Home Blog Page 138

‘Entire Families Vanished’: U.S. urges Nigeria to act after mass church abduction in Kaduna

”It takes some form of #OfficialComplicity for this level of #MassAbduction to happen in Kaduna with no resistance or incident.” – Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

The United States has urged Nigeria to intensify efforts to protect Christian communities following the abduction of more than 170 worshippers in Kaduna State. This incident has reignited international concern over persistently religiously linked violence, mass kidnappings, and the Nigerian government’s repeated failure to protect civilians.

The abductions reportedly occurred on January 18 in the Kurmin Wali community, Kajuru Local Government Area, during church services at Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA) and Cherubim and Seraphim congregations. Entire families were taken as gunmen stormed the churches in what residents described as a coordinated operation.

Despite multiple eyewitness accounts and community reports, both the Kaduna State Government and the Nigeria Police Force initially denied that any mass abduction had taken place. Authorities later reversed course and confirmed the incident, following growing public pressure and the circulation of victims’ names online.

Sources familiar with the negotiations said the abductors are demanding the return of 17 motorcycles, valued at approximately ₦28.9 million, allegedly seized during recent military operations, as a condition for releasing the captives. Security analysts say the demand underscores the growing confidence and brazenness of armed groups operating in the region.

The U.S. warning was delivered during a high-level United States–Nigeria Working Group meeting in Abuja. Speaking at the session, U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Allison Hooker said continued attacks on religious communities risk undermining Nigeria’s security gains and eroding public trust.

“Persistent attacks on religious communities undermine security gains and public confidence,” Hooker said. “We are here to discuss how we can work together to deter violence against Christian communities, prioritise counterterrorism, investigate attacks and hold perpetrators accountable, and reduce killings, forced displacements and abductions—particularly in the North Central states.”

Hooker referenced recent releases of abducted Christians, including 38 worshippers kidnapped in Kwara State and 265 students taken from St. Mary’s Catholic School, attributing the developments to sustained U.S. engagement with Nigerian authorities. However, she said the Kaduna abduction raised serious concerns about the adequacy of current security measures and the protection of religious freedom.

She added that progress on religious liberty and civilian security would strengthen U.S.–Nigeria relations, with implications for trade, health cooperation, counterterrorism and the return of internally displaced persons.

Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, acknowledged the scale of the crisis and pledged intensified military and law-enforcement operations in affected areas. He described religiously motivated violence as “unacceptable” and said it would be treated as an attack on the Nigerian state.

“Nigeria is a deeply plural society, and the protection of all citizens—Christians, Muslims and those of other beliefs—is non-negotiable,” Ribadu said. “Our response integrates security operations, the rule of law, humanitarian safeguards and strategic communication to ensure that operational successes translate into public confidence.”

Ribadu said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had authorised expanded security deployments, enhanced intelligence coordination and comprehensive investigations into attacks targeting religious communities, promising that those responsible would be brought to justice.

However, civil society leaders and human rights advocates say official assurances contrast sharply with realities on the ground.

In a widely circulated statement, human rights lawyer and former chairman of Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, described the Kaduna abductions as evidence of systemic failure and possible official complicity.

“Kaduna is the most garrisoned state in Nigeria,” Odinkalu wrote. “It takes some form of official complicity for this level of mass abduction to happen without resistance.”

He criticised the police for denying the incident for more than 48 hours without investigation, arguing that the delay cost valuable time and initiative in locating the abductees. Odinkalu also linked the denial to what he described as a broader effort by Nigerian authorities to counter international allegations of targeted violence against Christians through narrative management rather than accountability.

According to lists compiled by local sources, entire households were taken during the attack, including 13 members of one family and more than 10 from several others.

“These were citizens. Human beings who went for routine worship,” Odinkalu said. “They had a right to expect better from their government and the police.”

As Nigeria faces mounting pressure from Washington and international human rights groups, the Kaduna abductions have become a stark symbol of the widening gap between official statements and the lived reality of communities caught in the country’s protracted security crisis.

FULL LIST OF 177 KIDNAPPED PERSONS

                1.            Samson Naallah

                2.            Edisid Naallah

                3.            Christopher Naallah

                4.            Martin Samson

                5.            Moses Samson

                6.            Clever Godwin

                7.            Jerusalem Chindo

                8.            Markus Makudi

                9.            Benjamin Markus

                10.          Albert Markus

                11.          Olelana Markus

                12.          Linus Markus

                13.          Hassana Linus

                14.          Ojo Bamboya

                15.          Esther Ojo

                16.          Mary Jonathan

                17.          George Jonathan

                18.          Careful Jonathan

                19.          EF James

                20.          Morin Boniface

                21.          Junior James

                22.          Happiness Jonathan

                23.          Honest Jonathan

                24.          Honesty Jonathan

                25.          Faith Luka

                26.          Beauty Luka

                27.          Junior Luka

                28.          Rosemary Luka

                29.          Dorothy Musa

                30.          Selina Nwankwo

                31.          Alice Bamboya

                32.          Magdalena Godwin

                33.          Hassan Ishaya

                34.          Lazarus Ishaya

                35.          Marta Ishaya

                36.          Zummunta Ishaya

                37.          Salvation Ishaya

                38.          Susana Linus

                39.          Jummai Linus

                40.          Peace Joshua

                41.          Zahaya Joshua

                42.          Nabilah Makudi

                43.          Hajara Makudi

                44.          Rebecca Hosea

                45.          Ahmad Ahmad

                46.          Liyu Ezekiel

                47.          Vivian Ezekiel

                48.          Goodluck Ezekiel

                49.          Beauty Ezekiel

                50.          Matina Maiyashi

                51.          Bridget Maiyashi

                52.          Vivian Linus

                53.          Mary Amos

                54.          Hamid Amos

                55.          Patricia Amos

                56.          Hamisu Amos

                57.          Luka Amos

                58.          Tacy Amos

                59.          Cynthia Amos (guessed)

                60.          Mercy Isaac

                61.          Augustine Makudi

                62.          Matthew Samaila

                63.          Adam Musa

                64.          Malika Sule

                65.          Abu Ahmad

                66.          Hussein Lucky (guessed)

                67.          Akinyi Sadiu

                68.          Dangata Amos

                69.          Helen Jonathan

                70.          Asinwa Jonathan

                71.          Faith Joseph

                72.          Gloria Kennet

                73.          Happiness Danisa

                74.          Fidelis Jacob

                75.          Tobias Markus

                76.          Istu Paul

                77.          Hassana Paul

                78.          Charity Chindo

                79.          Christiana Danisa

                80.          Everest Danima

                81.          Thomas Philip

                82.          Catrina Danbosi

                83.          Halima Hassan

                84.          Hassan Lukumi

                85.          Mary Sadiu

                86.          Franca John

                87.          Henry Danbiyi

                88.          Genesis Lawal

                89.          Ayuba Lawal

                90.          Solomon Ayuba

                91.          Theophilus Danlami (guessed)

                92.          Charles Sambo

                93.          Rahila Charles

                94.          Gambo Danisa

                95.          Talent Danisa

                96.          Nehemiah Danjuma

                97.          Maijima Shekarau

                98.          Matina Maijima

                99.          Laraba Maijima

                100.        Musa Danjuma

                101.        Ishaya Danima

                102.        Lulu Danisa

                103.        Clement Ahmad

                104.        Destiny Ahmad

                105.        Nehemiah Ishaya

                106.        Simon Ishaya

                107.        Nasty Muku

                108.        Helena Joseph

                109.        Joseph Bawa

                110.        Sarah Joseph

                111.        Bulus Mariya

                112.        Musa Samaila

                113.        Bulus Bawa

                114.        Halima Bawa

                115.        Beture Hosea

                116.        Sati Hosea

                117.        Titus John

                118.        Dogara Bawa

                119.        Lories Bawa

                120.        Adamu Aminu

                121.        Ezekiel Adamu

                122.        Tenah Markus

                123.        Tina Danbosi

                124.        Patricio Bawa

                125.        Janet Tsuda

                126.        Amina Danjuma

                127.        Sandra Danbosi

                128.        Bridget Sunday

                129.        Saphat Innocent (guessed)

                130.        Alex Sunday

                131.        Beauty Peter

                132.        Samisa Paul

                133.        Joy Joseph

                134.        Methole Johanna

                135.        Genesis Johanna

                136.        Maria Johanna

                137.        Merozdu Adonu

                138.        Karimi Jangbe

                139.        Sunday Martela

                140.        Santina Hershinga

                141.        Keuna Michael

                142.        Hassan Bulus

                143.        Marzeta Maisoni

                144.        Mainwa Dominic

                145.        Godwin Karimi

                146.        Amos Akijo

                147.        Nathan Amos

                148.        Joseph Chindo

                149.        Lydia Godwin

                150.        Hamna Maiyangi

                151.        Toletu Maiyangi

                152.        Esther Godday

                153.        Godswill Godday

                154.        Godlive Samson

                155.        Goodluck Aliga

                156.        Madaki Tabawa

                157.        Tabawa Abba

                158.        Tabawa Iyamye

                159.        Samuel Amos

                160.        Daniel Amos

                161.        Deborah Amos

                162.        Ruth Amos

                163.        Emmanuel Danjuma

                164.        Joshua Danjuma

                165.        Rejoice Danisa

                166.        Blessing Danisa

                167.        Ibrahim Lawal

                168.        Zainab Lawal

                169.        Sadiq Ahmad

                170.        Aisha Ahmad

                171.        Yakubu Musa

                172.        Suleiman Musa

                173.        Rahama Musa

                174.        Daniel Jonathan

                175.        Samuel Jonathan

                176.        Peter Jonathan

                177.        Grace Jonathan

BREAKING! NJC recommends Federal High Court Chief Registrar, 13 others to President Tinubu as judges

The National Judicial Council has finally recommended 14 lawyers to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for appointment as Judges of the Federal High Court.

The Council had at its 110th Meeting held on 13 and 14 January 2026, presided over by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, resolved to recommend to President Tinubu 14 names of successful candidates for appointment as Judges of the Federal High Court.

A statement on Thursday evening by the Deputy Director of Information of the NJC, Mrs Kemi Babalola- Ogedengbe said that at the time of the Council Meeting, the security report on the candidates was not available.

Council, therefore, resolved to await the submission of the security report before forwarding the names of the candidates to the President.

Having received the security report, with no adverse comments on any of the recommended candidates, the Council on Thursday, 22nd day of January 2026, forwarded the names of the candidates to the President.

The 14 successful candidates recommended to the President comprised the incumbent Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Suleiman Amida Hassan.

Others are Muhammad Barau Saidu, Igboko Chinelo Conchita, Onuegbu Chioma Angela,
Galumje Edingah, Ibrahim Vera Eneabo, Abubakar Musa Usman and Salihu Aisha Yunusa.

The rest are Ikpeme Joy Bassey, Shehu Umaru Adamu, Mohammed Ibrahim Buba, Eigege-Binjin Nendelmum Judith, Usoro Kuyik Uduak, and Nwoye Osinachi Donatus.

Supreme Court ends Hamza Al-Mustapha trial in Kudirat Abiola murder

The Supreme Court has dismissed the trial of Major Hamza Al-Mustapha (rtd), the former Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the late Military Head of State, General Sani Abacha in the murder of late politician, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola.

Kudirat Abiola was the wife of the late businessman cum politician, Chief MKO Abiola, the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993, Presidential Election that was annulled by former President Ibrahim Babangida.

Mrs Kudirat Abiola was murdered in Lagos in the nationwide crisis that followed the annulment and in the course of her persistent struggle to get the annulment reversed by the military.

The trial of Al-Mustapha in the murder charge brought against him by the Lagos State government was, however, put to rest on Thursday by a 5-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Uwani Aba-Aji.

At the proceedings where the Lagos State was slated to re-open the trial, no legal representation was made, while no process was filed since 2014 when an order to re-open the case was granted in its favour.

When the matter was called, Paul Daudu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, stood for Al-Mustapha and informed the Justices that Lagos had not taken any step to implement the order granted it in 2014 to reopen the trial.

He said that not even a notice of appeal was filed by Lagos as the appellant to demonstrate its seriousness to prosecute the trial.

The senior lawyer informed the Apex Court that in 2014, when the order to re-open the trial was granted, Lagos was issued a 30-day ultimatum to file its notice of appeal.

Daudu explained that more than nine years later, nothing had been done to comply with the order.

He therefore urged the Court to hold that the appellant has abandoned the case and should be dismissed in its entirety.

Justice Uwani Aba-Aji, who presided over the matter, sought to know if Lagos was served with a hearing notice. The question was answered in the affirmative by the Registrar of the Court.

In a brief ruling, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, agreed that Lagos has lost interest in the matter and consequently abandoned it.

Justice Aba-Aji held that nine years was long enough for the appellant to have filed notice of appeal and the brief of appeal in the matter.

Besides, the Court expressed disgust that no legal representation was made by the state government, while no information was made available to the Court and the respondent, despite being served with a hearing notice since 2020.

Consequently, the matter marked SC/CR/45/2014 was dismissed.

Another matter by the Lagos governor marked SC/CR/6/2014 on the same trial was also dismissed on the same ground.

The Supreme Court, in a 2014 ruling on the application by Lagos State for permission to re-open the case out of time, granted the request for Lagos to challenge the Court of Appeal decision of July 12, 2013 that discharged and acquitted Al-Mustapha from the murder case.

The then Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, in the ruling of a panel of seven Justices, ordered Lagos State to file its notice of appeal within 30 days.

The decision of Justice Onnoghen on the Lagos application, argued by Osunsanya Oluwayemisi, a Senior State Counsel in the Lagos Ministry of Justice, followed the consent of Al-Mustapha’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Daudu SAN, not to oppose the application.

The acting CJN had said that by the decision of the apex court, the time for Lagos to appeal against the findings of the Court of Appeal on the high-profile murder case has been extended from July 12, 2013, when the Court of Appeal judgment was delivered till January 7, 2014.

By the granted permission in 2014, the coast became cleared for Lagos to challenge the not guilty verdict granted in favour of the military officer by the Court of Appeal in 2013

In the then move to re-open the case, the Lagos State government had sought to file a notice of appeal out of time at the Supreme Court, asking for the permission of the court to allow it to challenge the Appeal Court findings of Justices Amina Adamu Augie, Rita Nosakhare Pemu and Fatimo Omoro Akinbami on ground of miscarriage of Justice in the matter.

The state had in the application prayed the apex court to allow it to exercise its constitutional right to test the validity and correctness of the decision of the Appeal Court.

It claimed that it wanted to raise its ground of appeal on arguable legal and factual issues, especially the question of whether there is any direct or circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt passed on Al-Mustapha in the murder case.

It had justified its lateness in filing the appeal on the ground that it set up two legal teams to review the circumstances of the case and the verdict of the Court of Appeal.

The government said that it took a long time for the two legal teams to present their findings and recommended that an appeal case be filed and sustained.

The Lagos State Government said that it will ask the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which on July 12, 2013, discharged and acquitted Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, in the murder case of late Alhaja Kudirat Abiola.

In place of the Appeal Court decision, the state government said that it will plead with the apex court to uphold and restore the death sentence by hanging placed on the former Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the former dictator and late Head of State, General Sani Abacha by a Lagos High Court on January 30, 2012.

Al-Mustapha, Mohammed Abacha and one Lateef Shofolahan were arraigned before a Lagos high court on a two-count criminal charge of conspiracy to commit murder and the murder of the late Alhaja Kudirat Abiola on June 4, 199,6 in Lagos State.

In the judgment of the high court delivered on January 30, 2012, by Justice Moji Dada, the accused persons were found culpable as charged and sentenced to death by hanging.

However at the Court of Appeal approached by Al-Mustapha on April 27, 2012 for the review of the trial and the conviction, the 3-member appellate court Justices in a unanimous judgment of July 12, 2013 voided the decision of the high court, set it aside and discharged and acquitted the accused on the ground that the evidence against them was not strong enough to warrant the death sentence.

Regulatory Failure: How FIFA and CAF orchestrated the AFCON final chaos

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

“Mané provided the leadership missing from the VIP boxes. His actions act as a powerful mitigating factor that, under any fair assessment, should nullify calls for harsh punitive action.”

The stadium lights of an AFCON final are meant to illuminate the pinnacle of continental excellence. Instead, the final between Senegal and Morocco cast a harsh glare on a crumbling foundation of sportsmanship and the systemic paralysis of football’s governing bodies. While the post-match discourse has fixated on Senegal’s dramatic decision to walk off the pitch, this narrow focus is a convenient distraction. To obsess over the protest while ignoring the provocation is to mistake the smoke for the fire. The chaos witnessed by millions was not an organic eruption; it was the predictable, slow-motion car crash of institutional negligence. As FIFA and CAF deliberate on disciplinary sanctions, they are not merely judging two nations—they are sitting in judgment of their own failure to govern.

Morocco’s conduct throughout the tournament did not emerge from a vacuum. It was a cultivated atmosphere of gamesmanship that bordered on the pathological, escalating with every match that passed without a whistle from the regulators. We saw repeated, blatant intrusions onto the field of play and the systematic harassment of opposing goalkeepers—including the calculated snatching of towels during matches against Nigeria and others. These were not “passion-fuelled” incidents; they were clear violations of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. Yet, CAF and FIFA remained silent. By failing to issue sanctions in the early rounds, the governing bodies signalled that the rules were optional. This regulatory vacuum created a sense of impunity. When a child is never told “no,” their tantrums inevitably grow more destructive. In this context, the silence of the authorities transformed the pitch from a theatre of sport into a gladiator pit where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour had been erased.

In legal terms, CAF and FIFA bear a form of vicarious liability. When an organising body neglects to enforce its own statutes, it assumes responsibility for the resulting disorder. Senegal’s walk-off must be understood as a reaction to contributory negligence. The hostile reception of the Senegalese team and the deafening boos at the post-match press conference were the harvest of seeds planted by CAF’s own inaction. Furthermore, the narrative of “Senegalese indiscipline” is dismantled by the conduct of their leadership. Captain Sadio Mané’s intervention—his calm, measured effort to bring his teammates back to the pitch—saved the final from total collapse. Mané provided the leadership missing from the VIP boxes. His actions act as a powerful mitigating factor that, under any fair assessment, should nullify calls for harsh punitive action.

The history of football discipline is littered with moments where a rigid application of the rules would have resulted in a “manifest injustice.” It’s trite law to suggest that the environment of a match can fundamentally alter the culpability of the players, a principle seen clearly in the case of Zinédine Zidane in 2006. While Zidane was sent off for his headbutt in the World Cup Final, FIFA took the unprecedented step of sanctioning Marco Materazzi for the verbal provocation. This established that the initiator of hostility shares the legal burden of the reaction.

Morocco’s unpunished misconduct throughout the tournament served as the spiritual equivalent of that slur, making a reaction from the Senegalese camp almost inevitable. Similarly, the 2007 Euro qualifier between Denmark and Sweden highlighted the “Duty of Care” organisers owe to players. When a fan attacked a referee, the ensuing legal battle emphasised that if the host or organiser fails to provide a secure environment, they lose the moral authority to punish those who feel unprotected.

When CAF failed to stop interference with Senegal’s warm-ups and staff, they breached this duty of care. This mirrors the 2014 Serbia vs. Albania case, where the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) eventually ruled that a security failure and a hostile environment were the primary causes of a match abandonment. In all these instances, the courts recognised that the “Primary Violation”—the walk-off or the physical act—could not be separated from the “Institutional Negligence” that preceded it.

Under modern sports law, efforts to restore order—like those of Sadio Mané—are viewed as Active Mitigation. In the same way that Alan Mullery’s 1968 dismissal led to a broader discussion on refereeing failures, Mané’s role as a “stabiliser” highlights that the players were doing the job the officials abandoned.

FIFA enters this debate with a heavy burden of history, marked by past corruption and accusations of selective enforcement. A ruling that disproportionately hammers Senegal while giving Morocco a pass would confirm the worst suspicions: that rules are a sword for the powerful rather than a shield for the fair.

Fortunately, Articles 7 §2 and 8 §2 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code contain “manifest injustice” clauses. These exist precisely to prevent the robotic application of rules when doing so would produce a patently unfair result. They allow the committee to acknowledge that the sustained provocation and the failure of officials to protect the players are more significant than the technical breach of a walk-off.

The AFCON final fallout should not end with a cheque written to a treasury in Zurich. It should end with a new standard of accountability. If CAF and FIFA wish to preserve the integrity of the African game-or of any other for that matter-they must realise that they are the primary defendants in the court of public opinion. Sanctioning Senegal in a vacuum would be a misdiagnosis of a terminal illness. The disorder was not caused by a team leaving the pitch; it was caused by the referees and administrators who left their posts long before the opening whistle.

Finally, attempting to spin this unfortunate episode as a blight on African football as a whole is simply disingenuous. It is not. Rather, it is the direct consequence of a gross dereliction of duty by the two governing bodies, which they alone must put right. That will require an unambiguous acknowledgement of their failings, followed by prompt action to restore order, and demonstrate a willingness henceforth to enforce their own rules—consistently, and without favour.

Kachi Okezie, Esq., is a sports lawyer.

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

22-year-old Afghan woman to die by stoning for secretly teaching girls taekwondo

A young woman who secretly trained girls in taekwondo in Afghanistan may be stoned to death for her actions. 

Khadija Ahmadzada, 22, was arrested on January 10 in Herat for defying the Taliban’s ban on women playing sport. 

Authorities discovered she was teaching students the martial art in a hidden courtyard at her home. 
 

Afghan woman, 22, ?faces de@th by stoning for secretly teaching girls taekwondo?


Her detention has prompted fears from activists that she has already been sentenced to death for the illicit activity. 

The campaigners are desperately trying to raise awareness of the Taliban crackdown in hopes that her killing can be averted. 

British-Afghan activist Shabnam Nasimi said on Instagram: “She refused to accept that being female is a crime. 

“That quiet act of defiance has come at a price, when the Taliban’s morality police out, witnesses said they raided her home and detained her. 

“There are rumours from people around Khadija that the court has ruled on an extreme de@th sentence  – stoning – for the crime of practicing and playing sport. 

“For anyone who doesn’t know what stoning is, it’s when stones are thrown at a living human being until they bleed, collapse and d!e.”
Nasimi added that witnesses claim Ahmadzada and her father were dragged out of their home before being held for more than a week. 

She said that Ahmadzada’s family have reportedly heard nothing from the 22-year-old for longer than a week. 

The activist called on her followers to “draw attention to ‘flood the internet’ with Ahmadzada’s name in an effort to ‘save her life”. 

Nasimi said: “When the international spotlight lands on a regime like this, they hesitate. 

“Not because they grow a conscience, but because they fear consequences, pressure, exposure and intervention. 

“If Khadija becomes famous enough, they may back off.” 

An entire generation of Afghan women and girls lost their freedom when the Taliban took control of the country in 2021. 

Girls have been turned away from school, forced to veil their faces and bodies at all times in public, and are not allowed to look at men they aren’t related to or married to, or even be seen in their own homes from neighbouring properties. 

Even the sound of women singing or simply speaking to and hearing each other has been banned, as part of the Taliban’s “vice prevention strategy”.

Linda Ikeji

Norman Borlaug: The man who saved one billion lives

He saved one billion lives. You’ve never heard his name. His name was Norman Borlaug, and he might be the most important person you’ve never learned about in school.

In the 1960s, while the world feared nuclear annihilation and watched the space race, a quiet catastrophe was unfolding: mass starvation. Experts predicted that hundreds of millions in India, Pakistan, and Mexico would die of hunger. The population was growing faster than food production. Famine seemed inevitable.

Norman Borlaug, a plant scientist from Iowa, thought that was unacceptable.
He’d spent years in Mexico developing something revolutionary: wheat varieties that were disease-resistant, high-yielding, and could grow in harsh conditions. While other scientists worked in comfortable university labs, Borlaug worked in fields, his hands in the dirt, crossing wheat varieties over and over until he created something that could feed the world. But creating the wheat was only the first battle.

Read Also: Norman Borlaug, Agricultural scientist who averted famine with a controversial ‘Green revolution’

In 1965, Borlaug tried to send his wheat seeds to India and Pakistan—two countries on the brink of famine and, inconveniently, on the brink of war with each other. Bureaucrats blocked him. Governments hesitated. Scientists criticised his methods. Officials said his approach was too simple, too American, wouldn’t work in their soil. People were starving, and paperwork was stopping the solution.

Borlaug didn’t give up. He pushed, argued, called in favours, and refused to accept no for an answer. Finally, in 1965, he managed to get 550 tons of seeds shipped to India and Pakistan. Then the seeds got stuck at customs. During a war. As famine spread.

Borlaug flew to the border himself and personally negotiated to get trucks through war zones to deliver seeds to farmers. The results were extraordinary.

Within three years, Pakistan’s wheat production doubled. India, which had been importing 10 million tons of wheat annually, became self-sufficient by 1974. Mexico, where Borlaug started his work, went from importing half its wheat to exporting half a million tons.
The transformation was so dramatic that it earned a name: The Green Revolution.

But here’s what makes this story remarkable: Borlaug didn’t stop with wheat. He trained thousands of scientists and agronomists from developing countries, teaching them his methods so they could adapt his techniques to their own crops and conditions. He created a multiplier effect—his knowledge spread through people, not just through seeds.
By the time Norman Borlaug died in 2009 at age 95, studies estimated his work had saved more than one billion people from starvation.
One billion.

That’s more than one in seven people alive today.
In 1970, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel committee called him “the man who saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived.”
And yet, most people have no idea who he was.

There are no movies about Norman Borlaug. Few schools teach his story. He never became a household name. While we memorise the names of generals and politicians, the man who saved a billion lives remains virtually unknown.

When asked about his lack of fame, Borlaug said he didn’t mind. He wasn’t interested in celebrity. He was interested in feeding people.

Even in his 90s, he continued working, travelling to Africa to help farmers there improve their yields. He never retired from the mission of ending hunger.
There’s something profound about the fact that the person who saved more lives than anyone in history is someone most of us have never heard of. It says something about what we value, what we remember, what we teach.

We build statues to warriors. We name airports after politicians. We make movies about inventors of weapons. And the man who fed a billion people worked in fields until he was 95, mostly forgotten.

Norman Borlaug proved that one person with knowledge, determination, and refusal to accept bureaucratic nonsense could change the trajectory of human history.
He didn’t invent a weapon. He didn’t conquer territory. He didn’t accumulate wealth.
He just refused to let people starve when he knew there was a solution.

One billion people lived because of him. One billion childhoods, educations, families, futures—all possible because a plant scientist from Iowa decided that famine was a solvable problem and then refused to stop until he solved it.

The next time you eat bread, think about Norman Borlaug.
The man who saved a billion lives and never asked for anything in return.

#NormanBorlaug

#ForgottenHeroes

https://www.facebook.com/share/17KM4PjXXR/?mibextid=wwXIfr

What is the argument surrounding ‘RATEL’?

By M.O.Idam, Esq.

‘RATEL’ TRADE NAME REGISTRATION: WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR INFRINGEMENT—THE ANIMAL THAT ORIGINALLY OWNED THE NAME, THE UNREGISTERED USER OR THE REGISTERED USER?

What is Ratel?

A Ratel is another name for a Honey Badger. A small but very tough animal found in Africa and some parts of Asia.

What is Trade Mark?

Under the Trade Marks Act (Cap. T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria), a “trade mark” is defined (in essence) as:

A mark used or proposed to be used in relation to goods for the purpose of indicating, or to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the goods and some person having the right either as proprietor or as registered user to use the mark, whether with or without any indication of the identity of that person.

A Trademark is any distinctive sign, word, logo, design, sign or colour, or even smell that identifies your services, product and separates it from competitors.

A mark may qualify for registration if it is unique, not deceptive, scandalous, or illegal.

However, an animal name that is common or popular—such as cow, goat, or horse—may not be registrable as a trademark for certain goods or services because of its generic nature and lack of distinctiveness.

Conversely, names of animals such as Jaguar, Tiger, Ratel and Leopard may qualify for registration where they are distinctive, uncommon, and not identical or confusingly similar to an existing registered mark.

Interestingly, once a mark—whether relating to an animal or an inanimate object—is registered in respect of particular goods or services, it becomes unavailable for subsequent registration in respect of the same or similar goods or services. This principle was illustrated in Niger Chemists Ltd v Nigeria Chemists Ltd (1961) All NLR 171, where two companies dealing in pharmaceutical products bore similar names. The court restrained the latter company, Nigeria Chemists Ltd, on the ground that its name was confusingly similar to Niger Chemists Ltd and likely to mislead the public.

In Fredo (Ferodo) Ltd v Ibeto Industries Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 866) 317, Ferodo Ltd was the registered proprietor of a trademark in respect of brake linings. Ibeto Industries later used a confusingly similar mark on identical products. The Supreme Court held that registration confers exclusive rights on the proprietor, and that no other person may register or use an identical or deceptively similar mark in respect of the same or similar goods.

However, while the Trade Marks Act confers on a registered proprietor the exclusive right to use and maintain legal control over a registered mark or name, the Act also preserves the right of an unregistered user who has built goodwill in a mark or name to maintain an action for passing off against an unauthorised user.

To succeed, such a claimant must prove that he has acquired goodwill in the mark or name, that there has been a misrepresentation by the defendant, and that such misrepresentation has caused or is likely to cause him damage. See section 3 of the Act, which provides that; No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark; but nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods as the goods of another person or the remedies in respect thereof.

CONCLUSION:

Ratel may be registered as a trade name for other goods and services, provided it is not confusingly similar to an existing mark in the same or related class and is sufficiently distinctive to identify the applicant’s goods or services.

M.O.Idam

Walking Away Alive: Why one Nigerian woman cancelled her wedding and sparked a national reckoning

A Nigerian woman has sparked a fierce national conversation about marriage, gender-based violence and personal safety after revealing why she abruptly called off her wedding, less than 24 hours after visiting her fiancé’s family home for a formal introduction.

In a deeply personal account that has since gone viral on social media, the woman said a single night in the household shattered her expectations of marriage and exposed what she described as a dangerous culture of silence around domestic abuse.

According to her, the visit initially appeared uneventful. But late at night, she began hearing disturbing sounds from another part of the house. She soon realised that her fiancé’s father was violently assaulting his wife—an attack she described as severe, degrading and terrifying.

What unsettled her most, she said, was not only the violence itself but the response of those who witnessed it.

The household reportedly includes five children—two married daughters and three sons—yet none intervened. Her fiancé, she said, was among those who remained passive, behaving as though the assault was routine.

When she attempted to express concern, she alleged that her fiancé stopped her, warning her not to interfere. He reportedly dismissed the incident as his mother’s fault, describing her as “stubborn” and prone to exaggeration. That night, she said, her prospective mother-in-law was forced to sleep outside, while the rest of the family treated the episode as normal.

“At that moment, reality hit me,” the woman wrote. “If a man can justify abuse against his own mother, what would stop him from doing the same to his wife?”

By morning, she decided to leave. Upon returning home, she informed her fiancé that he should no longer visit her family and formally ended the engagement. She said she felt no regret, choosing safety, peace of mind and self-respect over societal pressure to proceed with the wedding.

Her story has triggered intense debate online. While many praised her decisiveness and courage, others questioned whether ending the relationship was too extreme—an exchange that has laid bare Nigeria’s ongoing struggle with deeply rooted attitudes toward domestic violence and marriage.

A Wider Pattern—and a Legal Shift

The episode comes amid growing concern over the rise of gender-based violence in Nigeria, where domestic abuse is frequently minimised, justified or treated as a private family matter until it becomes fatal.

In September 2025, an Upper Customary Court in Kafanchan, Kaduna State, issued a landmark ruling reinforcing the idea that leaving a toxic marriage is not only acceptable but necessary when life is at risk.

Delivering judgment in the case between Talatu Williams and Williams Sunday, the court held that parental support for a married child facing violence does not amount to undue interference, especially when the marriage has become life-threatening.

His Worship Emmanuel Samaila commended Talatu’s mother for choosing to receive her daughter back rather than risk her death in a violent marriage that had already left her physically injured and her children emotionally traumatised.

“If a woman is killed in marriage, the husband will remarry,” the judge noted. “But a mother will lose her child forever.”

The court also condemned the failure of the respondent’s parents to intervene despite repeated distress calls, stressing that a daughter-in-law is not a symbolic title but a moral responsibility.

“A deep religious conviction is not a licence to turn a blind eye to domestic violence,” the court ruled, rejecting the use of faith as justification for silence. “The Bible does not justify violence. Marriage is not a licence to treat another adult like a child or a slave.”

In one of the ruling’s most striking passages, the judge emphasised that bride price does not confer ownership.

“The token paid as bride price is not a purchase price,” the court stated. “It does not grant a man the right to brutalise or discard a woman at will.”

Choosing Life Over Social Approval

Taken together, the viral account and the court’s ruling highlight a growing shift, particularly among women, toward redefining marriage not as endurance at all costs, but as a partnership that must be safe, dignified and humane.

For advocates, the message is increasingly clear: walking away alive from a toxic relationship or marriage is not failure—it is wisdom.

As Nigeria grapples with persistent gender-based violence, these stories underscore a hard truth long ignored: silence protects abusers, while survival often begins with the courage to leave.

Speeches, Statistics, and Broken Clinics: Nigeria’s primary healthcare is crumbling

By Lillian Okenwa

Nigeria’s primary healthcare system is facing renewed scrutiny as the civic technology group MonITNG warns that official speeches, reform launches, and optimistic statistics are concealing a worsening crisis—one defined by abandoned clinics, unsafe facilities, and communities forced to choose between dangerous care and no care at all.

In a report released Thursday, MonITNG described Umuoma Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Nekede, Imo State, as a “disturbing example of the collapse of primary healthcare,” despite repeated budgetary allocations running into billions of naira.

According to the organisation, more than 64 percent of primary healthcare facilities across Imo State are reportedly in ruins, a reality that starkly contradicts official assurances of progress in the health sector.

“When the Tracka team visited Umuoma community, we discovered the shocking and terrible state of this facility,” the report said. “Umuoma PHC is structurally unsafe and clearly unfit for service delivery.”

MonITNG documented multiple safety hazards, including collapsed ceilings, deep cracks in the walls and the absence of perimeter fencing—conditions that expose patients, health workers and medical equipment to serious security risks, particularly at night.

Yet, residents continue to rely on the centre because it is the closest healthcare facility available.

“This reflects the desperation of communities forced to choose between unsafe care and no care at all,” the organisation noted, quoting the officer in charge of the facility, who confirmed that patients still seek treatment there daily despite the risks.

MonITNG urged the Imo State Government, Governor Hope Uzodinma, the Federal Ministry of Health, the National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA) and the Coordinating Minister of Health, Professor Muhammad Pate, to prioritise urgent reconstruction, proper staffing and equipment of the centre.

“Healthcare is a basic right. The people of Imo State deserve better,” the report stressed.

A Pattern Repeated Across States

Imo is not alone.

In Akpaka community, Ngbo, Ohaukwu Local Government Area of Ebonyi State, more than 3,000 residents face escalating health risks after their only public PHC was abandoned over four years ago—an ordeal MonITNG described as a “clear failure of governance.”

The organisation said the facility has remained in a shocking state of decay despite repeated notifications to elected officials and government agencies.

“The total neglect of the only primary health care centre in Akpaka community is a serious threat to human lives,” the report stated.

Rooms, beds and mattresses are damaged beyond use, the facility lacks qualified doctors and nurses, and basic medical equipment is non-existent. The building itself is unsafe, with broken roofing, collapsing ceilings and dilapidated walls.

Perhaps most alarming, pregnant women are reportedly forced to give birth by lantern light, without electricity, sterilised equipment or skilled attendants—conditions widely considered preventable in a functioning health system.

Residents seeking routine care must travel long distances or turn to expensive private clinics, deepening inequality and excluding the poorest from essential services.

Rights advocates argue the situation raises constitutional concerns. Section 14(2)(b) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”—a provision critics say is being routinely violated.

Despite formal letters submitted in December 2024 to lawmakers representing the area and repeated follow-ups throughout 2025, MonITNG said no meaningful action has been taken.

“For three years, concerns have been documented and escalated,” the organisation said. “Yet the silence from those in power has been deafening.”

Promises vs. Reality

The warnings come even as the federal government projects optimism.

Last weekend in Abuja, Professor Muhammad Pate, Nigeria’s Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, announced a 17 percent reduction in maternal deaths in selected local government areas under the Nigeria Health Sector Renewal Investment Initiative (NHSRII).

The figures were unveiled at the launch of the Built for Her Foundation, with officials describing the moment as evidence that reforms are working.

“The health of women and girls is inseparable from the future of our nation,” Pate said, describing maternal mortality as a “systems challenge.”

But health analysts caution that progress in pilot areas does not erase the reality facing millions of Nigerians dependent on broken primary healthcare facilities.

Across rural Nigeria—where maternal mortality is highest—clinics remain understaffed, poorly equipped and chronically neglected. Even in urban government hospitals, shortages of supplies, diagnostic tools and skilled personnel persist, forcing women to delay care or seek unsafe alternatives.

“The contradiction is glaring,” said a public health analyst familiar with MonITNG’s work. “You hear speeches about reform and innovation, but on the ground, roofs are collapsing and women are delivering babies with lanterns.”

A Fragile Reform Narrative

While partnerships with foundations and civil society groups have helped deliver targeted gains, critics warn that without sustained investment in grassroots healthcare infrastructure, Nigeria’s reform narrative risks becoming another cycle of promises without permanence.

For communities like Umuoma and Akpaka, the crisis is no longer abstract.

It is measured in unsafe buildings, preventable deaths, and a growing sense that government attention ends at press conferences, leaving citizens to navigate a broken system alone.

‘Do not detain or bring suspects out of the cell half-naked’, Security Situation Room tells Nigerian security agencies

A Statement Issued by the Convener of the Security Situation Room -Douglas Ogbankwa Esq. on Tuesday the 20th January ,2026, states that :

The Security Situation Room observes with concern the practice of some Nigerian Security Agencies stripping Citizens half naked when they are detained and when they are brought out from the cell.This development is contrary to the express provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (As Amended).

The citizenship of Nigerians is not suspended during arrests, and a suspect has all the full rights of a citizen.A suspect has a right to be treated with the dignity of human person.He or she should be properly clothed and wear his or her shoes or slippers when being brought out of the cell or being arraigned in Court.

Investigating Officers and their Team Leaders should be aware of the Anti-Torture Act,2020, which makes Investigating Police Officers personally liable of any case of torture.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Laws and the Federal Act,also gives citizens the right of cause of action to sue investigating officers in their personal capacities if they are seen or found to have falted in their duties in any way “

1...137138139...1,453Page 138 of 1,453

TIPS

Load more