he wrote in an email. “Does your toilet report you to your doctor when you’re not getting enough fiber in your diet? It will.” Americans are connecting more and more of their devices – their refrigerators, their thermostats, their cars, their door locks – to the internet. Nick Harkaway, the British author of The Blind Giant: Being Human in a Digital World and currently writing a novel based on a surveillance state, said that if Apple loses, “Everything connected in your life now belongs to law enforcement: your phone, your satnav, your DVR,” or digital video recorders for TV reruns. Such views aren’t just fantasies created by authors. At a recent security conference in San Francisco, several leading cryptographers – the programmers and mathematicians who use complicated algorithms to make encryption work – pondered the deeper meanings of the Apple case. Moxie Marlinspike, the developer behind the secure messaging app Signal and the encryption protocol used by Facebook’s WhatsApp messenger, worried that if Apple loses, the government could compel the company to alter programs downloaded from the App Store, such as his own, to be more surveillance friendly. “The thing about the world where the FBI doesn’t miss anything, that’s a world where the FBI knows everything,” he said. He for instance noted that now accepted social movements – such as gay rights and the movement to end slavery – began as illegal forms of civil disobedience. If keeping a secret isn’t possible, these movements can’t start, he reasoned. “I think it should be possible to break the law,” he said. On stage, Whitfield Diffie, the godfather of modern encryption donning a suit and long, groomed white hair, chimed in sternly. “In a tyranny you build mechanisms to deny people opportunities to take control of their actions,” he said. Barack Obama and other Washington officials obviously aren’t proclaiming they want to create a surveillance state. The world they describe is one of balance. Consumers generally maintain digital privacy, but in times of duress, criminal suspects might lose theirs. But where they draw that line becomes less clear as Americans connect more and more of their devices – their refrigerators, their thermostats, their cars, their door locks – to the internet. James Clapper, America’s top spy, told the US Senate in February that all of these things become inviting targets for intelligence agencies for “identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment”. What may be a far-out spy trick today, has a history of becoming a tool for police departments five years later. Even if Americans decide that’s a future they want, an Apple loss nevertheless could create a world in which consumers may no longer be able to trust the gadgets they buy are working for them. “That’s something we’re going to have to get right as we embed these systems into our lives,” Soltani, the former tech regulator, said. “Otherwise we go back to this world where we keeping going, ‘What the hell is this thing doing?’” Soltani, who left the White House in February, is taking some time off from government and plans to travel the untamed west coast in a camping van he alone controls. He will bring his smartphone. Thanks for reading.
Ese Oruru: Court Grants Yunusa N3m Bail
Yunusa Dahiru, alias Yellow, accused of abducting and forcefully marrying a 14-year-old Ese Oruru from Bayelsa State, was on Monday granted bail by the Federal High Court sitting in Yenagoa.
Yunusa, Kano State indigene, is standing trial on five-count of abduction, illicit sex and unlawful canal knowledge of Ese.
The court presided over by Justice H.A Ngajiwa ruled that the felonies committed by Yunusa were bailable and asked the suspect to provide N3million, two sureties resident within the court’s jurisdiction and write an undertaking that he would not jump bail.
As part of the conditions for the bail, one of the sureties must be a renowned title holder and a public servant on grade level 12 who must provide first appointment and promotion letters.
The judge further ordered that the sureties must provide their tax clearance certificates. Thanks for reading.
Again, ASUU Lambast Oshiomole Over Demolition Of UNIBEN Staff Quarters
The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has unanimously condemned the recent demolition of properties of its members at the University of Benin, Edo State at the instance of the state governor, Adams Oshiomhole.
This was made known in an emergency regional meeting hosted by the Benue State University chapter chairman of the union, Dr. David Ikoni.
Dr. Ikoni, speaking to journalist at the weekend after the zonal meeting comprising of ASUU-BSU, ASUU-ESUT, ASUU-FUAM, ASUU-KSU, ASUU-UNN and ASUU-FUWUK frowned at “the brazen violation of their colleagues rights with impunity, an action carried out by Edo State Government on our members towards infringing on their human rights”, saying “it is not acceptable to us.”
Reports gathered that the meeting was sequel to the earlier decision taken by the ASUU-NEC meeting held at Usmanu Danfodio University, Sokoto, which discussed the affected properties belonging to the ASUU members in the University of Benin and the consequent pledge by Governor Adams Oshiomhole to compensate the affected victims, but has reneged.
Dr. Ikoni further lamented that a governor, whose duty was to ensure protection and guidance of the citizenry could suddenly refrain from a commitment, which he had from the onset entered into. The body, however, urged public-spirited individuals as well as corporate bodies to intervene in the on-going crisis.
Thanks for reading.
CBN Secret Recruitment: Emefiele Gets 14 Days Ultimatum To Withdraw Employment Letters
CBN Secret Recruitment: Emefiele Gets 14 Days Ultimatum To Withdraw Employment Letters
MARCH 21ST, 2016 ADEYEMI OLALEMI NEWS, WITHIN NIGERIAN BORDERS
NEWS
CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele
Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent an open letter to Mr Godwin Emefiele, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), requesting him to “immediately withdraw hundreds of letters of employment issued following a seriously flawed recruitment process and to put in place a system of recruitment and hiring based on the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, participation and objective criteria such as merit, equity and aptitude.”
The group warned that “Should Mr Emefiele and the CBN fail and/or neglect to act as requested within 14 days of the receipt and/or publication of this letter, the Registered Trustees of SERAP shall take appropriate legal action to ensure effective remedies for millions of Nigerians that have been denied equal opportunity to participate in the recruitment process. And this may be without further notice to you.”
The letter dated 18 March 2016 and signed by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni reads in part: “This corrupt process amounts to a fundamental breach of constitutionally and internationally recognized human rights of millions of Nigerians particularly the right to equality and non-discrimination, to work and to human dignity.”
“Instead of the CBN promoting equality of opportunity and access to employment for all Nigerians, it has perpetrated discrimination, and therefore denied an opportunity for economic self‑reliance and in many cases a means for millions of Nigerians to escape poverty and live a life of dignity.”
“The process also directly breaches article 7 of the UN Convention against Corruption which Nigeria has ratified. Article 7 requires institutions like the CBN to adopt, maintain and strengthen systems for the recruitment and hiring of civil servants that are based on principles of transparency and objective criteria such as merit, equity and aptitude.”
“SERAP believes that by the secret recruitment, millions of otherwise qualified Nigerians have been treated less favourably than the children of the politically and economically connected. This differential treatment is arbitrary and cannot be reasonably and objectively justified. It can in fact result in pervasive discrimination, stigmatization and negative stereotyping. The secret recruitment also offends the requirement for Nigeria to make the labour market open to everyone in the country.”
“SERAP notes that non-discrimination and equality are essential for the exercise and enjoyment of other constitutionally and internationally recognized human rights, as well as equal and effective protection before and of the law. We also remind you that every Nigerian has the right to be able to work, allowing him/her to live in dignity.”
“SERAP is seriously concerned that the secret recruitment unfairly deprives millions of Nigerians the right to work, impermissibly limiting their freedom regarding the choice to work, and undermining their personal development and social and economic inclusion. While the right to work is not an absolute and unconditional right to obtain employment, it implies the right of access to a system of protection guaranteeing every eligible Nigerian access to employment, and the right not to be unfairly deprived of employment.”
“The secret recruitment has therefore impaired and nullified the exercise of the rights of Nigerians, especially disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups to human dignity, equality and non-discrimination.” “Furthermore, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) provides in section 42 that a citizen of Nigeria of a particular group shall not, by reason only that he is such a person: a) be subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other groups are not made subject; or be accorded any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to all citizens of Nigeria.”
“Section 16(2) provides that the economic system will not be operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group, such as the politically and economically connected or their children.”
“Section 17 provides that the state social order is founded on ideals of freedom, equality and justice. Subsection (3) of the same section provides that the state shall direct its policy towards, ensuring that all citizens without discrimination on any group whatever, have the opportunity for securing adequate means of livelihood as well as adequate opportunity to secure suitable employment.”
“According to reports, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) carried out an alleged secret recruitment of over 900 employees on your directive and under your supervision. Many of the beneficiaries are said to be children and relatives of the politically and economically connected. Our information suggests that there were no prior notifications on the recruitment through advertisements to give all Nigerians the opportunity to participate.”
Thanks for reading.
Dakuku Peterside To Face Trial For Murder – Rivers Govt.
The director of Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Dakuku Peterside, will go on trial for murder, Rivers state government has said.
He is accused of trying to kill an aide to the governor’s chief of staff on Sunday during the violent legislative elections held at the weekend.
Peterside himself had earlier released a statement saying he escaped an assassination attempt by agents of the state government.
Simeon Nwakaudu, special assistant to the Governor on electronic media, said in a statement that Peterside, who lost to Wike at the last governorship election in the state, “directed his security details to murder an aide to the Chief of Staff to Governor Wike while fleeing with some result sheets from Ikwerre Local Government Area.
“The incident took place at the UTC junction in GRA after Dakuku Peterside instead of taking Ikwerre Local Government Area result sheets snatched from collation officers to INEC office drove with it towards the GRA.
“He had stormed the Collation Centre in Isiokpo with soldiers after which he hijacked the already collated results, which included the Ikwerre/Emohua Federal Constituency. Chief of Staff to Governor Wike, Engr Emeka Woke is a PDP Collation Agent for Emohua Local Government Area. Dakuku Peterside, plays politics from Opobo/Nkoro Local Government Area and has no links with Ikwerre Local Government Area.
“After he snatched the results alongside his defeated running mate, Asita Asita, Dakuku Peterside and the soldiers fled towards Port Harcourt. The PDP leaders of Ikwerre and Emohua Federal Constituency followed suit.
“At Omagwa near the airport, the soldiers withdrew leaving the SARS personnel from Abuja to take over the electoral theft operation. At Omagwa, defeated APC candidate for Ikwerre State Constituency, Azubike Wanjoku attempted to murder the LGA Electoral Officer when he used his Armoured Sports Utility Vehicle to ram into the Electoral Officer’s car. The SARS personnel with Dakuku Peterside also opened fire on the rest of the people. The Electoral Officer was shot.
“It was from this point that Dakuku Peterside motorcade in neck-breaking speed drove towards Port Harcourt.
“Chief of Staff to Governor Wike, Engr Emeka Woke became a victim as the same SARS personnel with Dakuku Peterside opened fire on the vehicle of the Chief of Staff.
“Like in the case of infamous Chidi Lloyd, Dakuku Peterside went ahead to release a false press statement on the issue, he stated.
Thanks for reading.
I Never Stole Govt. Funds – Gbenga Daniel
A former Governor of Ogun State, Gbenga Daniel, has described as lies reports that he stole state funds during his tenure in office and described the day he was arraigned in court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as the worst day of his life.
Daniel, popularly known as OGD, made this disclosure while addressing journalists ahead of his 60th birthday, scheduled for March 26, 2016.
“The day I will never forget in my life was the day I was arraigned in court in Abeokuta. Some students sponsored by the government that were singing abusive songs outside the court. They were calling me a thief. They said I took $3m of state funds, N1bn of local government funds but they were lies."
The former Governor also said that he has no presidential ambition.
“I have no presidential ambition or any political position but would remain as an elder statesman, giving advice to politicians,” he said.
Thanks for reading.
How Wike’s Gunmen Tried To Kill Me – Peterside
Director-General of the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Dakuku Peterside has narrated how he survived an attempt on his life by unknown gunmen on Sunday.
Peterside alleged that the Gunmen were sent by Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike adding that they trailed him to UTC Junction and opened fire on his car.
He made this known in a statement signed by his media aide, Emeka Woke.
The statement reads: “Our car however did a detour to first Aba road then old GRA with the two jeeps still trailing us. We drove to the DSS office to seek refuge and on getting to the gate the unknown gunmen opened fire again at the SSS men on guard.
“The exchange of fire between the DSS men and the assailants lasted for more than 30 minutes. In course of exchange of fire my Police detail Cpl Emma Esi was shot at and seriously injured. This is a very ugly experience but I thank God that my colleagues and I escaped unhurt.
“When the DSS men demobilized the two jeeps, we found out that the man at the back of the car who was identifying us to the assailants is Wike’s Chief of staff, Emeka Woke. He has been arrested by the DSS.
“Today’s experience is not only terrifying but also shows the parlous state of security in Rivers State. If I can be engaged openly by gunmen for nearly an hour in the heart of Port Harcourt, only God knows the fate that will befall members of our party and those sympathetic to our predicament. What is happening today in our dear state is not only horrible but also constitutes serious national security risk.”
According to the statement, Peterside was in the company of chairman of the Rivers state chapter of the APC, Davies Ikanya and HO Asita at the time of the incident
Thanks for reading.
