By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

The Best Identification of an Accused Person:

The best identification of an accused is by the victim of the crime or a witness to the crime. In the instant case, the appellant has argued that the girl on the motorcycle with the appellant was a different girl from the victim, or was an unknown girl. But PW5 testified that he knew the victim and would recognise her anywhere. The close encounter with the appellant and the victim on the motorcycle identified the appellant at the scene of the crime and it is binding on the appellant.

The appellant did not appeal against the description of the culprit as having a deformed right hand, and that identification and or description of the appellant as the person who was seen with the victim on a motorcycle before she went missing is binding on the appellant. The appellant did not challenge the fact that he had a deformed right hand as at the date the victim was seen with him on a commercial motorcycle operated by PW3 on the fateful day that she went missing. No doubt, PW3 and PW5 knew the appellant and the victim and had fixed the appellant at the scene of the crime as having committed the offence.

Proof of Offence of Kidnapping:

Per Uwa, JSC, at pages 237, paragraphs D–F:

“In respect of the elements required to be proved for the offence of kidnapping, there is no evidence that the victim has been seen till date. The parents of the victim, PW1 and PW2, gave evidence that the victim has not been seen from the date she was taken away by the appellant.

“The victim could not have consented to be taken away, she was only eight years of age at the time. From the investigation by the police, the evidence of PW4, PW3 and PW5 amongst others, it was clear that the appellant kidnapped Mercy as held by the trial court and rightly affirmed by the lower court. There is no reason or talk of lawful purpose or excuse for the appellant to have taken away the victim, Mercy.”

Meaning and Nature of Contradictions in Evidence and Effect of Discrepancies or Contradictions on Prosecution’s Case:

Contradictions occur when evidence adduced by different witnesses are opposites of each other. It is only discrepancies or contradictions on material points in the prosecution’s case that would create doubt which would favour an accused person or appellant.

Read Also: Dada v the state: Police and security of life (1)

In the instant case, learned counsel had erroneously argued that there were contradictions in the case of the prosecution at the trial because while PW3 stated that the incident occurred at about 4.30 pm on the fateful day, PW5 testified that it was at about 5.00 pm that the appellant picked up the victim. This was a minor detail that did not touch on the root of the matter, that is, that the appellant was seen with the victim, to which the appellant confessed that he had kidnapped the victim.

The exact time the witnesses saw the appellant with the victim is immaterial, whether it was 4.30 pm or 5.00 pm. On the other hand, if the witnesses had given the same time as the time the appellant was seen with the victim, the chances are high that the witnesses had been tutored to have ended up with identical evidence. Minor discrepancies as occurred in the present appeal could not be fatal to the prosecution’s case. The exact hour or minute the appellant was seen with the victim was immaterial.

When Identification Parade is Unnecessary:

Where an accused person by his confessional statement has identified himself, there would not be any need for any further identification parade. In the instant case, the appellant by his admission in his confessional statement had identified himself in respect of the commission of the offence.

Further, the evidence of PW3 and PW5 fixed the appellant to the commission of the offence. Therefore, the Supreme Court would not fault the finding by the Court of Appeal that apart from the confessional statement of the appellant, the unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of PW3 and PW5, fixed the appellant to the commission of the offence.

Contrary to the appellant’s argument that there were no materials upon which the trial court could have convicted the appellant, there was ample evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses which was unchallenged and uncontradicted that established the charge against the appellant that he kidnapped the victim who had not been seen since.

The Essence of Particulars of Ground of Appeal:

The essence of particulars to a ground of appeal is to explain or substantiate the ground or grounds of appeal. Grounds of appeal are to be differentiated from their particulars. While the grounds of appeal must clearly state what the appellant is complaining about, the essence of the particulars of a ground of appeal is to set out briefly the aspect of substantive law or procedural law that is affected by the error or misdirection identified or complained of in the ground of appeal.

In the instant case, the particulars of ground 5 of the notice of appeal did not challenge the ruling of the trial court where it was held that the manner in which the statement was written did not involve violence, as rightly argued by the respondent in its brief of argument. Ground 5 and its particulars related to the promise made to the appellant by PW4, the Investigating Police Officer, that he would help him get off the hook if he confessed to the crime, which did not make the statement inadmissible.

Therefore, the trial court rightly found that there was no violence in the manner in which the statement was taken from the appellant, and by virtue of the provisions of Sections 29 and 31 of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended, the promise did not make the statements inadmissible, as also rightly argued by the respondent.

Treatment of Findings of Court Not Appealed Against:

A finding of fact not appealed against binds an appellant and the appellate court. In this case, the appellant did not appeal to the Court of Appeal against the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s confessional statements were voluntarily made.

Thus, the appellant, not having appealed against the findings of fact by the trial court, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeal that the statements were voluntarily made, was bound by the findings.

The appellant also did not appeal against the description of the culprit as having a deformed right hand. That identification and or description of the appellant as the person seen with the victim on a motorcycle before she went missing is binding on the appellant. The appellant did not challenge the fact that he had a deformed right hand as at the date the victim went missing and was seen with her on a commercial motorcycle operated by PW3 on the fateful day that she went missing.

Further, PW3 and PW5 knew the appellant and the victim, and had fixed the appellant at the scene of the crime as having committed the offence.

When Appellate Court Will Not Interfere with Findings of Facts by Trial Court:

Findings on primary facts are matters within the province of a trial court and there is a rebuttable presumption that a trial court’s findings and conclusions on facts are correct. Thus, such findings are accorded due respect at the appellate court.

Therefore, an appellate court will very rarely, if at all, interfere with the findings of facts made by a trial court. This is so because such findings of fact enjoy the privilege of passing through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth-comb scrutiny of the observation of the witnesses’ reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony.

Accordingly, such findings are to be accorded due respect in appellate courts, which did not have the advantage of the trial court. In the instant case, the trial court and the Court of Appeal found that the evidence of PW3, the motorcycle rider, and PW5 fixed the appellant as the person that kidnapped the victim.

The trial court and the Court of Appeal believed the evidence of the witnesses at the trial court, which had not been proved or shown to be perverse for the Supreme Court to set it aside.

Conclusion

The entrance of motorcycles into the public transport domain has become a menace, but the masses of our people have no other option. In the absence of an efficient public transport system by way of buses and trains, people will have no other choice than to patronise private unregistered transport providers, at times doing so at great danger to their lives and property.

The two cases of Saheed v The People of Lagos and Dada v State, which have been the subject of review in recent weeks, serve as a wake-up call to the government to take urgent steps to safeguard the people. There are many other unreported cases similar to these, where innocent citizens become ready victims of ritualists, armed robbers and kidnappers who take advantage of the absence of government regulation to perpetrate their criminal agenda.

Fuel subsidy removal has taken cab and hiring services out of the reach of even the middle class, if such still exists, not to talk of the poorest of the poor. I appeal to the governors of the various states to come up with laws that will protect their people and to enforce existing laws regulating transport.

On the 15th of December 2025, the Federal High Court celebrated its new legal year of 2025/2026. As usual, who is who in the legal profession was there. The Bar was represented by its President. The Chief Justice of Nigeria was at that occasion. The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court led the Hon Judges of that court. The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria BOSAN, was represented by Chief Godwin Kanu Agabi the former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In short, who is who in the legal profession was there at that occasion. The speeches by each speaker were electrifying, and they all spoke about the need for justice to be served in the most undiluted manner. The need for judicial reforms and judicial boldness were beautifully couched, canvassed and emphasized. The ills of our justice systems were appropriately diagnosed by those who are too familiar with the cancerous illnesses that the legal profession and the judicial system suffer in Nigeria.

When it comes to fine speeches, we are just the best. But we need much more than fine speeches at public gatherings. I think we all know the problems facing us in the legal profession. The major problem for those who have responsibility to put the fine fine speeches into practice is the ability and boldness to walk the talks. The problems of forum shopping and conflicting judgments ably identified at that occasion have been with us for too long now that today we should not be talking about it. We should do away with it and those involved should be shown the way out of the legal profession.

Today, the issue of perceptions of judicial capture by state actors has assumed much more than perceptions. It is gradually becoming the reality of our systems. The judiciary seems to be in a total quagmire of liberating itself from those illnesses going by some decisions that led credence to the beliefs that judicial independence only exists in theory. Today,, some judgments defied both logic and jurisprudential reasoning, undermining good logic rooted in justice and good conscience.

Some judgments create more problems than solving it. Some judgments put roadblocks in the attainment of undiluted justice. Some judgments are rooted in caricature adjudications. Delay justice and abuse of judicial processes are becoming increasingly prevalent in the legal profession in Nigeria. The legal profession has become worse hit in legal abracadabra than in some most morally depraved institutions.

Improprieties of extraordinary abnormalities have become the norms rather than an exception. So for me we have talked enough. There must be practical implementations of our fine fine talks. NJC should as a matter of urgency deal with judicial officers that give conflicting decisions and then show them the way out of the justice system. NBA should publicly go after all its members that engaged in forum shopping and filing of frivolous processes and get them debarred without further delay. Those who are not ready to abide by the code of conduct in the legal profession are not fit to remain in the profession. LPDC should be strenghtened and properly funded to under the task flushing out bad eggs amongst us. There should be no sacred cows.

Admissions to law school must be thoroughly reviewed and people with character deficiencies should not be admitted to the Bar. NBA as a professional association of lawyers must run its affairs transparently. NBA too should look inward in the running of its affairs. Until NBA assumes a full fledged professional association and stop wearing the colour and attributes of conventional partisan political parties, it cannot play the much needed role of a leading light of the society. Over the years NBA and those in charge of it have become more interested in self serving interests than the interests of the vast majority of members.

NBA is almost turning to personal fiefdom and estate of emerging godfathers that representatives in various statutory institutions are chosen not necessarily on the basis of integrity and capacity but on political grounds and or on the basis of you support or you did not support me syndrome. Many who gave their all in all in the services of the association have been pushed to the position of oblivion and irrelevant. NBA faces existential challenges and crisis. Major events of NBA are not being attended by many older lawyers again. The nobility of the NBA is in jeopardy.

Sometimes I wonder why we tolerate so many darknesses in NBA. It is time for us to interrogate the usefulness of NBA to the overall good of Nigerian lawyers. NBA appears to be useful only to those who now parade themselves as the godfathers of NBA. That should not be. NBA there must examine itself for its speeches at all public functions to be taken serious by those it is meant to police.

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

By Suyi Ayodele

Whatever Comrade Adams Oshiomhole lacks in height and body volume, he makes up for in mischief. If you are not prepared for the mud, don’t engage the pint-size Edo senator in any combat. 

His greatest weapon is his tongue. This is why he prefers to be called ‘Comrade’ – just an appellation he acquired in his hey days in the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), when the masses thought that he was fighting their battles. His public persona tilts towards that of the man-of-the-people. But on a scrutiny, the man is a man-of-himself.

Comrade’s best strategy in any argumentation is sheer sophistry! His eloquence is top-notch, his argumentative prowess arresting and his rhetoric captivating. He can be sarcastic and can also be deadly acerbic! He speaks and gyrates at the same time. Give him a microphone stand a bit lower than his height; Oshiomhole still leaps forward to emit incomprehensible verbiage. He is a dramatist par excellence. No. He is the drama itself! He combines all the characterisation of a folklore as he quadruples as heroic, non-heroic; anti heroic and A-heroic figure – beating the trinity to a distant second place!

Oshiomhole is a man one cannot afford to hate. He is equally a man too dangerous to love. His basket of mischief remains inexhaustible, his repertoire of goodwill also bottomless! He disappoints when one expects wisdom; and equally excels just when one gives up on him. A master of confusion while he remains unperturbed, Comrade is a summary of the dysfunctionality of the Nigerian political system! He displayed that in good measure last week.

I would have made a huge cash-out last week if the childhood experience I had over gambling had not taken the better part of me. Someone, who was ready to put anything to it that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s ambassadorial nominees like Reno Omokri, Fani-Kayode and Mahmood Yakubu, the former Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would not make it through the senate, had staked a huge amount of money. I held a different opinion. He asked us to bet, not like the small finger-thrust displayed by Governor Monday Okpebholo on national television recently. This was real-time betting.

I was tempted to enter the ring especially when he was willing to double his stake while mine remained static. But I remembered that I must honour the solemn pledge I made to my late father. I assured the old man that I would never gamble again in my life. I had used the two Kobo he gave to me to buy Phensic, a type of analgesic medicine of those days, to play kàlòkàlò. It was an experience I never hoped for again. As the offer came, my father’s voice rang in my head: É s’ómo kèé hì ta tété kì ha jalè (a child who gambles will eventually steal). I declined and I lost what would have been a Christmas bonus! 

Alas, the screening turned out to be a hollow ritual; a drama of the absurd with Oshiomhole playing the lead villainous character! The former governor of Edo State was at his sophistry best at the screening of the 68 rotten tomatoes and sweet potatoes President Tinubu packaged as ambassadorial nominees and sent to the Senate for screening and approval. Many of us were entertained by the charade the National Assembly displayed at the ‘screening’. The only people who were disappointed were those who expected the senators to ‘skin’ the nominees.

As it turned out, all the 68 nominees were cleared. Any moment from now, Reno Omokri will be presenting his letter of credence endorsed by Tinubu, to the president of his ambassadorial post. By then, Tinubu would no longer be a “drug Lord” and certificate forger as Omokri alleged when he ‘was in the world’! It was Omokri’s screening that provoked Comrade Oshiomhole to tackle one of the oldest senators in this political dispensation, Ali Ndume of Borno State. 

For Oshiomhole, who, in one of his numerous campaign frenzies, had once opined that once a politician decamped to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), all his sins are forgiven, one cannot put anything past the Iyamoh-born politician. No cause is too dirty for him to defend, no candidate is too unpopular for him to support, project and vow for. 

A short voyage to the Comrade’s political shenanigans. In 2016, as the out-going governor of Edo State, Oshiomhole, while projecting the chairman of his economic team, Godwin Obaseki, as the governorship candidate of the APC, said that Obaseki was the “compressor” of the air conditioning of the state economic successes under his watch. He told the people to vote for Obaseki because Obaseki was the one who brought all the funds the government used in achieving feats for the people. 

Then he went after the jugular of Obaseki’s opponent and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu. Comrade Oshiomhole said that in his entire life, I quote him: “I have never seen a pastor who lies effortlessly like Ize-Iyamu.” He went further to label Ize-Iyamu as a violent pastor “who carries Bible in the day and gun at night.” The crowd cheered. He added so many other unprintable expletives and Ize-Iyamu lost the election. 

Four years later in 2020, Obaseki and Oshiomhole fell apart. As the National Chairman of the APC, Oshiomhole denied Obaseki a second term ticket. Obaseki, who had earlier got Oshiomhole suspended from the APC, changed to the PDP and picked the party’s gubernatorial ticket. 

On the other side, Ize-Iyamu left the PDP and picked the APC ticket. Edo people waited to see what Oshiomhole, who had been disgraced out of the APC national chairmanship office, would do. Brazenly, Comrade took over the campaign machinery of Ize-Iyamu. Oshiomhole on several occasions knelt to beg the people to vote for Ize-Iyamu! 

Oshiomhole told bewildered audiences from town to town that he was misinformed of Ize-Iyamu’s character! He said so, jumping from one end of the podium to another without any modicum of remorse! According to him, after the practice of dipping Agege bread into a hot beverage, the next best thing that has ever happened to humanity is Ize-Iyamu! Fortunately, the people could see through the Comrade’s hypocrisy! His candidate was beaten blue-black at the count of the ballot. 

That was the Oshiomhole that spoke last week in defense of Omokri’s nomination as an ambassador. In his warped reasoning, now that Omokri had weaned himself of his infantile perennial attacks on the character of President Tinubu, ‘all his sins are forgiven’ and he is worthy to be an ambassador! His argument, if projected further, is that once a man becomes transformed, his past would no longer count! 

That argument did not sit down well with Senator Ndume, and possibly some others who would rather get Omokri to explain how he saw the light and heard the voice on his way to Damascus to persecute Tinubu! Oshiomhole’s response was his sophistry of “when I talk, those who have not been governors should listen”, as if we have not seen governors and former governors as witless as the next-door fatuous Gardner in this dispensation.

The elders of my place said when a song is bad, nobody justifies it as being a palace song. That is exactly what Oshiomhole did in his defence of the irritation that Omokri and his ambassadorial nomination have constituted. Who would ever think that a day would come when a once fascinating character like Comrade would rise to defend a figure like Omokri!

The response by Ndume that he had been senator before Oshiomhole ever dreamed of becoming one took the argument to the highest buffoonery! What has been the impact of the decades Ndume has spent in the senate on his people? How many of his constituents are in captivity? How many of the people he represents are working as slaves on the farms of bandits so that they can live? Beyond the numeric of his years in the senate who Ndume epp? 

Things happen. One of the things that have happened to Nigeria is the current senate – a dump site for former governors. No sane mind will not be scandalised by the conduct of the senate under Godswill Akpabio! The upper chamber has turned into a stinking chamber pot of anything goes. Last week, the chamber took the perfidy of “bow and go” to another annoying level when virtually all the ambassadorial nominees were cleared without any serious questions asked. 

What, for instance, are the wives of former governors nominated as ambassadors bringing to the table? What are their pedigrees? Are they not the same peacocks we saw when their husbands were governors? Beyond rubbing pancakes and spending our patrimony as non-state actors, how else can we assess those ex-first ladies? 

Without sounding pessimistic, except for the career diplomats among them, the rest of Tinubu’s ambassadors are disasters packaged in golden wrappers. The qualities of the figures nominated by the president and endorsed by the senate speak to the quality of those in power today. Sure, no man gives what he does not have. President Tinubu has given us his best men and women as our ambassadors. We wish them diplomatic successes! 

Adibe Emenyonu and Michael Adeleye: It is hard to say goodbye

We lose those dear to us. That is what nature dictates. Every loss is painful. But when it doubles, it becomes very painful. I experienced double losses this last weekend. Two souls, very dear to me, were lowered to their graves. The reality that I would not see or talk to them again hurts! 

I joined a group of other journalists led by Patrick Ochoga of the Leadership Newspapers, who doubles as the Chairman, Edo Correspondents Chapel of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Edo State Council, to Obibiezena community in Owerri, Imo State, for the funeral rites for Adibe Augustine Emenyonu. 

Emenyonu, whom I called Adibs, slumped and died on October 18, 2025, at the age of 62. He was – imagine Adibs now being referred to in the past tense – until his death, the Edo State Correspondent of ThisDay Newspapers. Our paths crossed over two decades ago in Benin City where we plied the ‘he-said’ and ‘he-emphasised’ trade of journalism together. Adibs was a fearless and colourful writer. 

Even when I left journalism for the corporate world, we continued to bond. On my return to the pen fraternity after 16 years, Adibs received me warmly, opening his contacts to me like many others did. We became closer, turning friendship to brotherhood! 

I was devastated, when on the morning of Saturday, October 18, 2025, Ochoga called to announce: “Leader, I have bad news for you. We have lost Adibe!” The news was hurtful and seeing Adibs, naked in the morgue when I visited alongside the Edo State NUJ Chairman, Festus Alenkhe, and others, broke me. 

Talk of a man who laboured and did not eat the fruits thereof; talk of Adibs. He was a good father to his four beautiful daughters. Three of them are university graduates today and the last baby of the house is a sophomore. Two of the three graduates attended private universities, and the last girl is also in a private university. But the man who toiled to ensure the girls got good education is no more. This is a tragedy!

Travelling to Obibiezena to pay my last respect to a wonderful friend was an eye opener. I saw Adibs’ modest country home bungalow. I saw his bust, commissioned by Genevieve, his first daughter, with Adibs’ traditional ishiagwu cap. I dared him on several occasions to wear the cap to Igbo land, and I felt sad. I became sadder with the reality that Adibs’ 93-year-old mother was inside a room in the house while the rites of passage were being performed for the son who travelled home every month to attend to her! 

The entire Obibiezena mourned Adibs! The wailing, when his body arrived for the traditional lying-in-state was infectious. The old, walking with the aid of walking sticks turned up. Everyone spoke well of the departed. When I was asked to talk to his Obibiezena Development Union (ODU) executive, I gave a new name to Adibs – Adáraníléadáraníta. It means he who is good both at home and outside. Adibs was. His people testified to his goodness, his kindness, his generosity and his commitment to the community. He was, for many years, the Secretary General of ODU! 

Adibs was a devout Catholic. He never joked with his creator and faith. In his ‘mischief’ whenever we talked about our religious inclinations, he would ask: “Are you sure you are a Pentecostal or a penterascal?” Adibs had a deep voice, and he equally had a deep character. Like all humans, he had his flaws. But his greatest strength was his inability to betray a trust. He was dependable, he was reliable! 

I could not bring myself to go near his grave as Adibs’ remains were lowered. Coincidentally, Adibs was buried under the same avocado tree he used to taunt his friends, anytime he was in the village saying: “I am sitting under the avocado tree.” Now, Adibs sits no more, he rests, permanently, under the avocado tree! Fare thee well, Adibs! 

As we journeyed back to Benin, my mind was in far away Canada, where another friend and brother, Michael Adeleye, simply Mike, was being committed to mother earth.

The news of Mike’s demise was broken to me by another friend, Tunde Laniyan. I met the duo during my voyage to the corporate world. Mike adopted me as his elder brother and all through, he called me “Oga Suyi”. His respect for age and experience remain inimitable. There was no time of the day Mike could not call to ask: ‘Oga Suyi, ki ni kin se’ (Oga Suyi, what should I do?). Mike resigned and left for Canada with his family. I was in the know of the plan to relocate from incubation to fruition. And while over there, we maintained that line of communication.

On October 9, 2025, at about 3.09 pm Nigerian time, I sent a message to him thus: “Hello. How are my people? Can you get this book for me: “For One More Day”, a novel by Mitch Albom.” Six minutes later, Mike responded with a screenshot of the book and asked for confirmation, which I did. “Okay, I will order it now. I should get it latest tomorrow. Then we shall discuss how to send it to you.” He responded and the following day, he had the book.

After the initial plan of sending the book by hand through someone travelling to Benin failed, Mike put the book in the mail on November 1, 2025. At my last tracking shortly before I dropped off this piece, the information on the tracking platform was to the effect that the book is with the Nigeria Customs having been presented to the agency on November 20, 2025, at 11.04 am! The country we live in!

We kept chatting and then the news came. Mike is dead! How? What killed him? Just like that! Mike, gone like vapour! Mid this year, Mike called to announce that he had completed his house in Lagos. “Oga Suyi, it is your project o”, he gleefully announced. I answered by saying that I was looking forward to being hosted to a meal of pounded yam whenever his family visited Nigeria. Now, Mike is gone and gone forever! What is this life!

As I penned this, my mind raced to Mummy Oyin, Mike’s wife. The two were inseparable; they were more than a husband and wife. How is she coping, herself? What about the two beautiful daughters? Why should nature be this cruel! Mike was industrious. He had hopes and aspirations.

They caution us in Christendom not to mourn as unbelievers. I will keep to that doctrine.

Rest on Mike; sleep from all your labour! May the good Lord comfort your wife and children. Good night, Mike, fare thee well!

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

Re: “Law Student Ayomiposi Ojajuni Kills Self Over Failure To Write Final Exam”

By Sylvester Udemezue

A news report is currently circulating online concerning a Nigerian Law School student, Mr. Ayomiposi Ojajuni, who sadly passed away after an incident reportedly linked to his being prevented from participating in the Bar Final Examinations at the Yola Campus. I have received several messages and tags simply because the matter concerns the Nigerian Law School. It is well.

One message posted by a lawyer on social media reads: “@Sylvester Udemezue, this is very disturbing. Can we have clarification or explanation to this?”

Below is my personal response:

At this moment, the full and verified facts of the matter have not been officially confirmed. I am not presently at the Yola Campus, and I have not received any authoritative information from those directly involved. Before forming any conclusive personal position, I must hear from people who were physically present and have first-hand knowledge of what transpired.

For this reason, I respectfully urge the public, the media, and all stakeholders to exercise restraint and avoid premature judgments.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family, friends, colleagues, and the entire Nigerian Law School community. The loss of any young person is deeply painful. Moments like this call for sobriety, empathy, and collective reflection.

On Media Handling of the Story

The manner in which some media platforms have handled this report raises important professional concerns. At the very least:

1. Journalists are expected to verify sensitive information before publication; and
2. The Nigerian Law School should be contacted and given an opportunity to respond, in line with established ethical standards of fair hearing and balanced reporting.

Failure to take these basic steps gives the impression of a hurried and insufficiently investigated story. Publishing an unverified account (especially on a matter involving an academic institution and a tragic outcome) renders the report unbalanced and professionally questionable. That said, let us assess the published narrative objectively.

Summary of the Published Report

According to Sahara Reporters and other outlets, the student was allegedly prevented from writing the Bar Final Examinations due to disciplinary issues arising from earlier queries. The reports further suggest that he became emotionally distressed after being informed of the decision, drank some harmful substance and was subsequently taken to a hospital, where he passed away the following day.

Questions Arising

To properly evaluate the incident, several questions must be addressed:

1. Were queries actually issued to the student, as alleged?
2. If yes, was he given a fair hearing and an opportunity to respond?
3. What specific conduct warranted the issuance of the queries?
4. Was he indeed barred from writing the examinations that commenced yesterday?
5. If he was barred, was the sanction consistent with the Nigerian Law School’s Code of Conduct (latest edition) issued to students earlier this year?
6. Was the decision communicated clearly, formally, and in a timely manner?
7. Were adequate support measures available or offered to the student during the process or crisis period? Final Observations

While I personally deeply sympathize with the parents, relatives, and friends of the student (and with the entire Nigerian Law School community over this heartbreaking incident) it remains essential that a thorough, independent, and transparent investigation be conducted. Only verified facts should guide public opinion or institutional accountability.

Meanwhile, it’s my submission that every educational institution has an inherent duty and authority to enforce discipline, provided such powers are exercised objectively, fairly and in accordance with established rules and legal procedures. What is most important now is truth, clarity, fairness, and sensitivity.

I once again pray for divine comfort for the family and all those affected. I also urge everyone to remain calm and patient until official and verified information is released.

May the soul of our brother rest in perfect peace. Amen 🙏

Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08021365545.
[email protected].
(07 December 2025)

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

By Babafemi Ojudu

I spent more than an hour this morning listening to Edmund Obilo’s interview with Col. Victor Banjo’s daughter, Prof. Oluyinka Omigbodun. As she narrated her father’s life — his brilliance, his courage, his idealism — what leapt out at me was the gaping, almost tragic strain of naïveté that ran through his story. It was alarming. And it stirred something deeply personal.

Because with all sense of humility, I saw in Banjo, Nzeogwu, Ifeajuna, Ademola Adegboyega and the others a reflection of myself and of the young men and women with whom I walked through the University of Ife — and later marched into the battlefield of guerrilla journalism. Had we chosen soldiering instead of journalism, some of us might have ended like those brilliant officers: consumed by our idealism, undone by our misreading of power, punished for believing too deeply in the purity of our intentions.

For every Banjo in the barracks, there were Banjo-like souls in the newsroom and on the streets — young idealists convinced that exposing injustice would automatically produce justice, that speaking truth would automatically provoke reform, that courage and clarity were enough to change a nation. We, too, carried brilliance and naïveté in the same pocket.

I recognize that dangerous blend because I have lived it. I recognize it even in my political career and support for people seeking power and offices at different levels

I have studied these men for decades — Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Adewale Ademoyega, Victor Banjo, and their cohort. They were brilliant, courageous, revolutionary, and sincerely patriotic. But running through their stories, like a quiet but persistent fault line, is a profound naïveté. It is one of our nation’s great ironies: how men so gifted, so bold, and so aflame with purpose could so disastrously misread the political terrain they sought to reform.

The paradox is not uniquely Nigerian. Che Guevara — another brilliant, self-sacrificing revolutionary — fell to the same flaw. He believed that moral purity could defeat geopolitical complexity; that charisma could conquer entrenched interests; that once the spark of revolution was lit, ordinary people would simply rise and follow. His brilliance fed his courage — and fed his naïveté too.

Like Guevara, the young officers of 1966 believed that vision, sincerity, and willpower alone could bend history. They were wrong.

The Seductive Trap of Brilliance

Brilliance, on its own, is a seductively dangerous thing.

It creates the illusion that because one sees possibilities clearly, others will see them too.

It convinces the gifted that logic will prevail, that noble intentions will translate into noble outcomes, and that society will naturally follow those who mean well.

But history does not obey brilliance. History obeys power, fear, vested interests, old resentments, and the cultural anxieties that shape human behaviour.

This was the trap into which the January 1966 actors fell.

When Idealism Meets Reality

Nzeogwu believed corruption would vanish once a few men were eliminated.

Ifeajuna thought he could choreograph political chaos like a theatre script.

Banjo — a strategist of rare depth — misjudged timing, misread alliances, and placed too much faith in the rationality of men and the loyalty of friends at moments ruled entirely by fear.

These were not foolish men.

They were exceedingly intelligent.

But intelligence can become a blinding light.

It can illuminate the dream while hiding the pitfalls.

They mistook personal integrity for national consensus.

They assumed that once the door of change was pushed open, the entire house would rearrange itself.

I once believed that too — in my youthful days of guerrilla journalism, when we imagined that one explosive story could topple a dictatorship and rebirth a nation. Life taught us otherwise.

The Uncomfortable Truth

The truth — then and now — is stark:

People, allies, and enemies alike do not act based on what is right. They act based on what they fear, what they desire, and what they believe protects their own.

This is why excessively brilliant individuals can still be dangerously naïve.

They overestimate logic.

They underestimate emotion.

They assume good intentions are enough.

They fail to grasp the slow, stubborn rhythm of political reality.

A Lesson for Today’s Idealists

Nigeria’s early tragedy was not only a failure of governance — it was a failure of understanding. A failure by brilliant young men to recognize that nation-building demands not only courage and intellect but also patience, political wisdom, timing, and a nuanced reading of society’s anxieties.

And this lesson endures.

Many of our reformers, technocrats, and fiery young idealists still fall into the same trap — believing that clarity of ideas equals readiness of the nation. It does not. Nations do not move at the speed of their brightest minds; they move at the speed of their most complex realities.

The Warning

The story of Nzeogwu, Ifeajuna, Banjo, and Ademoyega is not just a historical episode. It is a cautionary tale for every generation that longs to remake Nigeria.

Genius is no shield against error.

Courage is no substitute for wisdom.

And, patriotism, no matter how fiery, must be tempered with an understanding of people, power, and possibility.

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