By Gabriel Airewele

I grew up in Ikeja, within walking distance of Fela’s shrine. As a child, my daily routines took me through Pepple Street on my way to school in the Ikeja GRA area and later to choir practice at Archbishop Vining Memorial Church on Oba Akinjobi Way, almost beside my school. This proximity meant that Fela was never an abstract icon to me nor a distant celebrity encountered only through songs, documentaries, or second-hand stories as many young people now weighing into the Fela Wizkid controversy tend to rely on. Growing up, Fela was present and physical. I walked daily through streets shaped by him embodying his activism, music and lifestyle.

There is no dispute about Fela’s place in history. Fela Anikulapo Kuti was a musical genius whose creative vision gave birth to Afrobeat and permanently altered African music and political expression. He confronted military authority and deployed art as a tool of resistance, carving out a cultural identity that continues to resonate till today. The contemporary success of Nigerian music, now a powerful cultural and commercial export, draws in no small measure from the groundwork he laid. Artists like Wizkid operate within a global ecosystem that Fela helped make possible. To deny this would be deliberately dishonest.

In those days, on the top floor of the building that once housed Bata Shoes, a short distance from and adjacent to the Ikeja under-bridge, a disc jockey known as Mr. T played Fela’s music almost continuously, seemingly without regard for disturbance that might be caused by the noise. His speakers blared day and night, filling the surrounding streets with sound of Fela’s music. Ikeja appeared to embrace it, as there was no visible attempt to restrain him for noise pollution. I grew up imbibing and vibing to Fela’s music and message in that environment. Although my family’s home on Seriki Aro Street was at least one hundred and fifty metres from Mr. T’s music shop, the music from his shop often travelled clearly into our living quarters, punctuating family conversations and moments of quiet. We loved it. The sonority of the songs was comforting, and their presence became part of the texture of our everyday lives.

It was within this absorption of Fela’s musical genius and my acknowledgment of his artistic greatness that I was also confronted, from my early teenage years into my early twenties, with a deep and unsettling confusion created by the gap between Fela’s message and his actions. My first sense of this awareness came when I was about fifteen, through a schoolmate who had previously seemed timid and behaved ordinarily. One afternoon, on my way to choir rehearsals, he suddenly accosted me without provocation and struck me forcefully on my face, leaving me with a red eye. There had been no prior dispute and no exchange of words. We later learned that he had begun spending extended periods around the shrine and had taken to using marijuana, “Igbo” as we called it then, and which was openly traded and consumed in its vicinity. Years later, that same schoolmate would lose his life in a mob lynching incident, a fact that has continued to trouble my reflections on influence and consequence.

The shrine itself became a powerful magnet for young boys, and a few girls, who sought to live out the deviance that was preached and permitted within its orbit. For many, it served as a refuge and a safe haven. Young boys who took to pickpocketing, snatching bags or jewellery, or causing trouble in the neighbourhood often ran into the shrine for cover, confident that no one would dare pursue them there. I knew several who, emboldened by the acceptance they found within the walls of the shrine, dropped out of school and embraced life within it. In those days, to fear a shrine boy was considered a form of wisdom and to avoid them was seen as an early indication of a more stable future. Even now, I occasionally encounter some of the once-feared figures of Ikeja, now aged and diminished, their deep-set eyes suggesting lives that might have turned out differently had they chosen other paths instead of the easy lure of the shrine.

I once witnessed what can only be described as a war between rival factions of Fela’s shrine boys, staged openly in Ikeja. A horde of young men stormed Seriki Aro Street from Pepple Street, wielding machetes and smashing bottles, sending residents scattering indoors. We were told that Fela had demanded the capture of a local street boy who had fallen out of favour with him and was believed to be hiding on our street. In those days, such boys were commonly referred to as “omo-ita,” children of the streets, feared figures whose presence shaped how those who did not quite fit in learned caution early. From the balcony of our family home, and with a pounding heart, I watched the pandemonium unfold.
At the same time, Mr. T’s speakers were blaring one of Fela’s most recognisable songs, repeating the haunting line, “everybody run, run, run, everybody scatter, scatter………..,” as if soundtracking the chaos unfolding below. The music was not planned for the moment, yet it spoke uncannily to it, evoking fear, confusion, and approaching mayhem. In that instant, I felt an awakening of clarity. The artist was no longer merely describing disorder. He had become a creator of it, at least in that moment. In the wake of the small war, there was left Sorrow, Tears and Blood, the title of Fela’s song that Mr. T so fortuitously blared as the violence raged.

Much later, during my early years at the university studying law, I found myself reflecting on the case instituted by the Binitie family against Fela to recover possession of the property that housed the shrine. The property had been rented to Fela, but when the relationship deteriorated, he sought to pressure the family into selling it to him. What followed was a prolonged legal dispute during which the family struggled to regain possession of their own property. Substantive relief came only after Fela’s death, when the Court of Appeal eventually affirmed the Binitie family’s rights and ordered that the property be vacated. Reports have it that the dispute lasted about sixteen years.

For me, this outcome clarified a deeper contradiction between Fela’s public posture as a crusader for justice and the reality that justice in this matter emerged only after sustained resistance. The irony was hard to miss. The courts, an institutional arm of government he frequently criticised in his music, became the forum through which the dispute dragged on for so long, in a way that worked to his benefit.

It is fair to acknowledge that Fela was, in many respects, a crusader for justice. He fought against colonial mindsets, military dictatorship and elite hypocrisy, and much of that posture was justified. However, the contradiction lay in how power was exercised within his own immediate domain and against his fellow citizens.

It is against this backdrop of lived experience that comparisons between Fela and Wizkid have prompted my own reflection on what it truly means to be great. Wizkid is often framed as a beneficiary of Fela’s trailblazing and in a musical sense, that is true. Yet the comparison fails when greatness is measured beyond innovation or popularity. I am drawn to Wizkid because he does not posture as a moral prophet or ideological leader. His influence is cultural, economic and global but it does not demand allegiance to a lifestyle or worldview.

Wizkid’s impact on Nigerian society operates through the visibility of his music only. He represents global possibility without positioning himself as a gatekeeper of virtue or rebellion. Whatever criticisms one may have for modern pop culture, it is difficult to argue that Wizkid’s influence encourages the kind of behavioural deviance or moral surrender that surrounded Fela’s shrine. His art does not ask young people to abandon structure. It simply asks them to listen and enjoy the music.

This distinction matters because it raises a broader question. How should greatness be measured? Is it enough to be an activist and an inventor of a new art form, or must we also account for the social consequences of influence? Icons are often shielded from scrutiny by myth, their contradictions disregarded by admiration. Yet societies can only advance by examining their heroes, not by worshipping them blindly.

Fela remains a towering figure in African cultural history, and nothing written here diminishes his musical genius or political courage. But greatness, if it is to mean anything beyond legend, must confront moral contradiction. Walking through Pepple Street as a child taught me that influence is never neutral. It shapes lives, choices, and futures, sometimes in ways that admiration cannot undo.

Perhaps the question, then, is not who is greater, but what kind of greatness we should value. The real work lies in our willingness to engage in honest assessment.

Gabriel is a lawyer and the writer behind the Substack, Nigeria Matters.

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

By Sylvester Udemezue

(1). Background
The second impeachment crisis involving Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State and his Deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu, is one of the most intense constitutional and political confrontations in the state’s recent history. It unfolded amid a prolonged power struggle between the executive and the Rivers State House of Assembly, raising fundamental questions about constitutional compliance, separation of powers, and the limits of judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings. The crisis formally crystallised on 8 January 2026, when the House of Assembly issued and purportedly served Notices of Allegations of Gross Misconduct on the Governor and his Deputy.

The notices, signed by the Speaker, Hon. Martin Amaewhule, were supported by 26 members of the Assembly. Soon after, however, the process became mired in controversy over service and procedure. Reports indicated that several days after the resolution, the Governor had not been personally served with the notice, fuelling speculation about procedural defects, political manoeuvring, or a stalled process. There were also fears about whether the four Honourable members loyal to Governor Fubara were carried along as required by the proviso to Section 188(2) of the Constitution. On 16 January 2026, twenty-six (26) members of the House passed a Motion resolving to investigate the allegations and, directed the Speaker to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to constitute a seven-man investigative panel, thereby escalating the crisis to a critical constitutional stage.

However, a turning point occurred on 20 January 2026, when the Chief Judge, Hon Justice Amadi, declined the Assembly’s request to constitute the panel. In a letter responding to the Speaker’s request under section 188, the Chief Judge cited concerns relating to judicial independence and procedural propriety. This refusal introduced a novel constitutional dilemma: whether a Chief Judge has discretion to decline a request that appears constitutionally mandated, and the legal consequences of such refusal for an ongoing impeachment process. It is this tension between constitutional text, institutional roles, and political reality that this article interrogates. By examining the impeachment proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy (particularly the Chief Judge’s refusal to constitute a probe panel), the article assesses the legality, propriety, and constitutional implications of the actions of the key actors within Nigeria’s impeachment framework.

(2). A Summary of the Impeachment Procedure Under Section 188 of the Constitution

Impeachment proceedings against a Governor or Deputy Governor under section 188 of the 1999 Constitution are governed by a strictly sequenced and mandatory procedure, with which exact compliance is constitutionally required. The process begins with a Notice of Allegation of Gross Misconduct, which must be in writing, contain detailed particulars, be signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly, and be presented to the Speaker. Upon receipt, the Speaker must, within seven (7) days, serve the Notice on the Governor and circulate copies to all members of the House. At this stage, “gross misconduct” is defined by section 188(11) as a grave violation or breach of the Constitution, or any misconduct which, in the opinion of the House, amounts to gross misconduct.

The Governor is entitled to respond, and any reply must be circulated by the Speaker to all members before further steps are taken. Within fourteen (14) days of the presentation of the Notice (whether or not a reply is submitted) the House must decide, by motion and without debate, whether to investigate the allegations. This motion must be supported by not less than a two-thirds majority of all members; failure to attain this majority automatically terminates the process. Where the motion succeeds, the Speaker must, within seven (7) days, request the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-member investigative panel composed of persons of unquestionable integrity who are not members of the public service, the legislature, or any political party. The panel must conduct its inquiry in accordance with procedures prescribed by the House, afford the Governor the right to defend himself personally or through counsel, and submit its report within three (3) months of appointment. Upon receipt of the report, the House proceeds to final consideration.

If the panel exonerates the Governor, the Constitution bars any further proceedings. If the allegations are upheld, the House must, within fourteen (14) days, consider and, by a two-thirds majority resolution, adopt the report, whereupon the Governor is removed from office with immediate effect. Throughout, strict compliance with section 188 is mandatory. While courts will not examine the merits of the allegations, they retain jurisdiction to intervene for procedural non-compliance, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423.

(3). The Ouster Clause and the Justiciability of Impeachment Proceedings In Nigeria

Questions on impeachment under the Nigerian Constitution often generate confusion because two related but distinct issues are conflated: the constitutional power to impeach and the constitutional procedure for impeachment. This distinction was authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 (the Ladoja case), the leading authority on the justiciability of impeachment proceedings in Nigeria. In the case, which arose from the impeachment of Oyo State Governor Rasheed Ladoja, the Supreme Court held that the purported impeachment was a nullity due to flagrant non-compliance with section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. The Court affirmed that although impeachment is a political process, it is constitutionally regulated, and any departure from the prescribed procedure renders the entire exercise void. The decision underscored the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutionalism and the rule of law. The Court drew a clear line between power and procedure.

On the one hand, it held that courts lack jurisdiction to question the substantive power of a House of Assembly to initiate and carry out impeachment, as that power is expressly vested in the legislature by sections 143 and 188 of the Constitution. The motives, wisdom, or political justification for impeachment are matters exclusively within the legislative domain. On the other hand, the Court held that the judiciary retains jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of non-compliance with the mandatory procedural steps in sections 143 or 188(1)–(9). Impeachment is therefore justiciable to the limited extent of ensuring strict adherence to constitutional procedure. In this context, the Supreme Court interpreted the ouster clauses in sections 143(10) and 188(10) as excluding judicial review only of the substantive resolutions or opinions of the House (such as whether conduct amounts to “gross misconduct”) but not of procedural compliance.

Where constitutional safeguards are breached, the courts are both competent and duty-bound to intervene. Accordingly, impeachment under the Nigerian Constitution is not a non-justiciable political question in cases of procedural irregularity; the courts act as constitutional gatekeepers while refraining from adjudicating the political merits of the allegations. Thus although legislative acts are generally non-justiciable, courts will assume jurisdiction where the Constitution prescribes a specific procedure and that procedure is breached, as the courts are guardians of the Constitution.

(4). Competence of the High Court of Rivers State in Impeachment-Related Proceedings

The High Court of Rivers State is competent (it shares concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court) to entertain matters arising from impeachment proceedings against the sitting Governor of the State, not to determine the merits of the allegations, but to adjudicate issues of constitutional compliance and legal rights. Under section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the State High Court has broad jurisdiction over civil proceedings involving the existence, extent, or enforcement of legal rights, powers, duties, or obligations, subject only to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under section 251. Accordingly, where impeachment proceedings raise questions of compliance with the mandatory procedures in section 188 of the Constitution, such disputes fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the State High Court or the Federal High Court, which may enforce constitutional safeguards and the rule of law without intruding into the political discretion of the House of Assembly.

(5). Legal Propriety (or Otherwise) of the Rivers State Chief Judge’s Refusal to Constitute a Probe Panel.

(a). Is the Chief Judge Bound to Constitute A Panel: The duty of a State Chief Judge to constitute an investigative panel under section 188(5) of the Constitution is neither mechanical nor automatic. It is a constitutional duty conditioned on prior strict compliance by the House of Assembly with the mandatory steps in section 188(1)-(4). Although the power to initiate impeachment and request a panel lies with the House, the Chief Judge’s role must be exercised in fidelity to the Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423, impeachment is a constitutionally regulated process, and any step taken in breach of constitutional requirements is a nullity. The Chief Judge therefore cannot be compelled to act on a constitutionally defective request, as the Constitution does not mandate participation in an unlawful or incomplete impeachment process.

The Chief Judge is entitled, indeed constitutionally obliged, to decline a request where it is apparent that the House has failed to comply with fundamental procedural requirements under section 188, even absent a court order. This duty flows from sections 1(1) and (2) of the Constitution, which proclaim constitutional supremacy and bind all authorities to its provisions. To constitute a panel in the face of clear breaches (such as improper service, failure to secure the required majority, or premature invocation of section 188(5)) would amount to aiding a constitutional violation and undermining the rule of law. The proper course is to notify the Speaker of the defects and insist on due process.

As affirmed in Inakoju v. Adeleke, procedural non-compliance vitiates impeachment ab initio. Where the Chief Judge declines on this basis, the House’s remedy lies in challenging that decision in court. In Abiodun v. C.J. Kwara State (2007) LPELR-8308(CA), the Court of Appeal confirmed that courts may examine both compliance with the two-thirds requirement and the Chief Judge’s exercise of discretion in empanelling a panel where challenged.

(b). Duty To Decline Where a Subsisting Court Order Exists: One of the reasons offered by the CJ of Rivers State for declining to set up a panel is that his office was in in receipt of two separate interim orders issued by the High Court on 16 January 2026 in Suit No.: OYHC/6/CS/2026 (Ngozi Odu v. Amaewhule & 32 Ors) and Suit No.: OYHC/7/CS/2026 (Siminalayi Fubara v. Amaewhule & 32 Ors). In both suits, the Honourable Chief Judge of Rivers State is named as the 32nd Defendant/Respondent, and the said interim orders were duly served on the CJ’s office on 16 January 2026, the same date on which the orders were issued. It is respectfully submitted that the Chief Judge is constitutionally bound to refuse to constitute a panel where a subsisting court order restrains further steps in the impeachment process.

Obedience to court orders is a foundational element of the rule of law: all orders (whether regular, irregular, valid, or later found to be without jurisdiction) must be obeyed until set aside. This principle has been consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court, including in Rossek v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382; Oba Aladegbemi v. Oba Fasanmade (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 129; Adebayo v. Johnson (1969) 1 All NLR 176; Komolafe v. Omole (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 268) 213; and Oshiomhole v. FGN (2004) LPELR-5188(CA), echoing Hadkinson v. Hadkinson and Isaacs v. Robertson. Acting in defiance of a subsisting order would amount to contempt of court and a violation of constitutional supremacy under section 1(2).

This position finds practical precedent in Ondo State, where the Chief Judge, Honourable Justice Olusegun Odusola, on 06 October 2023 declined to constitute a panel in obedience to a subsisting restraining order of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/1294/2023, thereby upholding judicial authority. The Rivers State Chief Judge in the present instance relied on Dele Abiodun v. Honourable Chief Judge of Kwara State (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 109) 169, where the Court of Appeal nullified an impeachment process because the Chief Judge had constituted a panel in defiance of a court order, sternly condemning such conduct and reaffirming the Chief Judge’s paramount duty to obey and uphold the law.

(6). The Rivers House of Assembly and Quod Approbo Non Reprobo

A critical feature of this matter is the Rivers State Chief Judge’s statement to the Speaker that the House had lodged an appeal against the subsisting interim orders of the High Court, and that he had been served with the Notices of Appeal. He accordingly invoked the doctrine of lis pendens, noting that both parties and the court must await the outcome of the appeal. This is legally significant. Once a court order is made and remains subsisting, it binds all affected persons and authorities until set aside by due process. No litigant may approbate and reprobate in the same proceedings. Having itself appealed against the High Court’s order, the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot simultaneously proceed as if that order does not exist by requesting the Chief Judge to constitute an investigative panel.

Such conduct violates the equitable principle of quod approbo non reprobo, which forbids a party from accepting and rejecting the same legal position to suit its convenience. By filing an appeal, the House has acknowledged the existence, binding force, and operative effect of the order, and is therefore legally and constitutionally bound to await the outcome of its appeal. It cannot lawfully take steps that undermine, pre-empt, or render nugatory a subsisting judicial decision.

(7). Possible Legal Flaws that Could Justify Judicial Intervention

Judicial intervention is warranted where impeachment proceedings fail to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards in section 188 of the Constitution. Such defects go to the root of the process and render it incompetent. Illustrative instances include the following:

(a). Failure by the Speaker to serve the Notice of Allegations on all members of the House, or to circulate the Governor’s reply (if any), as required by section 188(2), is a fundamental breach, as it deprives legislators of the opportunity to consider the Governor’s defence before further steps are taken.

(b). Where the motion to investigate is passed outside the mandatory fourteen (14) days from presentation of the Notice, or is not supported by a two-thirds majority of all members as required by section 188(4), the impeachment automatically fails.

(c). Non-compliance also arises where the Speaker’s request to the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-man panel is not made within seven (7) days of the resolution to investigate, contrary to section 188(5). Likewise, where a panel exonerates the Governor but the House nevertheless proceeds to remove him, such action is a nullity under section 188(8). An illustration occurred in Ekiti State during the Fayose episode, where a Governor was removed despite a panel’s exoneration, an illegality that went unchallenged;

(d). Even where a panel indicts the Governor, the process fails if the House does not, within fourteen (14) days, adopt the report by a two-thirds majority as required by section 188(9). This principle was applied in Plateau State, where the impeachment of Governor Joshua Dariye by only about 8 members (out of the 24-member House) was nullified and he was reinstated.

(e). Impeachment proceedings conducted outside the chambers of the House of Assembly are unconstitutional. In Inakoju & Ors v. Adeleke & Ors (2007) LPELR-1510 (SC), the Supreme Court nullified Governor Ladoja’s impeachment because proceedings were held at D’Rovans Hotel, Ibadan. Similarly, in Balonwu & Ors v. Obi & Anor (2007) LPELR-4255 (CA), Governor Peter Obi’s impeachment was set aside because, among other flaws, the proceedings occurred outside the Anambra State House of Assembly.

(f). In Dapianlong & Ors v. Dariye (SC 39/2007) [2007] NGSC 181, the Supreme Court held that section 188(10) does not oust judicial jurisdiction where there is non-compliance with sections 188(1)–(9). The impeachment of Governor Joshua Dariye was declared unconstitutional due to multiple fatal defects, including initiation and conduct by a minority of six to eight members in a twenty-four-member House; improper reliance on section 102; an undated and improperly signed Notice not served on the Governor or circulated to members; absence of valid two-thirds resolutions to investigate or adopt any report; an invalid request to the Acting Chief Judge; an improperly constituted panel that acted in defiance of subsisting court orders, submitted an interim report, and denied the Governor fair hearing; and proceedings conducted under coercive circumstances. Taken cumulatively, these violations rendered the impeachment, the panel proceedings, the report, and the purported removal null and void, necessitating the Governor’s reinstatement with all attendant rights and privileges.

(8). Propriety of the Appeal Filed by the House of Assembly

The propriety of the House of Assembly’s appeal is open to serious doubt, given the nature of the order appealed against and settled procedural practice. The order in question was an interim ex parte order, which is inherently provisional and liable to be varied or set aside by the same court upon application. The more appropriate course would have been to apply promptly to the High Court to discharge or vary the order, while filing a counter-affidavit and written address in response to the pending motion on notice. Immediate appeals against ex parte orders are generally discouraged, as appellate courts emphasise that the court of first instance should first be given the opportunity to reconsider its interim ruling.

Premature resort to appeal undermines judicial economy and risks unnecessary delay. More significantly, by appealing rather than first seeking to set aside the order, the House acknowledged the subsistence and binding effect of the order, thereby triggering the doctrine of lis pendens and constraining itself from taking steps that could render the order nugatory. Accordingly, while the appeal may not be incompetent, it was procedurally ill-advised and counterproductive in a sensitive constitutional process such as impeachment. A prompt application to set aside the ex parte order, coupled with a robust response to the motion on notice, would have better preserved the House’s position without attracting the constitutional and equitable consequences attendant upon appealing against a subsisting interim order.

(9). A Word of Advice to the Warring Parties and the People of Rivers State

The protracted political crisis in Rivers State has reached a point of diminishing returns, where governance, public confidence, and institutional integrity are being sacrificed on the altar of political brinkmanship. As I advised in my earlier published write-up titled “Enough of the Rivers State Crisis: Nigerians are Tired of the Drama – It’s Time to Govern, not Grandstand”, the prevailing mood among Nigerians is one of fatigue and frustration with endless power struggles that yield no tangible benefit to the people. Nigeria faces far graver national challenges (insecurity, economic hardship, unemployment, and failing social services) than to be continually consumed by one state’s political quarrels.

The warring political actors must recognise that constitutional power is held in trust for the public good, not as a weapon for perpetual conflict. All sides (executive, legislature, and their supporters) are urged to de-escalate tensions, respect constitutional boundaries, obey court orders, and prioritise dialogue, compromise, and statesmanship over confrontation. Ultimately, the peace, development, and welfare of Rivers State must take precedence over factional victories, as history is kinder to leaders who chose peace and delivered good governance than to those who merely grandstand loudly.

(10). CONCLUSION

The impeachment crisis in Rivers State starkly illustrates the dangers of politicising constitutionally regulated processes and disregarding the rule of law. While impeachment is a legitimate constitutional mechanism, it must be exercised strictly within the confines of the Constitution, with scrupulous adherence to due process, judicial authority, and institutional restraint. Any deviation (whether by the legislature, the executive, or ancillary actors) invites judicial intervention and undermines democratic governance. The Constitution remains supreme, court orders remain binding, and no arm of government is above the law. It is only through fidelity to these foundational principles that constitutional democracy can be preserved and public trust restored in Rivers State and Nigeria at large.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Legal Practitioner in Nigeria
[email protected].
(22 January 2026)

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

By Suyi Ayodele

The celebrated British author, Jeffrey Archer, on July 4, 1993, published a bestseller titled Honour Among Thieves. The novel takes its roots from a phrasal pithy saying. The phrase, honour among thieves’, on the surface, underscores the fact that among dishonest and dishonourable people, there are sets of rules and principles which are considered sacrosanct, and all must respect.

A deeper analysis of the phrase takes us to the level where we understand that members of the underworld or those involved in one despicable act or the other always find a means to project one another in positive ways. This tendency is not limited to individuals or groups. Nations and international bodies on the various politico-economic divides of the world do such too. It is called group solidarity or fraternity in simple language.

Members of such groups or gangs usually find a convenient time to pay back an old favour to any member considered to have contributed to the entrenchment of the groups or gangs’ values. They do this through unmerited favours, national honours or unfettered access to the corridors of power. They are always together because of the values and vices alike they share together. There is a way our cradle minds described such a relationship.

Ornithological specimens of identical plumage invariably conglomerate to the nearest proximity! Pardon the pedantic pomposity of the lexicons. They are not mine, I swear. 

I first stumbled on the pseudo-scientific clause in one of our then secondary school English Language textbooks: “Essentials of English Language” by Olu Oladunjoye (I hope that is the correct author).

In the textbook, the author warns that expressions should be made simple. He says further that most students fail the English Language examination because they think that sounding bombastic impresses the examiners. Foul! What the author failed to realise then was that while those highfalutin jargons might not have impressed the examiners, our female counterparts rated and loved us based on how bombastic we were. Life and its numerous contrasts! Phew!

In my place, when a man speaks grandiloquently in the home of his in-laws, he is compelled to interpret the magniloquence. The simple meaning of the above tumid is birds of a feather flock together. The expression suggests that people with similar values, thisness or characteristics have the tendency to associate with and support one another. In any matter involving them, the sense of identification and solidarity is usually high.

This level of support and solidarity is found mostly among gangsters, the esoteric and men of the underworld, who do everything to watch one another’s back. In the Yoruba worldview of the initiates, members of the group, known as Awo, are more inclined to help people from the same group.

The awos do that so that the Ogberis (non-initiates) will not understand the secrets of the group or expose bona fide members to ridicule. The saying: Awo ní ún gbón awo ní ìgbónwó; tí awo ò bá gbón awo ní ìgbónwó, awo á té, awo á ya (The initiate supports another initiate otherwise, the intimate will be disgraced and the secret open), establishes that group solidarity more than any other aphorism.

Many underdeveloped countries of the world have been found to have done such in the past. For instance, two years ago (2024), the South Asian country of Sri Lanka was reported to have appointed a member of the notoriously criminal Ava Group as a ‘local mobilizer’ for the country’s major political party, the United National Party. By the appointment, the gang was granted unprecedented legitimacy for its criminal activities. This was just as members of the gang won major contracts awarded by the government.

In Indonesia during the New Order era of President Suharto (1966-1998), the concept of the preman (gangster or strongman) was a permanent feature of that era. Then, the line between crime and politics was completely obliterated and criminal gang members were beatified as “protectors of order” and were publicly recognised.

South Africa and Bangladesh have also had their shares of the perfidy through the South African car “spinning” concept; a euphemism for honour done to deceased gang members, and the Bangladesh military providing open cover for men of the underworld as they operate with crass impunity to the chagrin of decent members of the public.  

The Yoruba people have a philosophical expression for that kind of behaviour. They say:  Give me, I give you is what toad says at the riverbank (Bù fún mi, kíi unbùn fún e l’òpòló ún ké lódò). Could that ancient philosophy have informed the decision of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to confer on his Lebanese friend and business partner, Gilbert Chagoury, the second highest honour of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON)?

President Tinubu, had, in a letter addressed to Chagoury, stated: “In exercise of the powers vested in me under section 1(4) of the National Honours Act, 1, BOLA AHMED TINUBU, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in recognition of your outstanding virtues and in appreciation of your services to our country, Nigeria, HEREBY award to you to have, and enjoy title, dignity and all the privileges of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) GIVEN at Abuja under my Hand and the Public Seal of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,”

A lot of questions have been raised about the GCON conferred on the Lebanese. The first of such posers is the secrecy of the conferment. Not a few people have wondered why Tinubu chose the cover of the night to honour his friend and business partner with the nation’s second highest National Honour.

Nigerians have watched either live or on their television sets, the fanfare involved when past honourees were awarded honours. Why the president elected to route this honour through the dark alley, reminiscent of the modus operandi of the nether regions, beats everyone’s imagination.

But more intriguing is the claims by Tinubu that Chagoury deserved the honour because of his “outstanding virtues and….services to our country, Nigeria.” The questions Nigerians are asking are: which values? Which services? When the idea of the honour was conceived, did the President take time to ask if the honouree’s character and personality meet the basic requirement of the National Honours Act No. 5 of 1964, which envisages that the honours will be conferred on Nigerians and other nationals who have rendered service “to the benefit of the nation.” What is the standing of Chagoury in the eyes of the average Nigerians? How beneficial has Chagoury been to Nigeria and its people?

Gilbert Chagoury, in the reckoning of many Nigerians, will be remembered as one man who collaborated with the expired Nigerian military Head of State and dictator, General Sani Abacha. The Lebanese, Nigerians will easily recall, ganged up with Abacha to steal Nigeria dry such that 28 years after the Kano-born soldier died, nations of the world are still repatriating money he stole from our patrimony.

Incidentally, and sadly enough, Chagoury remains one of the conduit pipes through which the late Abacha syphoned from the public till. The empirical evidence of how the Lebanese business partner of Tinubu ripped off this country are too palpable for him not to feel while considering the idea of a GCON honour on him.

Shortly after Abacha died on June 8, 1998, Chagoury returned an estimated $300m to the Nigerian Government. He turned in the huge amount of money to secure a soft-landing from prosecution for the crime of money laundering. Guess that is part of the ‘deserving’ “services” Chagoury rendered to Nigeria in Tinubu’s imagination!

The same Tinubu’s 2026 GCON honouree was, in 2000, prosecuted and convicted by the Swiss authorities in connection with laundering funds tied to Abacha’s regime. After his conviction, the Lebanese entered a plea bargain and agreed to forfeit the sum of $66 million to the Nigerian Government as part of a settlement! Do we ask President Tinubu if that is part of the “values” that qualified Chagoury for the GCON honour?

Again, in 2010, the United States Government Department of Homeland Security, arrested and detained Chagoury at the Teterboro Airport for over four hours, on the account that his name featured on the Department’s “no-fly list”, and later apologised to him. Eight years later, in 2018, the businessman and two other associates had to “resolve” a federal investigation into an alleged conspiracy to violate U.S. federal election laws.

How could President Tinubu, his handlers and members of the National Honours Awards Committee have missed the above negative activities of Chagoury to have honoured him with the national Honour of GCON. The painful aspect of the honour is that by the stroke of his pen, President Tinubu has added the name of Chagoury to those of respectable individuals like Queen Elizabeth II, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. Nothing can be more insulting to the memories of those noble people!

Tinubu is an old Yoruba man. The tradition of the race forbids a younger individual to speak in parables when an elder is involved. Otherwise, I would have loved to ask the President if the saying of his age grade, to wit: Odigba ti o ba fi ore re han mi kii unto mo iri eniyan ti o je (Show me your friend and I will tell you the type of person you are), has no meaning to him. I say this because I find it implausible that despite the public outcry against the unholy alliance between Tinubu and Chagoury, our President carries on as if the people and their feelings don’t matter.

This is where the problem lies with those defending the unpardonable mistakes of the Tinubu administration. How they will successfully reconcile the fact that, while the people suspect the President of being light-fingered, the same man is always seen playing with a kid in dark places of the village, will be the eight wonder of this epoch. The noise of how Tinubu awarded the controversial Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway contract to Chagoury’s company has not died yet.

The alleged involvement of Seyi Tinubu, the President’s son in the Board of Directors of the Chagoury Group is still raging. The embarrassment that Chagoury chaperoned Tinubu on his ‘official visit’ to France is something that haunts Nigeria to date. Now, the one on whose behalf his aides and hangers-on embark on dry fast relishes tree-square meals daily. Rather than being sober, the President has decided to list a man whom the entire sane comity of nations avoids among the Hall of Honour of Nigeria.

Granted, Chagoury has chains of businesses in Nigeria. Given that he is a long-time business partner and friend of the President, and they run shows together. However, his antecedents, especially, his involvement in money laundering activities in Nigeria, should be enough reasons why Mr. President ought to be more politic in this particular choice.

Conferring the GCON honour on Chagoury leaves us with no option than to conclude that President Tinubu is giving life to the ancient bon mot of our ages to wit: Ìdí igi ni igi ùn wó ewé sí (the leave sheds its leaves by its trunk). It is nothing but fidelity to gangsterism! It stinks, very badly, too!

In case the President is too busy to know: National Honours are given to those who merit them without any blemish. Gilbert Chagoury, by all standards, does not number among them. Like our elders are wont to say: Oníbàjé ò mo’ra, akówó ojú ebo ò mo l’ólè (The badly-behaved lacks discretion, the one who takes the deity money doesn’t consider it theft). I hate to think that our President is a bad combo of the two proverbial individuals!

If President Tinubu does not know, we owe him the responsibility of telling him that Gilbert Chagoury, with his nauseous antecedents, as a holder of the Nigerian honour of the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON), is one insult too many from this administration. Nothing but a reversal of the absurdity will take the edge off the people!

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

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

The response to the New York Times story has been, let’s be honest, a bit all over the place 😅. We’ve seen everything from angry tweets to passionate op-eds, but what’s missing is a unified, strategic approach. It’s time to get our ducks in a row and show the world we mean business! 💪

Here’s a guide to help us do just that:

Responding to the New York Times Story: A Guide for Ụmụ Igbo

The recent New York Times article has sparked outrage among Igbo people, with allegations of bias and bigotry. Here’s a guide on how to respond:

• Understand the Context: The article is seen as part of a larger narrative of marginalization and stereotyping of Igbo people. Be aware of the historical context and how similar stories have been used to perpetuate negative stereotypes.
• Fact-check and Verify: Before responding, verify the facts presented in the article. Look for credible sources and evidence to support or contradict the claims.
• Respond, Don’t React: Craft a thoughtful response addressing the issues raised. Focus on the facts and avoid inflammatory language.

Channels for Complaint

• Contact the New York Times:
  • Email: [email protected]
  • Twitter: @nytimes
• Contact Nigerian authorities:
  • National Broadcasting Commission (NBC): [email protected]
  • Nigerian Press Council: [email protected]

Examples of Successful Complaints

• In 2019, a complaint against CNN led to an apology and retraction of a false report on Nigeria.
• In 2020, a complaint against Al Jazeera resulted in a correction and apology for a biased report.

Key Points to Emphasise

• The article perpetuates negative stereotypes and bias against Igbo people.
• The story lacks credible sources and evidence.
• The Nigerian government is accused of using taxpayer money to plant fake stories.

Sample Response
“Dear @nytimes, I am writing to express concern about your recent article. The story lacks credible sources and perpetuates negative stereotypes about Igbo people. I request a correction and apology. Sincerely, [Your Name]”

Stay United
Share your responses on social media using hashtags like #IgboLivesMatter and #StopHateSpeech. Encourage others to speak out against bias and misinformation.

Seek Support
Reach out to Igbo organisations and advocacy groups for support and guidance.

Let’s work together to promote accurate representation and challenge bias. 🙏🏾

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

By Martins Oloja

Morocco, the host of the just concluded Africa Cup of Nations, (AFCON 2025) has continued to receive rave reviews over what has been generally noted as provision of world-class facilities. Even Gianni Infantino, president of FIFA, couldn’t hide his praise for Morocco’s role as the host of the AFCON 2025, highlighting the country’s organisational excellence and world-standard football infrastructure.

In an interview with Al Sharq Sports on the sidelines of the World Sports Summit in Dubai, Infantino described Morocco as a “great country and a wonderful host” for the championship. Specifically, the Italian FIFA boss spoke on the quality of the stadiums and facilities prepared for the tournament, stating that the infrastructure in Morocco is “amazing” and reflective of a nation capable of hosting continental and even global football’s premier events. He concluded that Morocco has joined the global football elites. He wasn’t exaggerating. As the North African country has been also been preparing for the 2030 World.Cup as a co-host, Morocco renovated and also constructed new stadiums in cities like Rabat, Casablanca, Tangier, Agadir, Marrakech, and Fez, which have all been commended for meeting and often exceeding international standards.Besides, the high-quality hybrid pitches have been specifically noted by players and coaches, including Senegal’s IdrissaGanaGueye and Mali’s Tom Saintfiet.

What is more, the quality at issuein Morocco extends beyond the stadiums to overall infrastructure, including hotel accommodations, transport logistics and security. Organisers also noted systems inspired by major world events, such as dedicated World Cup-style base camps for all 24 teams and high-speed rail links between host cities, a first for AFCON.

As a result, delegates, fans, leaders of football federations, sports journalists and experts and supporter clubs have highlighted the warm Moroccan hospitality and professional organisation, contributing to a positive and vibrant tournament atmosphere.

What is more interesting, Morocco is seen to have also raised the bar for sport broadcasting with technical innovations like spidercams, drone cameras and fully centralised audiovisual production, providing an enhanced viewing experience for a record number of international broadcasters. Training centres are different from stadiums and are equipped with modern facilities.

For example, there have been reports that the MAS Fès training centre, where the Super Eagles were domiciled before moving to Marrakech for their quarterfinal match against Algeria, represents one of Morocco’s deepest advantages at the Africa Cup of Nations. The centre is a reflection of permanent football infrastructure designed for daily excellence, not occasional spectacles. The pitches are firm, well-drained and consistently match-ready. Rain does not disrupt sessions. Players train at full intensity without fear of injury. Recovery spaces are close, functional and professionally managed. Tactical rooms sit just a few steps from the pitch.

Nothing in Morocco for the AFCON is accidental. More important, the environment is controlled, not so invasion-prone without provocations such as happened during the final between Senegal and Morocco.

As observed by a Nigerian journalist, “while many countries still treat tournaments as temporary events — borrowing facilities, improvising logistics, and overusing match stadiums — Morocco treats tournaments as extensions of an already-functioning football ecosystem”.

All told, the Confederation of African Football designated 24 base camps across Moroccan cities, assigning every participating nation a dedicated training ground — another first by Morocco.

The quality of the facilities has understandably helped teams to their full potentials. According to SegunOdegbami, a Super Eagles legend, the facilities might have helped the Nigerian team which struggled for performance at home in Uyo to play seamlessly, getting the desired results.

Talking of the round of 16 win against Mozambique, Odegbami said; “What was it that made the difference for a group of great players that have not been able, for some years, to find their rhythm as a team, and have been struggling to win even the easiest of matches on home soil?

The answer isn’t too far to seek. There are several other factors contributing to some scintillating performances in Morocco, so far, but the single most important but least acknowledged, is the exquisite playing surface.

You read reports such as this: “Morocco has invested in constructing part of the best football pitches in the world – lush green, perfectly flat, manicured grass fields that provide the surface for the best players in the world to showcase their skills and play their best football.These pitches are all over Morocco. They do not have or tolerate a single patch of an uneven grass surface, making every move and every pass a work of art.That’s what the Uyo Township Stadium lacks. It is the ‘best’ facility in Nigeria, but from close examination it is a planet away from what AFCON 2023 in Cote D’Ivoire and AFCON 2025 in Morocco offer”.

The legend challenged Nigeria sports authorities to take the bull by the horn and ensure that the right facilities and set of people are in place. His words that should not be disregarded by sport powers and principalities in Nigeria:

“Nigeria should now take the bull by the horn, remove the wool from her face, get rid of pretenders that do not know why they should invest in constructing the best grass surfaces in all the major stadia around Nigeria, with a maintenance regimen that will sustain it.”

Morocco’s sports infrastructure revolution goes beyond the 2025 Cup of Nations as it was not a coincidence that the country has bailed out CAF on several occasions. Morocco recently turned a new hosting bride for the continent after it was awarded the hosting of the just concluded festival, making it the first time any country would be staging the biannual championship for three consecutive times.

That is why analysts have noted that Nigeria should learn significant lessons from Morocco’s approach to hosting the Africa Cup of Nations, which primarily centered on long-term strategic planning, institutional strength and a business-minded approach to sports development.

Another lesson: Morocco is leveraging the epic event to promote itself as a top travel destination. It has implemented specific measures to encourage visitors and expects a significant influx of fans. 

For AFCON 2025, Morocco reportedly issued e-visas through the Yalla App free for all travellers to the tournament to ease entry. Additionally, visa-free travel agreements were established with some countries (like Ghana) to further boost fan participation.The initiative is part of a broader national strategy to use high-profile sporting events to build lasting confidence in Morocco’s tourism sector and enhance its global visibility. 

Speaking on the development, Sunday Oliseh, former Super Eagles captain and coach, praised the North African country, reeling what they had achieved through sustained sports development. His weighty words:

“You see, they have built infrastructure, they have set up a strategy. One thing that is very clear in Morocco is accountability and responsibility. The country is pushing forward, and they are now Africa’s number one team.

They were the first African nation to get to the semi-finals of the World Cup. They were bronze medalists at the last Olympics. They came third. They would have won it, but they lost to the eventual winners, Spain, in the semi-finals.

Oliseh continued: “When you look at it from every direction, Morocco has built infrastructure. They have a strategy. They have decided on a playing style. They have set up a wage system. Their male teams are doing well, and in the African Champions League, Moroccan clubs are dominant.They are winning trophies. They just won the Under-20 — a trophy we have never won. That tells you that being organised is not un-African. Moroccans are Africans. South Africans are Africans. So, we also just have to decide as a race that this is what we need to do, for the benefit of the people…Because of what King Mohammed VI did and the structures they built, there is now an industry employing millions of Moroccans. It is a football industry…This football thing is not just fun or going to the viewing centre. No. Football is job creation. If youths are not put into industries like sports, they will do wrong things.”

Oliseh concluded that such can actually happen in Nigeria with deliberate planning:“If we plan and do the right thing, we can leverage sports to advance our youths…Our population is youth-populated. If anyone doubts that Nigerian youths are talented, look at our music and entertainment industry. When youths are allowed to set up their own businesses, we excel so much that even artists from the United States are begging to collaborate with Nigerian artists.I am optimistic because all we have to do is get it right. Everything is already there. We are like a bomb waiting to explode — but in the right direction”.

Meanwhile, there are so many leadership lessons from the Morocco 2025 that should go beyond the realms of entertainment and tourism. I think Nigerian leaders at all levels including the sport sector’s should swallow their pride and vanity and learn from the national culture, which culminated into dynamic capabilities of Morocco in the just concluded AFCON 2025. The first point Nigerian leaders should bear in mind before shifting their responsibility to their followers is that ‘everything rises and falls on leadership’ as John Maxwell has simplified.

Sadio Mane’s leadership during the AFCON 2025/26 final was truly inspiring. He showed that you don’t need a title to be a leader. When his teammates walked off the pitch in protest, Mane stood still, seeking advice from former coach Claude Le Roy, and then persuaded them to return. His calmness and sense of responsibility saved the game from descending into chaos that would have been reproachful to his country and African football.

Mane’s actions embodied the spirit of football and its values. The former Liverpool super star prioritised the integrity of the game and his country’s reputation over winning at all costs. His leadership went beyond the pitch, as he appealed for calm from furious fans and emphasised the importance of respecting the game, the finesse the Senegalese coach and his entire coaching staff missed in a fit of anger. This remarkable display of leadership has drawn comparisons to Robin Sharma’s ‘The Leader Who Had No Title’. Mane’s influence and selflessness have made him a hero in Senegal, and his legacy will extend far beyond this tournament.

Let’s explore further the fact that Sadio Mane’s leadership raises important questions for African elites and citizens. When will they take leadership positions without waiting for titles or appointments? When will Nigerian leaders and managers prioritise selflessness and calmness in crisis, like Mane did during the AFCON final?

Doubtless, many African leaders on all fronts often face criticism for prioritising power and self-interest over the greater good. Mane’s example challenges them to rethink their approach to leadership and management.

This development has provoked a useful question: ‘Where is the Sadio Mane in your team?In the world of leadership, titles are often seen as a prerequisite for influence. However, Sadio Mane’s remarkable display of leadership, in this regard has challenged this notion.

Here is the thing, as we reflect on Mane’s exemplary leadership, we must ask ourselves: What are we doing to inspire and motivate our teams and people in despair? Are we prioritising the greater good, or are we focused on personal gain? Are we willing to take risks and challenge the status quo? The Sadio Mane you need in your team is not just a person; it’s a mindset. It’s a willingness to lead, to take charge, and to put others first. It’s a commitment to excellence, integrity, and selflessness.

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

MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE writes that if properly implemented, the new pact between the government and university lecturers can come to fruition.

Pardon my passion, please. In only three and half years, this is the seventh time I’m writing on the difficult relationship between the government and the major umbrella organisation of Nigeria’s public university academics in my column. “Pick Your Fights, ASUU Members”, “Nigerian Public Universities’ Limbo Moment”, “ASUU and Two Super Ministers”, “Before the Next ASUU Strike”, “Who Will Save Our Public Universities Now?” and “This Recurring FG-ASUU Tango” were my humble interventions in the protracted transgenerational crises bent on sabotaging the achievements and prospects of Nigerian universities, particularly the publicly-owned ones.

As stated elsewhere, it’s hard for me to ignore this educational component, having obtained all my degrees from two federal universities and now privileged to teach in one of them. The last article, Tango, published in September last year, ended thus: “One can only hope that fatigue hasn’t set in. Like some of the administrations before it, the government of President Bola Tinubu is yet to exhibit sincerity of purpose in this regard. Time has come for the lecturers to prioritise their own personal concerns and stop acting like godfathers of the citadels of learning. At a time when the very survival of Academic Staff Union of Union of Universities (ASUU) members is in jeopardy, doing otherwise would be senseless.”

Like many other watchers, I seemed to have reached my own wit’s end on the matter and had probably concluded that no positive or mutually agreed terms could be sealed by both sides and that Tinubu’s administration would most likely continue with the way of its predecessors: wrestle the lecturers to the ground, further demonise them in the estimation of students, their parents and guardians, and, indeed, the generality of Nigerians. There still isn’t any extraordinary action that warrants drumbeating at present; but there are now some reasons for optimists to work with. The country has witnessed too many near-compromises and bungled solutions to go into any jubilation which might prove premature.

Even then, the federal government is upbeat about what it claims is its glamour moment. Education minister, Dr Tunji Alausa, has just announced a new deal with ASUU and declared that it signalled a “historic turning point” in the much-canvassed rejuvenation of the nation’s universities, particularly the public ones. Now, should it be denied the right to congratulate itself?

Those who have cause to doubt the authenticity of the nascent peace between the government and university dons can hinge their attitude on the chequered journey leading to this unfolding denouement. In contention is the implementation of the agreement mutually entered into in 2009 by the employer and its perennially aggrieved workers. Designed to be reviewed every three years, 2012 came and went without the expected actions. For the lecturers, the instrument they had hoped would ensure sanity in the ivory towers had become a dream deferred. The document quickly became an albatross on successive administrations and a reference point to the aluta-minded leaderships of ASUU to continue with the struggle. On Agreement 2009 they’ve all stood! Unyielding. Unbending. Unsmiling.

In five years alone, from 2017 to 2022, renegotiation committees headed separately by Dr Wale Babalakin, Prof. Munzali Jibril and Prof. Nimi Briggs were instituted to resolve the stubborn issues. Yet, no tangible results. And then the Alhaji Yayale Ahmed committee came on board in October 2024 which produced the consensus that has now been adopted 14 months after. If, and only if, genuine commitment is invested and displayed here, especially by the government – clearly the more powerful party – the benefits would be truly profound and far-reaching. Tinubu and his team can then proudly own the glory for defeating the devils that have displaced for too long a healthy teaching and learning environment in a most critical aspect of the nation’s life.

The details of this accord appear cool. Relatively, that is. One way to remain happy is to avoid doing a naira to dollar calculation as it affects your purchasing power. I won’t forget the day I had breakfast in Paris some years ago worth 53 euros and remained very hungry afterwards. As I converted that figure to my own beloved currency in my angry mind, I endured the exercise with sadness to match. So, knowing, for instance, that professors will, beginning from this month, earn additional N140,000 monthly for research-related expenditures or that all categories of the teaching staff have landed 40 percent salary increment could be rubbished if strictly viewed through forex lenses and the current pitiful weight of the naira. And, of course, these increases aren’t enough for family members and hangers-on to readjust their own expectations. But then, what is happening is remarkable, also considering the other packages that border on welfare.

This, no doubt, is the way to go. A path characterised by the sincere desire of all stakeholders to pursue enhanced morale, improved productivity, and domestic and global competitiveness. Not to mention the badly-needed reversal of the brain drain that has hit our tertiary institutions, notably within the past decade. Or the stemming of the massive out-flow of hard currencies in pursuit of degrees and diplomas. The university teachers, on their part, need to take up the challenge of demonstrating a true love for academics. Waiting for perfect conditions would be selfish and counterproductive. Relevant variables can always be repositioned to get better.

One often overlooked consequence of the cultures of strikes and withholding of salaries which have somewhat defined a chunk of campus life in Nigeria is the struggle for survival. In so doing, some lecturers have stumbled on good income earners. Roles and priorities have changed in the process, sadly. Lecturing, originally primary on the scale, moves to number two or three. Arresting this tragedy won’t be easy. If only our politicians can develop the capacity to take schooling a bit more seriously.

ASUU, having fought this gallantly, can add feathers of integrity and fruitfulness to its cap by partnering with the various universities to show better creativity in terms of funding, especially. Beyond government allocations and subventions, private sector players can be wooed, grants can be sourced and alumni endowments can be encouraged. These would yield their autonomy faster. The union should also be honest and firm in telling its members that it would be practically impossible to achieve uniformity of rights, privileges and entitlements since the ownerships of the institutions differ. Anyways, the stage is set for a healthier university experience.

But, in a year being prepared to enthrone politics, it makes sense to keep the flowers that belong to this government. For now.

Ekpe, PhD, is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board
X: @monday_ekpe2

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