Home Blog Page 13

Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest? By Chidi Ejikem

Students of History know that it has a habit of whispering before it screams.

In the winter of 1170, an exasperated King Henry II is said to have uttered one of history’s most expensive sentences: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Whether those were his exact words is almost beside the point. History remembers not the grammar of power but its consequences.

Henry had elevated his trusted friend, Thomas Becket, to the exalted office of Archbishop of Canterbury. His calculation was straightforward, a loyal friend would surely become a loyal Archbishop, his policies would be aided and supported, and Church and Crown would march in elegant lockstep, each blessing the ambitions of the other.

Something deeply inconvenient happened instead.

Becket met God.

In short, the man became born again and began to give away his worldy possessions.

Wahala!

The courtier had become a cleric in more than vestment. He had become God’s servant! When Henry reportedly reminded him, “I made you Archbishop,” Becket’s reply still echoes across the centuries: “God used you to make me Archbishop.”

That single sentence marked the end of their friendship.

Henry expected fealty, Becket offered fidelity to a higher authority. The King insisted that the Archbishop existed to serve the Crown, the Archbishop obdurately insisted that he could only first serve God and the Church.

Then came that fatal lament. Four knights, hearing in the King’s frustration what they chose to interpret as royal intent, saddled and rode to Canterbury Cathedral and ensured that an impatient monarch’s complaint became an immortal crime.

Centuries later, TS Eliot transformed that moment into enduring literature. Eliot understood that the real danger was not merely the King’s anger; it was the eagerness of those who rush to convert irritation into action, those who mistake sycophancy for duty and excess for loyalty. This brings us, rather closely and uncomfortably to our own moment, our own time, and to those presently attacking the verbal Cardinal.

Cardinal John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan has, by speaking according to his understanding of the obligations of his office, drawn the displeasure of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his supporters The Cardinal has spoken as a prince of the Church, courtiers would rather he spoke as a courtier.

There is, of course, no medieval England here. No cathedral awaits a band of armed horsemen. Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, not a feudal kingdom.

Yet history’s warnings are rarely literal. They are moral auguries for the prescient.

Every age produces its own versions of the four knights. They do not always carry swords. Sometimes, they carry microphones. Sometimes hashtags. Sometimes television studios. Sometimes, they simply carry an unshakable conviction that defending power requires attacking every independent voice.

No one, thankfully, has called for the Cardinal’s head. May no one ever do so. But societies do not descend into intolerance in a single dramatic leap. They arrive there one denunciation at a time, one orchestrated outrage at a time, one act of performative loyalty after another.

The truly loyal adviser is not the one who silences every dissenting voice. It is the one who prevents a leader from confusing criticism with betrayal.

Henry II eventually performed public penance for the consequences of his anger. History granted him remorse but denied him innocence. Thomas Becket became a saint. The four knights became footnotes to infamy.

There is wisdom in remembering that story before passions outrun prudence.
There is wisdom, also in remembering that power is transient, that institutions endure longer, and conscience longer still.

The presidency loses nothing by allowing a Cardinal to be a Cardinal. The Church, and the rest of us,
lose everything if a Cardinal becomes merely another applauding official.

The tragedy at Canterbury began not with murder but with the belief that every influential voice must ultimately bend before the throne.

That belief was wrong in 1170.

That belief remains wrong today.
[email protected]

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

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

AGF Takes Over ₦19m IVF Case: Doctor faces trial over alleged sale of nine embryos, disclosure of patients’ records

A fertility case that began with an alleged ₦19 million fraud has now opened a far bigger legal question: who protects a patient’s most intimate medical information — and who controls the embryos created in the pursuit of a child?

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has taken over the prosecution of an Abuja fertility doctor accused of obtaining ₦19 million from a couple in an alleged IVF fraud, unlawfully dealing with their embryos and disclosing confidential medical information without their consent.

The development has moved the case beyond a dispute over money and medical treatment, putting patient confidentiality, reproductive rights, informed consent and the handling of embryos under the scrutiny of the Federal Government and the courts.

The doctor, John Abebe, is being prosecuted alongside Joje Abebe Fertility Centre Limited and Balkis Olanike Bakare in a fresh three-count charge marked CR/005/2026 filed at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The case was previously being prosecuted by the Nigeria Police Force before the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation applied to take over the proceedings.

The defendants have pleaded not guilty and remain presumed innocent unless and until the allegations are proved in court.

According to the fresh charge, the Federal Government alleges that Abebe unlawfully disclosed confidential medical records belonging to Mrs Mary Manga without her consent, in breach of the confidentiality protections contained in the National Health Act, 2014.

The prosecution further alleges that information relating to the reproductive health of her husband, Adamu Hassan, was attached to a pre-action demand notice issued through lawyers, thereby exposing private medical information to third parties.

For the couple, the alleged disclosure goes well beyond the ordinary breach of a person’s privacy. Fertility records can reveal reproductive history, infertility, treatment procedures, medical diagnoses and other information that many patients would never willingly disclose outside the doctor-patient relationship.

Nigerian law recognises the sensitivity of such information. Section 26 of the National Health Act provides that information concerning a healthcare user, including information relating to the person’s health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential. Disclosure is permitted only in circumstances recognised by law, including written consent from the patient, a court order or where another law requires disclosure.

The legal protection is reinforced by Nigeria’s wider privacy framework. The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 has strengthened the obligations surrounding the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal information, with health information falling within the category of data requiring particularly careful handling.

The case therefore raises a question that reaches beyond one doctor’s alleged conduct: how secure is the information Nigerians surrender when they walk into a hospital, fertility centre or laboratory seeking medical help?

When the treatment involves an embryo

The allegations concerning the embryos take the case into an even more complicated area of Nigerian medical law.

The Federal Government alleges that between January and May 2025, Abebe fraudulently obtained ₦19 million from the couple by allegedly representing himself as an IVF specialist, converted the money to his personal use and unlawfully dealt with embryos created during the IVF process.

The prosecution further alleges that nine embryos — two male and seven female — were sold to other patients.

Those allegations, if established, could raise difficult questions about consent and control over embryos created during assisted reproduction. Who may authorise the storage, transfer or use of an embryo? What records should a fertility clinic maintain to establish the identity and status of every embryo? What happens when a couple withdraws consent? What safeguards prevent an embryo created for one couple from being transferred to another?

These questions become particularly important in a country where assisted reproductive technology has expanded rapidly but where the legal and regulatory framework surrounding fertility treatment, embryo storage, transfer and disposal remains an area requiring greater public scrutiny and professional oversight.

For patients, the relationship with a fertility specialist is built on an unusual degree of trust. The doctor may know the couple’s reproductive history, their medical conditions, the results of laboratory tests and the details of procedures that are deeply personal to them. The clinic may also control the laboratory environment in which eggs, sperm and embryos are handled.

That concentration of knowledge and control makes proper consent procedures, accurate records, laboratory traceability and independent oversight essential.

The price of a confidentiality breach

Medical confidentiality is not simply a matter of professional courtesy. It protects the patient’s dignity and helps preserve the trust on which medical treatment depends.

A person seeking treatment for infertility may already be dealing with emotional distress, financial pressure and social expectations surrounding childbearing. Unauthorised disclosure can expose the patient to embarrassment, stigma, family conflict or discrimination, particularly in a society where infertility can still attract considerable social pressure.

The alleged disclosure of the Manga couple’s records therefore raises a broader issue for Nigerian healthcare providers: A medical record is not merely a document belonging to a hospital. It contains information entrusted to the health system by a person who has a legal interest in keeping that information private.

The National Health Act also contains provisions dealing with access to and protection of health records, placing obligations on healthcare establishments to protect information in their custody.

The arrival of electronic records and digital communication has made the responsibility even greater. Medical information can now be copied, transmitted, attached to correspondence and circulated far beyond the physical walls of a hospital within minutes. A confidentiality breach that once might have remained within a small circle can now reach hundreds or thousands of people almost instantly.

For fertility clinics, the risks are greater still because the information involved can concern not only an individual patient’s health but also the reproductive status of a couple and the biological material created during treatment.

Why the federal takeover matters

The decision by the AGF to take over the prosecution gives the case additional significance.

The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation has now replaced the earlier police-led prosecution with a fresh federal charge, bringing the allegations concerning the money, the medical records and the embryos into one prosecution.

The move also signals that the Federal Government regards the allegations as sufficiently serious to warrant direct prosecutorial attention.

But a criminal trial can determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants; it cannot by itself resolve all the regulatory questions exposed by the case.

Nigeria needs clear and enforceable rules governing fertility centres, including the documentation of informed consent, ownership and control of reproductive material, embryo storage and transfer, access to fertility records, disclosure to lawyers or third parties, laboratory accountability and independent inspection.

Patients should not have to discover the limits of those protections only after something goes wrong.

For now, the court will determine whether the allegations against Abebe and the other defendants are proved. The defendants have pleaded not guilty, and nothing alleged in the charge should be treated as an established fact.

But whatever the eventual verdict, the case has already placed an important question before Nigeria’s health and justice systems: When people surrender their most intimate medical information and the possibility of having a child to a healthcare provider, what safeguards exist to ensure that neither is misused?

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Nigeria’s builder-in-chief, By The Economist

A friend of the president is racking up infrastructure contracts

During flash floods in Lagos last month the water crept up to car doors and poured into homes, disrupting life in Nigeria’s commercial capital for days. Climate change is the main culprit for worsening flooding. But in poorer parts of Lagos some residents wonder if other factors could be exacerbating the damage. They worry that the construction of a coastal motorway and a sea wall, built to protect a new luxury waterfront district, may be eroding the seashore, worsening the impact of floods along the coast.

Yet residents may find it hard to get information about the impact of either project. Both are part of a $20bn infrastructure portfolio overseen by firms controlled by Gilbert Chagoury (pictured), a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and long-time friend of Bola Tinubu, the president. Mr Chagoury is not known for transparency.

Since its founding in 1971, the conglomerate the billionaire runs with his brother has dabbled in everything from flour mills to luxury hotels. Its infrastructure work has expanded on Mr Tinubu’s watch. Apart from the $11bn coastal motorway, the sea wall and the $6bn property development the wall protects, the group has also been put in charge of two port renovations to be paid for largely with a £746m ($1bn) loan guaranteed by the British government. International banks, including France’s BNP Paribas Fortis and Belgium’s KBC, helped finance the waterfront district.

Nigeria’s government argues the Chagoury group’s firms win many such projects because they deliver world-class infrastructure competently and efficiently, which few Nigerian companies can do. Yet critics claim the government has allowed the firms to bypass proper procurement and environmental rules. “There was no competitive bidding. There was not even restricted bidding,” Funso Doherty, an accountant and opposition politician, says of the coastal motorway. Mr Doherty filed a lawsuit against the government and HiTech, the firm building the road, alleging that it broke ground without the legally mandated environmental-impact assessment. A court threw out his case, arguing it was not his to bring. Such dismissals are so common that few people bother with legal challenges; Mr Doherty expects the appeal process to take years. (The government says HiTech was the fair winner of a selective bidding process and the road’s environmental impact was assessed before construction. Mr Chagoury and HiTech did not respond to a request for comment.)

Awarding infrastructure contracts based on merit is all the more essential because Nigerian projects are growing larger and pricier and are often financed by debt. The coastal motorway may also benefit from special tax breaks. In April the legislature approved a $516m loan to fund a cross-country motorway a Chagoury firm was awarded without bidding. (The government says it was selected for its expertise.) Nigeria had a fiscal deficit of 19.4trn naira ($12.8bn or 4.4% of GDP) in 2025. The IMF reckons it may be even larger, as about 8.8trn naira ($5.8bn or 2% of GDP) of public spending seems to have gone unreported (the finance minister disputes this).

To some in Nigeria, the relationship between the president and his master-builder smacks of a bygone era. In 2000 a Swiss court convicted Mr Chagoury of helping Sani Abacha, Nigeria’s last dictator, launder millions of dollars of stolen public funds. Mr Chagoury said he did not know the money he was moving had been stolen, but returned $66m to Nigeria and paid a fine of 1m Swiss francs ($600,000 in 2000). Abubakar Bagudu, now the minister in charge of dispensing public money, paid $163m to Nigeria in 2003 to settle a case related to Abacha’s looting of the state, without admitting guilt.

Mr Chagoury’s star is unlikely to fade soon. Mr Tinubu, who is counting on his friend’s support for a re-election bid next year, has brushed off criticism of the relationship; the sea wall will avert “a disaster greater than a tsunami”. In January he gave Mr Chagoury Nigeria’s second-highest national honour. “With friends like him,” the president said in 2024, “one can sleep with a still mind.”

Source: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/08/06/nigerias-builder-in-chief

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Are They Not Nigerians? Orodo school for the deaf exposes the forgotten children of Nigeria

Dilapidated hostels, poor sanitation and a lack of basic amenities at a government-owned special school in Imo have renewed concerns over the treatment of children living with disabilities

The photographs and videos emerging from the School for the Deaf and dumb in Orodo, Mbaitoli Local Government Area of Imo State, tell a story that should trouble any government committed to the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens.

The school, a government-owned institution for children who are deaf and with severe speech challenges, is reported to have dilapidated hostels, poor sanitation, inadequate toilets and limited access to clean water. Residents and activists who visited or spoke about the institution say some of the children are living in overcrowded dormitories where bedbugs have become a persistent problem.

The condition of the school became a subject of public outrage after a video showing parts of the facility circulated widely, with concerned citizens appealing to the Imo State Government and the Federal Government to intervene.

One of the activists featured in the video posed a question that has since become central to the controversy: these children may not hear or speak, but are they not human beings?

They are.

They are also Nigerian children with the same entitlement to safety, education, healthcare and human dignity as children in any other public school.

The campaigners want the authorities to provide decent accommodation, clean water, functional toilets and better welfare for the students. They have also appealed to President Bola Tinubu to visit the school if his expected trip to Imo State goes ahead, arguing that the institution should no longer remain outside the attention of government.

The Orodo case has also brought back an old and uncomfortable issue in Nigeria: the condition of public institutions established for people living with disabilities.

Across the country, special schools and other facilities serving persons with disabilities have faced years of inadequate funding, poor maintenance, insufficient equipment and a shortage of trained personnel. Many of the problems are not new, yet they rarely attract sustained national attention unless photographs or videos force them into the public eye.

Nigeria has legislation intended to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act, 2018, established a legal framework for protecting people with disabilities against discrimination and promoting their participation in society. The National Commission for Persons with Disabilities was subsequently established to drive implementation of the law.

The Federal Government has also acknowledged the shortcomings in special and inclusive education. In July 2026, the Universal Basic Education Commission unveiled national standards and implementation guidelines intended to improve special and inclusive basic education, citing continuing barriers to enrolment, participation and learning among children with disabilities.

Yet the images from Orodo raise a straightforward question: what happens to those standards once the officials who made them leave the conference room?

A policy document cannot repair a leaking roof. A law cannot clean a blocked toilet. A national framework cannot provide water to a dormitory unless governments at the appropriate levels budget for the work and ensure that the money is properly used.

The problem also extends beyond construction.

Children in special schools require teachers trained to work with their particular needs, appropriate learning materials, medical support, safe transportation and facilities that allow them to move around without unnecessary barriers. Their education cannot be reduced to putting them inside a classroom and counting them among the beneficiaries of a government programme.

For many families, a special school is not an optional service. It may be the only realistic route through which a child with a disability can receive an education suited to his or her circumstances.

The neglect of such institutions therefore carries consequences far beyond the state of a building.

A child who is deaf still needs clean water. A child who communicates through sign language still needs a safe place to sleep. A child with a disability still has ambitions, talents and a future that can be shaped by the quality of education received.

None of these needs should depend on public sympathy generated by a viral video.

The wider problem is Nigeria’s poor culture of maintaining public infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, roads and government buildings are often allowed to deteriorate after construction, leaving successive administrations to announce fresh rehabilitation projects while existing facilities continue to decay.

The consequences are more severe in institutions serving people with disabilities.

A broken toilet, an inaccessible building or the absence of water is an inconvenience in some public institutions. In a special school, it can become a daily barrier to education, health and personal dignity.

Orodo also raises questions about accountability.

Who is responsible for inspecting the school regularly? Who determines its maintenance needs? How much has been allocated to the institution over the years? How much has actually been released? Who monitors the spending? And when facilities deteriorate to the point shown in the circulating footage, which public official is expected to answer for it?

Those questions should not disappear when the current outrage subsides.

The same scrutiny should extend to other special schools across Nigeria. The country needs a proper audit of their buildings, water supply, sanitation, teaching facilities, staffing and funding, followed by a public report on what needs to be done and who is responsible for doing it.

There is also a larger issue of attitude.

People living with disabilities have spent decades being treated largely as objects of charity. Modern disability policy takes a different approach: they are citizens with rights, and public institutions must be designed and maintained in ways that allow them to participate fully in society.

The children at Orodo did not choose the circumstances into which they were born. They should not have to campaign for the basic conditions required to live and learn with dignity.

Nigeria has made commitments to inclusive education and disability rights. The real test lies in what happens inside places such as Orodo, far from government offices and official ceremonies.

If the state cannot provide decent accommodation, water, sanitation and education for children in its care, then the issue is no longer merely the condition of one school.

It is a question of what the Nigerian state believes its most vulnerable children are worth.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

When the Plebeians Walked Away: How Rome’s commoners forced the republic to change

Over the course of 200 years, the working class of ancient Rome organized with unprecedented force and creativity against the patrician ruling class in what became known as the secessions of the plebeians. Their tool of choice – mass exodus of the city – marked the first recorded general strike in history.

Perhaps one of the most notable chapters of ancient Roman history is the Conflict of the Orders, a period of class struggle which lasted over two centuries, from roughly 495 to 287 BCE. Also referred to as the secessions of the plebeians – secessio plebis in Latin – the series of five mass protests and general strikes over two hundred years is remarkable for its successful organization, mobilization, and revolution of working-class people against the elite to demand both more social rights and governmental representation.

Click here to continue reading.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Jingir’s “Infidels” Remark: The words were alarming, but were the smiling governors worse?

By the Law & Society Magazine Editorial Board

As Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir’s religious rhetoric triggers outrage, the silence—and apparent amusement—of political leaders seated behind him raises a more disturbing question about what Nigeria’s politicians are willing to tolerate for political advantage

A religious cleric stood before a gathering of political leaders and spoke in the language of religious numbers, political loyalty and “infidels”. What followed was not an immediate rebuke from those occupying some of the most powerful political offices in Northern Nigeria, but images of leaders seated behind him, some appearing to smile as the controversial remarks were being delivered.

For many Nigerians who watched the footage, that background may have been more troubling than the speech itself.

The controversy surrounding Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir has therefore moved beyond what one Islamic scholar said at a political gathering. It has become a question about the political class that listened, the leaders who have remained largely silent and the price Nigeria may eventually pay when religious rhetoric becomes an acceptable instrument of electoral politics.

Jingir, the influential National Chairman of the Council of Ulama of Jama’atu Izalatil Bid’ah Wa’ikamatis Sunnah (JIBWIS), has long been an outspoken supporter of the Muslim-Muslim ticket. In February, he publicly reaffirmed his support for President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima, telling supporters that Muslims had voted for the ticket and should continue to support it.

But his latest intervention has generated a much sharper reaction because of the language used in making the political argument.

According to the account of the gathering published by a number of news websites, Jingir urged his audience to mobilise politically behind Muslim-Muslim candidates and referred to non-Muslims as “infidels”, while arguing from the numerical strength of Muslims. The gathering was attended by Kano State Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, Katsina State Governor Dikko Umar Radda, Jigawa State Governor Umar Namadi and other political figures.

The question now being asked is not simply why a cleric would speak that way in a country where Muslims and Christians have lived together for generations. It is why politicians sitting within earshot of the remarks did not appear to find the language sufficiently disturbing to interrupt, correct or publicly distance themselves from it.

Malam Baba Yusuf, a policy strategist who subsequently discussed the incident on Arise Prime Time, said he deliberately watched the people in the background rather than concentrating only on Jingir.

“What I saw, for me, was worse than the statement of Jingir,” Yusuf said, describing the demeanour and facial expressions of the governors and other leaders seated behind the cleric. He said what troubled him further was that days had passed without a clear counter-position from political leaders.

His criticism goes to the heart of the controversy.

A politician can disagree privately with a cleric. A governor can also choose not to engage in an argument from the podium. But when a statement touches the religious identity of millions of citizens and is delivered in a political setting attended by elected officials, silence can easily be interpreted as acceptance, particularly when the cameras capture leaders appearing relaxed or amused.

Northern CAN Chairman, Rev. John Hayab, has similarly criticised the conduct of the governors, arguing that their reaction should have been different. The concern is not about denying Jingir the right to express a political or religious opinion; it is about whether elected officials have a responsibility to draw a line when rhetoric threatens the sense of belonging of fellow citizens.

Nigeria’s legal framework leaves little room for ambiguity about the constitutional status of religion. The Constitution neither establishes Islam nor Christianity as the religion of the Nigerian state and prohibits discrimination on religious grounds. Section 38 guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while the National Human Rights Commission describes freedom of religion and peaceful assembly as constitutionally protected rights.

The implication is profound: Nigeria may be deeply religious, but it is not the private property of one faith.

The danger in allowing political competition to become a contest between religious identities is that elections cease to be primarily about competence, accountability, security, jobs, education and the economy. Voters are instead invited to see one another first as Muslims and Christians, northerners and southerners, insiders and outsiders.

That is precisely the concern raised by Dr Emmanuel Nkanta of the Catholic Policy Research Institute and the Kukah Centre, who warned that the timing of Jingir’s intervention is particularly sensitive with the 2027 elections approaching. He said the message could be repeatedly translated, distorted and passed from one audience to another until the political argument becomes an emotional religious confrontation.

Prophet Isa El-Buba has also publicly condemned Jingir’s rhetoric, warning against the use of religious language while northern communities continue to battle poverty, banditry, drug abuse and criminality. His intervention was notable because it challenged the idea that religious mobilisation should take precedence over the everyday problems confronting ordinary citizens.

There is another reason the episode deserves more than the usual cycle of social-media outrage.

Jingir is not an obscure preacher speaking to a handful of followers. He is an influential Islamic scholar with a long public record of intervention in national affairs. His earlier positions have also attracted controversy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, he was reported to have dismissed the virus as a Western plot designed to interfere with Islamic worship.

His influence makes the political setting in which his latest remarks were delivered particularly significant.

Religious leaders have enormous power to shape public opinion in Nigeria. Political leaders have enormous power to convert that influence into votes. When the two forces meet, the consequences can be considerable.

And that is why the governors’ reaction matters.

The country does not need politicians to police every sermon or silence every controversial religious figure. It does, however, need public officials who understand that their office belongs to every citizen—Muslim, Christian, traditionalist or non-believer.

President Tinubu’s administration has itself repeatedly affirmed Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom. In November 2025, the Presidency said Nigeria was governed by constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and that the country opposed religious persecution. The President also said all Nigerians should be able to live, worship and pursue their aspirations in safety and dignity.

Those assurances now sit alongside an uncomfortable picture from a political gathering in Kano.

If a cleric speaks of fellow Nigerians in language that appears to reduce them to religious outsiders, what should a governor do?

Smile?

Remain silent?

Or stand up and say that whatever the political calculations of 2027, no Nigerian is a stranger in his own country?

That is the question the Jingir controversy has left behind.

And perhaps the most troubling image is not the man at the microphone, but the men behind him.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

[Video]: Victim narrates how kidnappers ambushed Kogi bus and demanded N100m ransom

A rescued victim of the Kogi State highway abduction, Victor Anyichie, has recounted how suspected kidnappers ambushed his bus, took passengers deep into the bush and demanded ransoms running into millions of naira before security forces rescued them.

Anyichie shared the account in a video posted by News Central on Monday, following the rescue of the abducted passengers by a joint security team comprising the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Navy, Nigeria Police Force, vigilantes and local hunters.

The victims were abducted on Sunday, August 9, 2026, when suspected kidnappers attacked commuters along the Ojuwo–Ajengo–Memarebo and Ojiwo–Itobe roads in Ofu Local Government Area of Kogi State.

The Army later said all 16 victims, comprising six adult males, six adult females and four children, were rescued after security forces engaged the kidnappers in a gun battle.

Recounting the attack, Anyichie said the kidnappers emerged from the bush after a red Toyota Yaris appeared to have positioned itself around their vehicle.

He said, “When he passed the bus, that was when those guys, that Toyota Yaris, now turned and the boys started coming out from the bushes.”

Read Also: WHEN TERROR PAYS|The Endgame: How do you make terror stop paying?

Read Also: ENDGAME (Part III): Why terror still pays

Read Also: ENDGAME (FINAL): The Constitution cannot defend itself

According to him, more than six armed men emerged from the bush, with the leader firing an AK-47 as they attacked the vehicle.

“One of them, I will always recognise his face, even if I’m sleeping. He was the one with the AK-47 shooting up. He was their leader,” Anyichie said.

He said the driver attempted to manoeuvre into the bush, but the attackers eventually took them and their bus deep into the forest.

“They took us from there, our bus inside the bush, far away. We were going very, very far. But inside that bush, we could be hearing buses passing,” he recounted.

Anyichie said the captors repeatedly moved the victims from one location to another, while they could hear security sirens and gunshots in the distance.

“We were hearing sirens outside around eight, nine. So I was telling my guys, maybe these things are rescue guys because we heard like two gunshots that night,” he said.

He also alleged that the kidnappers had informants and kept relocating the victims to evade security operatives.

“They were moving us from here to here, here to here. Even this morning, they moved us from where we were yesterday to the present place,” he said.

Anyichie said the kidnappers subsequently assigned ransom amounts to the victims and instructed them to contact their relatives for payment.

“They were telling us, you, 100,000. You, 100 million. You, 17 million. You, 15 million. The children, 20 million,” he said.Related News

  • He said he was among those tasked with contacting relatives, adding that he told the kidnappers his family could raise about N500,000 or more.

“That was when those guys beat my life. But all the same, that glory belongs to God,” he said.

According to him, the rescue operation came before the victims could make further arrangements for ransom payments.

“God came for the rescue. We are rescued swiftly, like no scratch on our bodies,” Anyichie said.

He, however, said one of the victims who attempted to escape had been caught and injured by the abductors.

“Only the guy that tried to escape yesterday from them, that they cut his hand. But it wasn’t a good experience for anybody, and it will never be a good experience for nobody,” he added.

The rescue followed a joint operation launched after security agencies received intelligence that the victims had been moved towards Adumu Community in Dekina Local Government Area.

The Army said the security team engaged the fleeing kidnappers in a firefight, forcing them to abandon the captives and escape into the surrounding forest with gunshot wounds.

One local hunter was killed during the operation, while a police officer sustained injuries and was receiving medical treatment.

Watch video here.

PUNCH

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

EFCC: Tinubu as Obasanjo’s brilliant student, By Suyi Ayodele

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu said that the timing of the freezing of the Osun State Government Statutory Allocation account by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) “deeply embarrassed” him.

That is a loaded statement. It is also an interesting statement coming from a man who, as governor of Lagos State, watched President Olusegun Obasanjo deploy federal power against political opponents and, at one point, experienced that power personally.

What the President is saying is that if the EFCC’s action had taken place earlier, he would have applauded it. This is not interpretative. But we would not delve into the academic exercise of subjecting the President’s statement to its semantic implicatures. Suffice it to say that the timing of the action — 10 days to the Osun governorship election — was the problem for the President. This is why he did not hesitate in throwing the Executive Chairman of the EFCC, Ola Olukoyede, under a moving bus.

Olukoyede deserves the treatment. He deserves even worse treatment. Every servant must be wise enough to read the body language of his master correctly. It is not every time overzealousness pays. The most unfortunate thing is that the EFCC boss comes from Ekiti State. Ekiti State again?

Yes, Ekiti! All Ekiti Kete must be ashamed of the news from the Fountain of Knowledge these days. Haba! Just a few days ago, a former governor of the state, Ayodele Fayose, listed the factors responsible for high population in Nigeria. I was ‘deeply embarrassed’ a la President Tinubu!

Read Also: Fayose’s bedroom electrification, By Lasisi Olagunju

So, if ex-Governor Fayose had been asked in a Social Studies examination to ‘list factors responsible for high birth rate in Nigeria’, he would have written: ‘One of the factors responsible for high birth rate in Nigeria is NEPA taking light at night!’ And to think he was in the saddle in Ekiti State for eight years!

Honestly speaking, Fayose’s allusion to darkness and baby-making has got me thinking about my folks back home who have six or seven children. Now I know; each time electricity supply goes off at night, like the ingestion of zinc into the system, the testosterone level in the blood increases and the next thing is the American Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma’am benevolence between husband and wife! Fayose should not forget to register this patent right — the Baby Boom Theory according to pseudo-Professor Fayose!

And if you add this new ‘demography discovery’ to the ex-governor’s earlier projection that having ‘paid his dues’ by serving two terms as a governor, he should be properly taken care of by the state government, one will understand, perfectly, why the base dregs of humanity permeate the nation’s entire political landscape and power structures.

May God save us from our leaders — past, present and future. But folks, today’s piece is not about Fayose and his procreation permutations. We return to President Tinubu — and to the political school in which some of the methods now being witnessed were taught.

In a statement issued by the Presidency over the Osun matter, President Tinubu said: “It has come to my notice that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) obtained a court order on August 5, 2026, freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government. I must state that I feel deeply embarrassed not by the EFCC’s exercise of its mandate backed by a court order, but by the timing of the agency’s action.”

Tagged as State House Press Statement, the President’s media handlers went to town to announce that Tinubu ‘personally’ signed the statement. Phew!

Whoever scripted the above statement for Tinubu last Thursday must be a very poor student of foregrounding, the stylistic textual device of using words to generate a new emotional response to the user’s stance on an issue.

If the aim was to get Nigerians to clap for the President for being ‘embarrassed’ by the uncouth decision of the EFCC in the matter, the concluding paragraphs of the ‘personally signed’ statement did collateral damage to the not-too-decent public perception of the President and his claim to being a democrat.

After the usual rigmarole, Tinubu added: “Based on the foregoing premise, I am duty-bound to issue a directive on this issue in consonance with the overriding public interest in preserving public confidence and the integrity, credibility, and fairness of our democratic process. Accordingly, I have directed the EFCC to immediately proceed to the court to vacate the order and discontinue whatever action it has instituted against the Osun State Government in this regard.”

To show how “deeply embarrassed” he was, the President was said to have put a call across to Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State. The details of the telephone conversation were not made public but one can hazard some guesses here.

Did Tinubu tell Adeleke not to worry as the account would be released? Did he tell the governor that as a President, who is also desperate for a second term, the August 15, 2026 election in Osun would be free and fair? Did the President tell Governor Adeleke that just as he had directed the EFCC to undo what it did, he would also instruct the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to allow the will of Osun people to stand?

Read Also: Kasunmu’s passing leaves Folake Solanke as the last giant of Nigeria’s old bar

Many things are not just adding up for me here. In the first instance, not a few Nigerians were embarrassed that President Tinubu feigned ignorance and embarrassment over the action of the EFCC in Osun State. If the President thinks that Nigerians believe his stance on the wrong timing of the anti-graft action, then something is wrong somewhere.

How on earth would President Tinubu be “deeply embarrassed by the timing of the agency’s action” if the constant harassment of Osun State officials by the police and other security agencies is never an ‘embarrassment’ to him? Or is the President also not aware that the police, in particular, have made the arrest of commissioners and other top government functionaries their pastime in Osun?

Again, which power enables the President to order an ‘independent’ agency like the EFCC to unfreeze the account in question? Which “court order” was the President referring to when the EFCC itself never mentioned any court order nor presented any before it acted the way it did?

How come President Tinubu, like the proverbial would-be beneficiary of a public reward, claims to know the lost Oso’s mother more than Oso himself? For real: the President truly believes that Nigerians see him as a fair-minded individual who would just be satisfied by whatever is the outcome of the coming governorship election?

I think that it is, in the words of Tinubu, “in consonance with the overriding public interest”, good for Nigerians to know that democracy died temporarily in Osun State last Wednesday, when the EFCC, like the attack dog of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) that it is, unilaterally froze the Statutory Allocation account of Osun State Government, 10 days to the gubernatorial election in the state. But there is something familiar about the scene. Nigeria has watched this film before. Only the actors and beneficiaries have changed.

When the news of the unfortunate incident flittered into town, my mind raced to Nigeria’s self-imposed moral compass, General Olusegun Obasanjo (Rtd), who created the EFCC in 2002 and used it to harass his political opponents within his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and those in the opposition then. Tinubu, then governor of Lagos State, was watching from the other side of the political divide.

When the elders are enjoined not to sow tares, the counsel is usually given because of the successors that will inherit the elders’ bad habit. Like the people of my place are wont to say, the third generation of the greedy will be a burglar (ìpele keta òkánjúwà, ilé ló máa kó). Obasanjo sowed some particularly wild tares in Nigeria’s democratic field. His successors inherited the field — and the seeds.

Tinubu was governor of Lagos State when Obasanjo, as President, turned the EFCC into an instrument of intimidation and harassment. Every child copies and modifies the habits of his father. What the EFCC did in Osun State last week was a fallout of Tinubu understudying Obasanjo when the Owu chief turned the agency from its noble role of chasing after thieves to pursuing opposition into rat holes. But then, doesn’t the age-old dictum say he who is taught evil and implements it already has wickedness ingrained in his DNA? If Obasanjo was the teacher of this school of federal might, Tinubu has proved himself a brilliant student.

Nigerians cannot forget how the EFCC ‘arrested’ some members of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly in November 2005, took them to Abuja, detained them and got 17 out of the 24 of them to sign the impeachment notice of the self-styled Governor-General of Izon Nation, late Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha.

That done, the legislators were flown back to Port Harcourt, escorted by heavily armed agents to Yenagoa, where on December 9, 2005, they ‘impeached’ Alamieyeseigha on allegations of “gross misconduct, maintaining foreign bank accounts contrary to the constitution, and jumping bail.”

Choreographed by Obasanjo and the EFCC, the people of Ekiti State woke up on October 16, 2006, having Ayodele Fayose as their governor. By noon or thereabout, Fayose’s deputy, Biodun Olujimi, ‘announced’ herself as the governor. Later in the evening, the then Speaker of the House of Assembly, Friday Aderemi, also announced himself as Acting Governor.

What followed by 7.00 p.m. was a state of emergency declared by Obasanjo and his fellow Ogun State man, the late Brigadier-General Adetunji Olurin (Rtd), was appointed sole administrator. So, in a day, Ekiti State had four governors because our today’s sanctimonious ex-President, Obasanjo, turned a state agency into a personal attack dog!

 Like in Bayelsa State, the EFCC, under Obasanjo, accused Fayose of corruption and got the legislators to impeach him even when the original panel set up by the assembly exonerated Fayose. That political malfeasance was not corrected until eight years later, when the Supreme Court, in 2014, declared the impeachment as illegal.

Barely a month after the Ekiti State shenanigan, the EFCC moved to Plateau State. About six legislators in the state ‘signed’ the impeachment notice of Governor Joshua Dariye. He was impeached on November 13, 2006, over allegations of corruption and money laundering. Thankfully, the Supreme Court again rose to the occasion and nullified the impeachment.

While those actions were being perpetrated, Tinubu was in his Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos office, observing the events as they unfolded, taking notes and bookmarking pages. He was also a victim of Obasanjo’s withholding of the statutory allocations to all the local government areas of Lagos State. Tinubu fought Obasanjo up to the Supreme Court and won. That should ordinarily have taught the victim never to become the practitioner.

Apparently, other lessons were learnt.

Today, under the Presidency of Tinubu, allocations to Osun State local government areas have been withheld since March 2025 — that was some 19 months ago! Maybe, Tinubu is also not aware of that and Nigerians are merely ‘crediting’ the illegality to the President as they are wont to do “because every action taken by an institution of State, especially at the Federal level is always credited to me, as the President, even when I may not have had any prior knowledge of the action.” Bad! The irony could hardly be richer: the Lagos governor who went to court against Obasanjo over withheld council funds is today President while Osun councils suffer a strikingly familiar fate.

Tinubu should extend his ‘innocence’ further by telling us that he was not aware that the EFCC, under his watch, in 2024, just two weeks to the September 2024 governorship election in Edo State, ‘invited’ and ‘detained’ the Accountant-General of the state on spurious allegations.

The then Godwin Obaseki-led administration had no access to the state accounts as the Accountant-General was locked up somewhere. The aftermath of the election produced the incumbent Governor Monday Okpebholo, who, last week, was also in Osun to deride Governor Adeleke, whom he accused of ‘dancing for four years.’

Interestingly, since after the 2024 Edo gubernatorial election, all the allegations against the state Accountant-General have disappeared! The student may insist that he never attended the class, but the handwriting on the examination paper looks remarkably familiar.

So, for whatever joy it would serve, President Tinubu can continue to delight his hangers-on that he is a neutral President as far as the Osun governorship election is concerned. For the majority of us, we have adopted the multi-syllabic name of the ancient diviner: Ifábonmíèminábonràmi (Ifa-bon-mi-emi-na-bon’ra-mi) — the oracle does not deceive me and I do not deceive myself too.

Saturday, August 15, 2026, is around the corner. We wait to confirm the much-touted impartiality of Mr. President — and whether, when the final examination comes, Obasanjo’s brilliant student will resist the temptation to reproduce his teacher’s answers.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

COOU Crisis: Appointment dispute, sacks and corruption claims put university under pressure

As the court prepares to rule on the Vice-Chancellorship, an ICPC investigation and a series of complaints over contracts, research funds and university administration have widened the questions facing COOU

The dispute over the appointment of Prof. Kate Azuka Omenugha as Vice-Chancellor of Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University has grown into a wider controversy over the way the institution is being governed, with a pending court case, disciplinary actions against senior academics and investigations into alleged financial and procurement irregularities adding new layers to the dispute.

Omenugha, a former Commissioner for Education in Anambra State and professor of Mass Communication at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, was appointed acting Vice-Chancellor of COOU in November 2023 after the expiration of Prof. Greg Nwakoby’s tenure. She was subsequently confirmed substantive Vice-Chancellor by Governor Chukwuma Soludo, the university’s Visitor, on August 6, 2025.

The appointment followed an assessment of candidates by a seven-member joint committee of the university’s Governing Council and Senate. The committee interviewed nine candidates and ranked them according to agreed criteria covering academic qualifications, leadership experience, integrity, grantsmanship, fundraising and performance at interview.

The scoresheet seen by Law & Society Magazine placed Prof. Patrick Osegbue first with 83.14 per cent, followed by Prof. Leonard Onuba with 81.28 per cent and Prof. Chukwudi Okani with 78.14 per cent. Omenugha scored 74 per cent and was placed fifth.

In a letter dated August 1, 2025, the committee, chaired by then Pro-Chancellor Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, forwarded its recommendations to Governor Soludo in accordance with the university’s governing law.

Five days later, the Governor confirmed Omenugha as Vice-Chancellor.

Soludo’s administration has maintained that the Visitor was entitled to choose from the candidates who met the required standard. In a response signed by Secretary to the State Government Prof. Solo Chukwulobelu, the government said six of the candidates had scored above 70 per cent and therefore met the university’s “A” grade threshold.

The government also relied on the provision of the university’s law stating that the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Visitor “after considering” the recommendation of the joint committee.

Odinkalu and Osegbue have challenged that interpretation. Their position is that the university’s Ordinance II(4)(d) required the Governing Council to arrange the candidates in order of merit and recommend the first-placed candidate to the Visitor, while also forwarding the second and third candidates.

The disagreement is now before the National Industrial Court.

The court battle

Osegbue filed his case in August 2025, asking the court to nullify Omenugha’s appointment and recognise him as the candidate entitled to the position on the basis of the selection process.

The dispute took another turn after the Anambra State High Court in Otuocha, in a separate case brought by a university lecturer, affirmed Omenugha’s appointment and restrained university staff and organs from obstructing her duties.

Odinkalu questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine issues he said were already before the National Industrial Court.

At the National Industrial Court hearing on July 21, 2026, Osegbue’s counsel, J.S. Okutepa, SAN, urged the court to uphold the challenge and declare the appointment unlawful. Counsel to Omenugha and Governor Soludo, Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, argued that the Visitor acted within his powers.

Justice John Tergama has fixed October 15, 2026, for judgment.

Until then, the central legal question remains whether the Visitor could lawfully bypass the order of merit produced by the university’s selection committee.

Then came the dismissals

The controversy surrounding the Vice-Chancellorship has been accompanied by a series of disciplinary actions.

On June 11, 2026, Soludo inaugurated the university’s eighth Governing Council, headed by Prof. Peter Onwualu, after dissolving the previous council.

The following day, the new council announced the dismissal of five members of staff, including Osegbue and Prof. C.C. Nwabachili, the immediate past Dean of the Faculty of Law.

The university said the dismissals followed disciplinary proceedings over alleged misconduct. Osegbue has disputed the explanation, maintaining that his problems began after he challenged Omenugha’s appointment.

One of the issues for which he was disciplined involved a postgraduate course he was accused of failing to teach. Osegbue argued that the students concerned had not met the university’s minimum attendance requirement and that he could not properly examine students who had not fulfilled the requirements.

The university has rejected the suggestion that his dismissal was connected to the VC dispute. Omenugha has also pointed out that other candidates who contested the Vice-Chancellorship remain in senior positions at the university.

The contracts and conflict-of-interest questions

While the appointment dispute was unfolding, allegations concerning procurement and possible conflicts of interest were also being raised.

One petition to the EFCC questioned the university’s dealings with Koncioo Enterprises Ltd, a company in which corporate records identify Omenugha and members of her family as persons with significant control.

The university entered into an arrangement with the company for the supply of sachet water at the Igbariam campus. The arrangement later broke down following a disagreement over transportation costs and was terminated.

Staff subsequently complained about restrictions on the sale of other brands of table water on campus. A separate petition asked the EFCC to investigate the matter.

The university denied knowledge of any petition against the Vice-Chancellor at the time and rejected allegations of wrongdoing.

The question raised by the documents, however, is a straightforward one: where a senior university official or members of the official’s family have an interest in a company dealing with the institution, what disclosures were made and who supervised the transaction?

The same issue arises from allegations concerning contracts for infrastructure, printing and supplies.

The N4bn TETFund intervention

COOU received about N4 billion under TETFund’s 2024 Special High Impact Projects intervention for projects including a 2,000-seat auditorium, a library and landscaping and furnishing works.

Documents reviewed by Law & Society Magazine show that the auditorium and library contracts were awarded in September 2024. Companies linked in corporate records to businessman Paul Chukwuma were named as contractors for the two projects.

The projects subsequently attracted complaints over the procurement process and their progress.

When the projects were inspected, work on the auditorium and library had not been completed. The university has maintained that the projects were not abandoned and that construction depended on funds released by TETFund.

There were also allegations that the contracts were awarded without adequate competitive bidding or the required approvals. The university has disputed the allegations.

These are matters that can be settled by examining the tender documents, approval records, payment schedules and certificates of work done.

Research grants under scrutiny

Perhaps the most consequential allegations concern TETFund research grants.

In 2024, 75 COOU researchers received Institutional-Based Research grants. Complaints later emerged that beneficiaries were asked to remit portions of the money after it was released.

Some beneficiaries told The ICIR that they paid money into accounts provided to them, while others declined to do so. Those who refused said they subsequently experienced difficulties accessing later tranches.

The allegations eventually reached the ICPC.

On July 2, 2026, the commission invited 92 COOU staff members to appear before its investigators in Awka over allegations relating to procurement breaches and the handling of public funds.

The invitation does not amount to a finding of guilt against those involved. It does, however, mean that allegations that had previously circulated through petitions and internal complaints are now being examined by an anti-corruption agency.

Students caught in the middle

Beyond the dispute among university officials, there are concerns about how the continuing problems affect students.

Students interviewed for the investigation complained about multiple charges, delays in examination results, late postgraduate admissions and the cost of the university’s digital Student Life Cycle Portal.

COOU has defended the portal as part of its digital transformation programme and described the N15,000 annual charge as an investment in the university’s information and communications technology infrastructure.

Students have also questioned payments made for General Studies courses and other departmental requirements, including payments into accounts outside the university’s conventional fee-collection channels.

Some of the individuals and businesses named in connection with these allegations did not respond to requests for clarification before publication.

The university, for its part, has consistently maintained that its administration is focused on reforms and has pointed to developments in digital services, infrastructure, student affairs and academic administration.

A university waiting for answers

The immediate legal question at COOU will be answered when the National Industrial Court delivers its judgment in October.

The wider questions will take longer.

Who should appoint a Vice-Chancellor when a university law establishes a particular selection procedure? How much discretion does a Visitor possess? What safeguards should apply when members of senior officials’ families have commercial interests that intersect with university business? How are research grants monitored after they reach beneficiaries? And who independently checks procurement decisions involving billions of naira in public and intervention funds?

These are not questions that can be settled by competing press statements.

The records should settle them.

COOU has the opportunity to demonstrate that its governing laws, procurement procedures and financial controls are strong enough to withstand scrutiny, regardless of who occupies the Vice-Chancellorship. The authorities investigating the allegations have an equally important responsibility to establish what happened, separate evidence from accusation and ensure that anyone who breached the law is held accountable.

For now, the university remains caught between a court battle over its leadership and a growing list of questions about its administration.

The October judgment may decide who has the legal right to occupy the Vice-Chancellor’s office.

It will not, on its own, resolve the governance questions that have brought COOU to this point.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Kasunmu’s passing leaves Folake Solanke as the last giant of Nigeria’s old bar

By Lillian Okenwa

At 94, Nigeria’s first female SAN is now the oldest surviving member of the Inner Bar, carrying the memory of a generation that transformed Nigerian advocacy through a career spanning more than six decades and marked by historic firsts and an extraordinary legal drama.

The death of Professor Alfred Bandele Kasunmu, SAN, has left Chief Folake Solanke, SAN, as the oldest surviving member of Nigeria’s Inner Bar, closing another chapter in the story of a generation that helped shape the country’s legal profession.

Solanke, born on March 29, 1932, is about two years older than Kasunmu, who was born on May 23, 1934. Kasunmu, however, entered the Inner Bar before her, while Solanke became a Senior Advocate of Nigeria in 1981.

By then, she had already spent years breaking barriers in a profession dominated by men.

She was Nigeria’s first woman to attain the rank of SAN and the first female lawyer to wear the silk gown. She later became the first female Commissioner in the old Western State and, in 1992, the first African and first non-Caucasian to become International President of Zonta International.

Her legal career began in Britain, where she was called to the English Bar in 1962. On returning to Nigeria, she worked in the chambers of Justice Michael Adeyinka Odesanya before joining the chambers of Chief F.R.A. Williams, one of the giants of Nigerian advocacy. She established her own practice, Alabukun Chambers, in 1966.

Daughter of the Alabukun pioneer

Solanke was born Olufolake Odulate, daughter of Chief Jacob Sogboyega Odulate, the Abeokuta pharmacist and entrepreneur whose name became inseparable from Alabukun, the indigenous medicinal brand that became a household name in Nigeria.

Odulate was an unusual figure in his own right. Largely self-taught, he built his pharmaceutical business in Abeokuta and sent his children abroad for education. His daughter would eventually become one of the most accomplished women in Nigeria’s legal history.

But before the silk gown, the courtroom battles and the succession of professional firsts, Solanke found herself at the centre of a very different kind of legal drama.

The Benson affair

In the 1950s, her family and that of prominent lawyer and politician T.O.S. Benson explored the possibility of a marriage between the two families. Solanke rejected the proposal and later married Toriola Solanke in London in 1956.

The matter did not end there.

In 1957, Benson confronted Solanke in London. She alleged that during the encounter he forcibly took her engagement ring and wristwatch. The dispute eventually reached the Old Bailey, where Benson was tried and acquitted.

The case attracted considerable attention among Nigerians in Britain and became one of the most talked-about episodes in Solanke’s early life.

It was a remarkable prelude to the career that followed.

In 1981, Solanke became the first female SAN, breaking into a professional rank that had until then been exclusively male. Her appointment was followed by other firsts, including her elevation to Commissioner in the old Western State and her international leadership of Zonta.

She also remained active in the legal profession long after many of her contemporaries had retired. In 2021, she marked 40 years as a SAN, six decades after her call to the English Bar.

A profession changes around her

Kasunmu’s death has now placed Solanke in a singular position.

She belongs to a generation of Nigerian advocates whose careers began when the Bar was much smaller and courtroom advocacy was shaped by figures such as F.R.A. Williams, Gani Fawehinmi and other formidable practitioners of the early post-colonial era.

She has watched the profession expand from a relatively small Bar into one with thousands of practitioners and a much larger Inner Bar, while women have moved from being rare at the highest levels of advocacy to occupying prominent positions across the profession.

Her own career helped make that change possible.

At 94, Solanke remains not simply the oldest surviving SAN but one of the few living practitioners able to speak directly to several generations of Nigerian legal history.

Kasunmu’s passing has therefore left the profession with fewer links to its formative years.

For now, one of those links remains firmly in place.

Chief Folake Solanke, SAN — Nigeria’s first woman in silk and now the oldest surviving member of the Inner Bar.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

1...121314...1,470Page 13 of 1,470

TIPS

Load more