MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE writes that the worsening case of complacency among the Nigerian electorate should be urgently arrested

First, an arguably wild, probably unempirical, seemingly alarmist, but potentially valid statement: Today’s Nigerian political office seekers are far less bothered with what the electorates think about them compared with their counterparts in the previous republics and even those at the earlier stages of this Fourth Republic. The game of politics, once dominated by aggressive but sincere wooing of the voting crowd is now giving way to ignoble and blatant occurrences like “votes delivery”, phoney landslides, rushing for solace and protection in the “winning, largest party in Africa” and the “go to court!” retort from those declared winners by the not always transparently free Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

I’m almost certain that any Google search for last month’s council elections in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) would reveal “voter apathy” as a leading key phrase, not necessarily because it was a scientifically proven case of disinterestedness but mainly due to the heavy sentiments that were popularised by politicians in the opposition and also many residents of the federal capital who had cause to conclude that their interests were not among the considerations of the electoral umpire in carrying out that statutory responsibility. The election day movement restriction imposed by the FCT Minister, Mr Nyesom Wike, also didn’t help matters one bit. It would be difficult to fault those who claimed that they couldn’t move to their polling units due to the long distances. Many others also complained about their inability to access the new units assigned to them by INEC without any prior notice.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, in particular, declared that the below average voter turnout was a “damning verdict” on what he described as the mismanagement of the nation’s affairs by the administration of President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). You may call that the ranting of a rival but the Wazirin Adamawa is not alone in fingering Tinubu and his party for the perceived underperformance of this off-cycle voting. Very much like what previous opposition politicians did to the incumbents before. INEC has argued repeatedly that this year’s Abuja polls are actually better than 2022’s, as approximately 240,000 voted in the recent exercise while 149,000 did so four years ago. None of these data means anything to those who seriously feel that the sanctity of the election was roundly abused.

Feelings on their own do not win elections, however, even in very organised and progressive societies and countries. If it so obtains in such advanced places where people are more assertive about their civic rights and duties, what hope exists for Nigeria where citizens often sit on one spot, whining about their misfortunes and the recklessness of the political class, without lifting a finger? Quite frankly, the prospects aren’t assuring, even for diehard optimists.       

And in case you’re still wondering where our voters are in the scheme of things, they’re practically down below. Yes! Way under the level where the quest for survival is king but the chances of succumbing to despair are equally seductive. For many, voting is simply a useless piece of action. The last general poll further confirmed some of my fears concerning genuine public involvement in elections and, by extension, the sustenance of this democratic dispensation. I engaged my students – both undergraduate and postgraduate – to figure out their degree of awareness and anticipation. It was high. They were tired of the “old brigade”. Many of them pursued voter registration with every seriousness they could muster.

They would not put up with leaders who were running Nigeria aground any longer and were ready to vote younger, more active and dynamic candidates into positions of authority. Particularly for the presidential slot, majority of them rooted for Mr Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP). For them, he had all it took – agility of the mind and body and more – to lead the country out of the woods. Well, the D-Day came and went. The rest is now history. I share this experience, not exclusive by any stretch of the imagination, because of the feelers I received directly from those students.

The shocker and the attendant disappointments produced by the outcome of that poll culminated in the resolve of many of them to stay away from subsequent elections. They might be suffering from expectation management deficiency but those whose business it is to bother about the nonchalance of most Nigerian voters shouldn’t ignore the factors responsible for that sort of avowed aloofness.    

I’m worried about the average Nigerian voter and, indeed, the future of our democracy itself. Frustrations with our voting systems are real, widespread and enduring. Rigging, results-doctoring, open and covert sabotage of stipulated procedures, and undisguised impunity have continued to loom large in people’s consciousness. There is hardly anything in the horizon which indicates that we’re anywhere near viable solutions. Efforts are sometimes made by relevant agencies like INEC, National Orientation Agency (NOA), some private institutions and political parties. Those attempts are clearly inadequate, sadly. In the midst of this huge civic deficit, there’s one nagging concern that’s truly troubling. I haven’t read everything in the Nigerian constitution and the Electoral Act 2026 but I doubt if any of their clauses stipulates the minimum number of voters required to validate any voting exercise. Like legislating a quorum for voters. One can’t even see that as a shortcoming or lacuna in our laws since there’s hardly any such provision anywhere on earth.

Perhaps, scholars and developers of democracy should seriously look at this aspect and try to proffer ways of enhancing the functionality and acceptability of this system of government that has been received by the democratic world as the most ideal. Only one million voters or less can even determine who becomes the president of Nigeria. Yes! In a country of an estimated population of over 200 million people and about half of this figure registered to vote, that would be legally tenable. But not morally cool. If this sounds exaggerated and far-fetched, the statistics of the presidential election three years ago should sober everyone. Only 26.7 percent of the registered voters performed the onerous social duty in that epic encounter. And it became one of the country’s most miserable outings in terms of voter attendance and participation.

In whatever form voting complacence takes, it is a clear and present danger to the representative government we’ve adopted but which we keep making a poor job of deepening. In fact, some work tirelessly to undermine it. The real ‘wahala’ with this growing voter impassivity is that politicians may soon perfect it fully and install structures that can galvanise the process of achieving a much higher percentage of lethargy among voters. After all, just about anything that can earn them certificates of return is okay. Head or tail, the average citizen, most likely eligible to vote, pays the vicious, wretched price.      

Dr Ekpe is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board

X: @monday_ekpe2

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

The Sunday Stew Column

The Accountability of Thought: A Debt I Owe Chris Asoluka, By Max Amuchie

There are debts that cannot be quantified.

They are not financial. They do not accrue interest. They send no reminders. Yet they settle quietly on the conscience and refuse to leave.
 This is one of them.

Some people also enter your life almost silently, almost accidentally, yet leave impressions so enduring that you only recognise their depth in their absence. Dr. Chris Asoluka was one such person.

Dr. Asoluka, who passed away on 10th May 2025, at age 70, was an economist, a public servant, and a technocrat of rare intellect. He served as a member of the House of Representatives in the Third Republic and as commissioner for finance and economic development in Imo State from 1994 to 1996. Later, he became Chairman and CEO of Nipal Consulting Network, a firm that provides strategy and policy development for national and subnational governments. He bridged public service, private enterprise, and intellectual engagement — a rare combination of principle, precision, and practice.

The first time I encountered his name, I did not meet him. I was a postgraduate student accompanying a course mate – whose name now escapes me – to his kinsman’s residence in Festac Town, Lagos, to collect books for a thesis. It was my course mate who mentioned, almost casually, “This is Chief Chris Asoluka’s house.”

He was not home. We collected the books and left.

The name lingered, then slipped quietly into memory.

 Shortly after, I joined ThisDay newspaper. I found myself in the orbit of Professor Pat Utomi — political economist, restless intellectual, and at the time a faculty member at the Lagos Business School. As part of a book project on him, we drew up a list of key voices to interview. Chris Asoluka’s name resurfaced.

 That was the beginning of a relationship that would quietly shape my understanding of accountability, leadership, and intellectual rigour.

My fuller interaction with him deepened during Professor Utomi’s first presidential bid ahead of the 2007 election. By 2006, the Lagos Business School had become a hub for strategy sessions — long hours of debate about economic direction, governance, and the temperament leadership requires.

Dr Asoluka was the arrowhead driving the entire strategy. He was measured and precise. He was never theatrical, never one to dominate a discussion for effect. But when he spoke, arguments gained structure. He anchored them in evidence, numbers, and logic. He demanded clarity where enthusiasm risked becoming vague and challenged assumptions politely but firmly.
 It was my first sustained exposure to technocratic discipline applied to politics — and it permanently shaped how I perceive leadership, strategy, and responsibility.

During those Lagos years, our interactions extended beyond formal meetings. Asoluka’s office in Apapa was not far from  ThisDay office, and I often dropped in, sometimes with purpose, sometimes simply to converse. He welcomed dialogue without pretence. Our discussions ranged from policy and economy to literature, ethics, and society.

 I served as Features Editor at ThisDay for over five years. For three of those years, I wrote the Saturday back-page column, a space to reflect, interrogate, and provoke thought beyond breaking headlines. It was during this period that Dr Asoluka began reading my work.
 He responded, sometimes briefly, sometimes analytically, often with questions that sharpened thought. When someone of disciplined intellect reads your work, you write more carefully. You test assumptions. You refine conclusions. He did not flatter; he engaged. That engagement was accountability.

While in ThisDay, I was head-hunted to Truetales Publications Ltd, publishers of Hints magazine, as CEO/Editor-in-Chief to lead a turnaround team. It was a brief but pivotal period. The challenge was organisational: reviving structures, restoring focus, and implementing strategic corrections.

From Truetales, I moved to BusinessDay as a member of its Editorial Board, where I resumed opinion writing, this time on Wednesdays. The platform changed, but the discipline of thinking aloud remained. It was from BusinessDay that I relocated to Abuja in 2011.

 Distance altered rhythm. Writing slowed. Columns became occasional, then irregular, then silent. Life, with its multiplicity of responsibilities, filled the spaces once devoted to thought.

Writers rarely stop dramatically. They taper. They postpone. They drift. I drifted.

 In 2024, at the Congress Hall of  Transcorp Hilton in Abuja, our paths crossed again. Time had left its mark: there was a walking stick to aid his movement. Yet his mind was sharp, his speech measured, his curiosity intact.
 After pleasantries, he asked a simple question:
 “Why did you stop writing?”
 It was not accusatory. It was observational. He had noticed the silence. He had been reading me, following my work, and he expected the continuity of a voice that had once spoken publicly and consistently.
 I offered explanations – distractions, responsibilities, the usual language of postponement. None satisfied me.
 In that moment, I felt the weight of quiet expectation, not from a critic, but from a mentor who believed that a voice once committed to reasoned discourse should not drift casually into silence.

 I promised to resume.
 I did not keep that promise in time.
 When news of his passing came, the unfinished promise returned with unusual force. There is a grief attached not merely to a loss, but to deferred action; to knowing that a debt to someone who shaped your thought remained unsettled.

Dr. Chris Asoluka was more than a technocrat. He was what the Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, called an “organic intellectual” – one embedded in society, shaping institutions, translating abstract principles into applied practice.

 In a society like ours, where noise often outpaces nuance, the organic intellectual performs an indispensable function. He tempers passion with evidence, insists that arithmetic matters, and reminds power that clarity must precede charisma. He insists that personality shapes policy, temperament informs decisions, and values must guide action.

Asoluka expected consistency. That expectation lingers.

Our national conversation obsesses over events. Beneath every event lies personality. Beneath every policy lies character. Every decision emerges from a constellation of pre-formed values. Institutions matter, yes – but the people who inhabit them matter more.
 We do not always control the circumstances that interrupt us. But we control whether interruption becomes abandonment. That is one lesson I have learnt.

The question he asked in that Transcorp Hilton hall has not faded:
 “Why did you stop writing?

Today, I answer not with explanation but with action. This column is not just my answer; it is my commitment.
 
 This first edition of The Sunday Stew is my attempt to honour that debt, not through nostalgia, but through consistency. It is my way of responding to a standard quietly set before me.

This column will examine faith, leadership, culture, personality, and the unseen forces shaping our society’s visible outcomes. It will appear every Sunday, unhurried, unfiltered, and thoughtful.

Some weeks it will challenge you.
 Other weeks, it may unsettle you.
 Occasionally, it may simply provoke a smile.

But it will always be honest.

 Addendum
 That this debut aligns with March 8, International Women’s Day, is unplanned, yet fitting. If this column speaks of influence and accountability, it must acknowledge that many of Nigeria’s most enduring influences are steady and formative, often embodied by women whose contributions sustain our institutions without spectacle.

Tomorrow, March 9, marks the first anniversary of my mother’s passing. Lolo Angela Iheomahialam Amuchie departed on 9th March 2025. Her life, like that of many women of her generation, was not performed on public stage. It was lived in quiet consistency — in faith, discipline, sacrifice, and the shaping of values long before they found expression in public spaces.

The lessons she taught, alongside my father, the late Chief Emmanuel Ikonne Amuchie, still guide the steps of my siblings and me.

Influence needs not be loud to be lasting. It is visible in the mentors, the colleagues, the educators, and the family members whose work shapes lives quietly, profoundly, and consistently.

 Therefore, as this column begins, I honour not only mentors like Chris Asoluka who sharpened my thought, but also those — like my parents — whose diligence, insight, and steadfast values quietly shape society in ways that often go unacknowledged.

 Stay seasoned. See you next week.
 — X @MaxAmuchie | Email: [email protected]

 Readers’ reactions are welcome. Selected responses may be edited for clarity and length.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

By Stephen Azubuike

The news which recently made the rounds is that the Anambra State High Court, Awka Division, had “convicted and sentenced the Managing Director of Orient Petroleum Resources Plc, Nnaemeka Nwawka, and the Registered Trustees of Sage Nebefeife Foundation to 14 years imprisonment each for fraud involving N25 billion.”1

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)—the prosecuting agency ofthe government involved in the case—also published the news on its verified socialmedia handles.2 Interestingly, to my knowledge, none of the media outfits made available a certified true copy of the court Judgment. It is hoped that the Anambra State Judiciary would adopt the technological drives of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in ensuring speedy web upload of court judgments.

Was there a conviction for “N25 Billion Fraud”?

A careful perusal of the media reports raises a certain degree of doubt concerning the accuracy of the report against the Defendants. For instance, while the reports claimed that the Defendants were convicted for “N25 billion fraud”, the reports also stated that the Court ordered them “to refund the sum of N140,900,000 (One Hundred and Forty Million, Nine Hundred Thousand Naira) to Orient Petroleum Resources Plc.“ This is less than 0.6% of N25 billion. Thus, looking at the huge difference, it is quite doubtful whether indeed the Court expressly convicted the Defendants for “N25 billion fraud” as claimed by the reports.

Curiously, the possibility of inaccurate reporting becomes more probable when one considers the information at the tail end of the reports where it was stated that the criminal prosecution itself was instigated by a petition submitted to the EFCC by one investor, Cletus Ibeto, who had alleged that he was a victim of fraud having invested N25 billion in Orient Petroleum Resources Plc.

Going by this, a reporter who is not sufficiently meticulous may easily conclude that the Court’s conviction verdict aligns with the complainant’s claims or allegations. But this is not always the case. Indeed, it is one thing for a complainant to make an allegation, and another thing for the court to make a definite finding of fact after hearing the case and evaluating the evidence before it.

You may wonder whether the amount of money which is the subject of an alleged fraud is relevant. The truth is, the amount of money involved in a fraud case is critical, as it directly impacts the legal classification. It is also reckoned with when considering the severity of sentencing. The scope of recovery efforts may also be influenced by the amount of money involved. As a matter of fact, the EFCC has little interest in investigating an allegation of fraud bordering on sums the agency considers meager or insignificant.

It is true that an act of fraud by someone in a high position of trust (e.g., a CEO) can affect one’s reputation irrespective of the exact amount involved. But interestingly, the greater the amount of money involved in a fraud case, the more severe the reputational damage to the fraud perpetrator. More so, larger amounts of money tend to generate more media coverage, which ultimately raises increased public concern and professional ruin.

In view of the foregoing, one is justified to inquire into the issue of whether the figure of N25 billion as widely reported by the media formed an integral part of the Court Judgment or verdict in the case of the Managing Director of Orient Petroleum Resources Plc; or whether the huge sum was quoted in the headlines to drive wider media coverage with its attendant increased reputational consequences.

Were the Defendants Jailed?

Again, the reports stated that the Defendants were jailed for 14 years. This can be seen right from the title of the reports. The natural implication of this is that the individual involved is expected to have found himself a new home in prison where he would be spending the next 14 years. There was nothing in the report which talked about whether the Court granted the Defendants an option of fine. Meanwhile, information from a reliable source is that the Defendants were given an option of fine by the Honourable Court which was immediately paid and that the MD walked home free without serving a minute of jail term. If this is true, the public deserves to know the reason the media excluded the information about the option of fine. Was this deliberate or a mere inadvertence?

Another crucial question is, if a defendant was given an option of fine after conviction as an alternative to imprisonment, and the fine is paid, can the defendant still be rightly said to have been jailed? The answer is no. The defendant is not considered to have been “jailed” in the strict sense of it. People who have been jailed are found in prisons serving their jail terms or in their homes following a release from prison after serving their terms.

Aside from the issue of jail term, and option of fine (which was excluded from the media reports), the reports also stated that “the Defendants were convicted on a 10-count charge.” This information tends to suggest that the Defendants were convicted on all 10 counts in the charge. But the information from a reliable source is that the Court dismissed 6 counts but convicted the Defendants on 4 counts upon which the option of fine was given, taken, and paid. And nonetheless, an appeal has been lodged on behalf of the Defendants against the Court’s decision on those counts.

Justice Beyond Media Trial

Media trial or trial by media refers to media coverage of court cases, mostly criminal matters, in a manner that creates or influences public perception of guilt or innocence of an accused person before or after court judgment. In his paper3 , Hon. Justice Peter Akhihiero of the High Court of Edo State observed that “Trial by media” is a phrase which refers to the impact of media coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.

Thus, trial by media goes beyond media coverage before judgment is delivered to include post-judgment coverage. Trial by media generally has the potential of interfering with the course of justice and threatens the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence. Where it involves post-judgment coverage that inaccurately reports court’s verdict or misrepresents judicial pronouncements in a given case, trial by media may prejudice the rights of an accused person or even a convict.

Under Nigerian law, an accused person still enjoys certain rights. Notwithstanding criminal conviction, the person retains fundamental rights including the right to human dignity. This right protects against inaccurate or sensationalized media reporting of the court verdict. The law permits media freedom for the reporting of judicial proceedings in public interest, and in order to ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust in the judicial system. However, in exercising this freedom, the reporting must be fair, accurate, and without malice.

The fact that a person has been held criminally liable does not automatically deny such a person the benefit of a fair and accurate reportage devoid of any trace of malice. More so, a defendant still reserves the constitutional right of appeal against any unfavourable court decision.

Media trial is a common practice in Nigeria. But the courts have warned against such practice. In fact, in 2017, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in Abuja (as he then was) had halted the trial of Colonel Nicholas Ashinze, a former aide to the ex-National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (rtd.), along with seven others for an alleged N1.5 billion corruption case. The Court at the time insisted that it would not resume until the EFCC retracts the misrepresentation of the court’s proceedings that the defendants were being tried for N36.8 billion fraud instead of N1.5 billion. In its publication, the EFCC also wrongly referred to Nicholas Ashinze as a retired military officer, whereas he was a serving army colonel at the material time. The court alsocriticised the EFCC and other news media for dishing out falsehood to the general public.4

Flowing from the above, it is clear that if, as reasonably suspected, the Managing Director of Orient Petroleum Resources Plc was not “jailed for 14 years for N25 billion fraud” as was reported in the media, that would amount to falsehood which should be strictly discouraged. The Defendants are entitled to a fair and accurate reporting of the Court’s verdict by the media.

Conclusion

Persons involved in fraudulent activities must face the law and the media may play their role. Nevertheless, it is of significant importance to preserve and promote the integrity of media reporting of judicial proceedings in public interest. The fundamental rights of accused persons including those found criminally liable must be respected. Accordingly, there is a need to uphold the established principles of fairness, accuracy and absence of malice in media reporting of court proceedings and verdict

1. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/860264-court-jails-orient-petroleum-md-foundation-14- yrs-for-n25bn-fraud.html; https://gazettengr.com/orien; https://gazettengr.com/orient-petroleum-md-mwawka-associates-bag-14-year-jail-for-n25-billion-fraud/
2. https://x.com/i/status/2027457281357730071
3. https://edojudiciary.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/THE-IMPACT-OF-%E2%80%9 CMEDIA-TRIAL%E2%80%9D-ON-THE-CONSTITUTIONAL-PRESUMPTION-OF-INN OCENCE.pdf
4. https://www.thisdaylive.com/2017/04/14/again-court-insists-efcc-must-retract-false-statement-on-dasukisaide/

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.