Bodies of Air Algeria crash victims to be repatriated Tuesday

Bodies of the 28 victims of the Air Algeria crash in July in Mali will be repatriated on January 13 and not Wednesday as initially planned, according to a statement issued by the Burkina Faso Ministry of Security.

It said that the arrival of the bodies in Ouagadougou is due Tuesday.

The Air Algeria AH 5017 flight, hired by the Spanish airline, Swift Air, which left on July, 24, 2014, from the Ouagadougou international airport, went missing less than one hour after takeoff, shortly after changing its course because of a storm.

The wreckage of the airplane was spotted inside Malian territory by the Burkina Faso army.

Among the 116 passengers who died in the crash were 28 Burkinabes and 54 Frenchmen.

The former Burkina regime had announced the setting up of a monument in memory of the dead at the City AN II (centre-town), near the airport.

The former regime also planned to hold a commemorative ceremony in the northern city of Dori in late November in memory of the victims.

The departure of former President Blaise Compaoré, after the people’s uprising in late October, stalled the ceremony.


DOWNLOAD THE PREMIUM TIMES MOBILE APP

Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD: Revealed!!! The Only Way Left of Getting an Extra Large Manhood and also Last Up to 38Mins+. Get the Insider Secret Here


All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.


  • amazing2012

    May their soul rest in peace !

  • Action Group

    Mr.Lawyer you may be very right on what the law says but it is morally wrong for the suspect to do what he has been alleged to have done.Again,mind you he may not be prosecuted with un-codified law as you speculate but on breach of public peace,so go prepare your brief very well and stop this academic exercise of telling us what the law says,what about what obligations that citizens are expected to exhibit in a decent society to avert breach of the peace?

  • Tunji Olarewaju

    Effiong, yibos are fond of looking for trouble, and when they get it they’ll start shouting :’ victimisation ‘, ‘ persecution ‘. They just can’t live in peace with human beings because they are beasts. This particular f00l deserves to be parted with his head (as anyone of them that reacts negatively to this my post )

  • Isaac Azor

    Inibehe Effiong, your action and the likes of it are the reasons why we have lost our values in this country.

    • Neo

      Do you have anything sensible to reasonably support your wild and irresponsible assertion?!

  • Elbash

    A legal practitioner abi? If ur neighbor named his dog after ur father, u will surely celebrate him. Common grow up and stop being clouded by sentiments, bigotry and hatred for the president.

    • Neo

      Mr man or whatever you call yourself, it’s evident you are intellectually challenged!!! Your inability to read and comprehend is mind-boggling. The writer posits (and rightly so) that no Nigerian should be prosecuted for an “offence” for which there are no constitutional provisions but you are here strutting and shamelessly showing off your poorly-concealed hatred against the writer.

  • Eziokwu

    I am Igbo and very proud of it. But what this man has done is evil. He should be sued and if jailed so be it. This should serve as a deterrent to others. I believe that there is a limit to which one should hate one’s president. The actions of most ndigbo against the current government led by President Muhammadu Buhari is very unbecoming. I really don’t understand the reason for this hatred. Let me advise these children born in the post 1970s who were not born before the civil war to ask their parents, aunties and uncles how it was for ndigbo during that war. Igbo elders should warn these so called youths who do not know their right from their left about the consequences of fighting over what does not exist. Nobody hates ndigbo. It is ndigbo that have refused to see anything good in their country. They are the ones looking for war when none exists.

  • Ben Ikari

    I am not sure what the motive of the dog namer was when he named his dog “Buhari.” What his thought was is such that can’t be litigated nor legally figure out in court or any other fora. Consequently, I agree with the legal practitioner’s position. Offenses or crimes aren’t created by human feelings or objection and protest by a section of society, but by status. Thousands of human names are given dogs and other pets including cats. By the uncivilized thinking of the police and whoever may be pushing the agency to act because they believe this man’s act is a direct assault and insult to President Muhammadu Buhari. Every person whose dogs or pets bear human names is liable to such unfounded offense or legal premise upon which the dog namer is being harassed and may be prosecuted wrongfully and illegally. More importantly, Mr. president isn’t the only person that bears the name Buhari. Many people including those who aren’t Nigerians bears this name. Therefore, neither the president nor any other Buhari in the north or other parts of Nigeria, and non-Nigerians can lay claim to justify legal action.

  • Dele Awogbeoba

    The Ogun state law does not have a mens rea element. It has an actus reus (conduct) and the effect of that conduct on the peace. The subjective intention of the actor when performing the conduct in question is not relevant in determining a breach of the act in question.

    Secondly, The relevant statutes at play are the Ogun state statute of 2004/6 and the Nigerian constitution of 1979 (as mended by the 1999 constitution). How a 1961 case predicated on an abrogated regional style constitution could be authority for statutes enacted in 2004/6 and 1999 beats me. Section 36(12) of the 1999 constitution cannot be clarified by a decision (Aoko decision) taken decades before the the 1999 or 1979 constitution was written.

    The proposition that the underlying triggering conduct must itself be a crime before it is capable of being a breach of the peace based on the Aoko decision determined in 1961 should not apply because it predates, by decades, the relevant statutes that are at issue here.

    Secondly, if the conduct itself must be a crime before it can trigger a breach of the peace then of what relevance of having an offence linked to conduct that leads to the breach of the peace in the first place. One only needs convict a person under the conduct rule.

    The Homosexual example is strange as well. The law against the practice of homosexuality is usually done behind closed doors. If that is the case, then it is hadly likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The law prescribing homosexuality outlaws the practice in ones private abode where its practice is hardly likely to trigger a breach of the peace because it was not conduct engaged in a public place. .