Home Blog Page 16

59 years after he graduated from the law faculty, UNN honours Boniface Okere Emeritus Professor

NSUKKA, Enugu State — Nearly six decades after he graduated from the University of Nigeria’s Faculty of Law, Professor Boniface Obinna Okere has returned to his alma mater in a distinction that places him in the institution’s history twice over.

Professor Okere was conferred with the rank of Professor Emeritus of the University of Nigeria at the institution’s 55th Convocation held at Nsukka on Saturday, July 25, 2026, becoming the first alumnus of the Faculty of Law to receive the honour since the university was established.

The recognition also crowns an unusual journey through the same Faculty where he began as a student, returned as an academic, became its first alumnus to attain the rank of professor and later served as its dean.

Born on October 10, 1943, in Owerri, Imo State, Okere graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Nigeria in 1967. Following the Nigerian Civil War, he proceeded to the University of Paris, where he obtained the Docteur de l’Université de Paris with the highest honours, setting the course for a career that would span legal scholarship, university administration and international public service.

He returned to the University of Nigeria in 1976 and began another chapter of his association with the institution, this time from the other side of the classroom.

Over the following two decades, he rose through the academic ranks before becoming Professor of Law in 1996, the first alumnus of the Faculty to attain that rank. He subsequently became the first alumnus of the Faculty to serve as its Dean.

His tenure was marked by efforts to strengthen the Faculty’s physical and academic infrastructure. Among the initiatives associated with his leadership were the establishment of the Faculty Alumni Association, the Justice Mary Odili Auditorium, improvements to the Law Library and the expansion of information technology facilities.

For a scholar whose principal field has been international law, his academic influence has extended well beyond Nsukka.

Professor Okere has written extensively on international law and humanitarian law and has served in distinguished capacities with institutions including the African Union Commission on International Law, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Nigerian Foreign Service Academy.

His work has placed him within a generation of Nigerian legal scholars whose careers helped connect the country’s legal academy with international debates on the laws governing states, armed conflict, humanitarian protection and the responsibilities of nations.

Retirement from the University of Nigeria did not end his academic career.

He continues to teach and mentor younger lawyers and scholars as Head of the Department of International Law and Jurisprudence at Godfrey Okoye University, maintaining a connection with legal education long after completing his formal career at Nsukka.

Presenting him for the conferment of the emeritus title, the university described Okere as an “eminent jurist, distinguished scholar of international law, accomplished academic leader and devoted alumnus”, whose career embodied the institution’s ideals of academic excellence, integrity and service.

The honour therefore carries a significance beyond the title itself. It marks the return of an alumnus to the university whose Faculty of Law helped shape his professional life and which he later helped shape in return.

For Professor Okere, the distinction closes one circle while leaving another open: the student who graduated from the Faculty in 1967 became its professor, its dean and an architect of some of its institutional development, before returning decades later to receive the university’s recognition as Professor Emeritus.

In the history of the University of Nigeria’s Faculty of Law, that journey is difficult to separate from the institution itself.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Nigeria has the laws, but disability rights still fail at the hospital door — Joyce Eseni

At World Medical Law Congress, Nigerian lawyer says legal protection has not translated into access on the ground

ANTWERP, Belgium — Nigeria has developed a legal framework intended to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, but access to healthcare on the ground remains severely constrained by communication barriers, inaccessible facilities, inadequate institutional support and weak implementation of existing laws, Nigerian lawyer Joyce Nnenna Eseni has said.

Eseni made the submission on the opening day of the 30th World Congress on Medical Law, which held from August 5 to 7, 2026, in Antwerp, Belgium, where she presented a paper titled “The Human Rights to Healthcare: Evaluating Legal Frameworks and Barriers for Persons with Disabilities in Nigeria.”

Her central argument was stark: Nigeria’s legal architecture has not been matched by equal access in practice.

Eseni, a member of the Nigerian Bar Association’s Abakaliki Branch and pioneer Head of Legal Services at Alex Ekwueme Federal University Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, said the gap between legal protection and lived experience remains particularly evident for people with sensory, physical, intellectual and learning disabilities.

The challenge, she argued, is not simply that some facilities lack ramps or that some hospitals do not have interpreters. Communication, physical and institutional barriers frequently operate together, making healthcare technically available while leaving patients unable to access it on equal terms.

For a deaf patient, for example, the absence of a sign-language interpreter can affect far more than communication. It can prevent the patient from understanding a diagnosis, discussing treatment options, giving informed consent and participating meaningfully in decisions concerning their own health.

The same principle applies to other forms of disability, although the barriers may take different forms.

Eseni said several human rights are inseparable in the delivery of healthcare. The right to health cannot be meaningfully realised where a patient cannot communicate with a healthcare provider, understand information about treatment, give informed consent or receive care with dignity.

Nigeria already has important legal protections, including the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2018, which provides for the protection of persons with disabilities and established the National Commission for Persons with Disabilities.

Yet legislation alone, she argued, cannot remove barriers that persist within healthcare institutions.

Discriminatory attitudes, the shortage of sign-language interpreters and Augmentative and Alternative Communication support, inaccessible infrastructure, inadequate funding and insufficient training of healthcare professionals continue to affect the ability of persons with disabilities to obtain appropriate care.

The consequence is a system in which the existence of a hospital or a statutory right does not necessarily mean that a person with a disability can exercise that right effectively.

Eseni illustrated the problem with a simple example that went to the heart of her argument.

“A hospital that admits a deaf patient but provides no interpreter has not actually delivered on the right to healthcare, consent, or dignity,” she said. “It has delivered only the appearance of care.”

She called for a coordinated response involving the legislature, judiciary, executive authorities and civil society, arguing that the problem cannot be solved by placing responsibility on one institution alone.

The legislature, she said, has a role in strengthening the legal framework and oversight mechanisms; the executive must provide funding, infrastructure and effective implementation; the judiciary must provide appropriate remedies where rights are violated; while civil society has an important role in advocacy, monitoring and accountability.

The division of responsibility is important, she noted, because each institution has different constitutional and legal powers. A court cannot provide hospital infrastructure, just as a ministry cannot determine the justiciability of a socioeconomic right simply by administrative action.

She also called for healthcare-worker training that recognises the different and sometimes overlapping needs of people with different disabilities, rather than treating disability as a single category requiring a single response.

For Eseni, the objective should be to move beyond formal compliance towards healthcare systems in which persons with disabilities can actually exercise their rights.

That means being able to enter healthcare facilities, communicate with providers, understand medical information, give or withhold informed consent, receive appropriate treatment and leave without having their dignity compromised.

Her presentation at an international medical-law forum therefore placed a distinctly Nigerian problem within a broader question confronting rights-based healthcare: What does it mean for a State to guarantee a right if the institutions through which that right is supposed to be enjoyed remain inaccessible to the people it protects?

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

FIDA Nigeria, Abuja branch, felicitates its lead zonal coordinator – Ms Roseline Tasha on her birthday

With immense joy and gratitude, the leadership and members of FIDA Nigeria, Abuja Branch, heartily celebrate a patriotic FIDAn, remarkable mentor, an exemplary leader, and a distinguished public servant – our esteemed FIDA Nigeria Lead Zonal Coordinator for the North Central Zone – Ms Roseline Tasha – on her birthday.

Her journey with FIDA Nigeria, Abuja Branch is one that deserves to be celebrated with pride. From her years as a committed officer of the Branch, through her continued service as a patriotic and dependable member, to her present leadership role as a Lead Zonal Coordinator, she has consistently demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the ideals, values and mission of FIDA.

She has remained not merely a member of the Branch, but one of its proudest ambassadors, carrying the FIDA spirit wherever duty and service has taken her.

This is particularly evident in her distinguished role as Director, Citizens Rights, Federal Ministry of Justice, where her work continues to reflect the principles that FIDA stands for: justice, equality, dignity, protection of rights, access to justice and the empowerment of vulnerable and marginalised persons.

Her appointment to the newly inaugurated Governing Board of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria further extends this commitment, placing her in a strategic position to contribute to the Council’s mandate of providing legal assistance and improving access to justice for Nigerians who may otherwise be unable to afford representation.

Through her office and personal commitment to public service, she continues to touch lives across a wide demographic of Nigerians, giving practical expression to the belief that the law must ultimately serve humanity.

Her story is therefore a beautiful convergence of professional excellence, public service and purposeful advocacy. She reminds us that FIDA is not merely an organisation we belong to; it is a movement whose values we carry into every sphere of influence entrusted to us.

Dearest aunty Tash, as you celebrate another year today, we honour your years of service, celebrate your achievements, and appreciate the depth of your commitment to the advancement of justice and the protection of human rights.

May this new chapter bring you renewed strength, greater influence, divine favour, excellent health, fulfilment and many more opportunities to make a meaningful difference.

Happy Birthday to a truly distinguished FIDAn and an exceptional ambassador of FIDA Abuja!

May the years ahead be even more impactful, rewarding and remarkable.

With warmest felicitations and heartfelt appreciation,

Chioma Onyenucheya-Uko, FMTI
Chairperson, FIDA Nigeria, Abuja Branch

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

WILIL Nigeria: Hon. Justice Tani Hassan-Yusuf, JCA (Rtd.), Hon Justice Oluwatoyin Oyekan-Abdullai (Rtd.) to lead WILIL after demise of Hon. Justice Chinwe Iyizoba

Abuja, Nigeria — Folowing the demise of Hon. Justice Chinwe E. Iyizoba (JCA), Hon. Justice Tani Hassan Yusuf, JCA (Retired) now serves as Lead Coordinator, supported by Hon. Justice Oluwatoyin Oyekan- Abdullai as second Judicial Coordinator.

The technical team comprising Hon. Justice T. S. Oji of Rivers State, Hon. Justice A. Moku Obi of Cross River State, Hon. Justice B. Mohammed of the FCT, and Hon. Justice M. I. Oshodi of Lagos State remains the same.

Justice Tani Hassan Yusuf retired from the Court of Appeal in 2024 after a distinguished career that began in the Kano State Judiciary. She was subsequently appointed to the WILIL Initiative, where she has remained actively involved.

Over the past two years, she worked alongside the late Justice Iyizoba as Judicial Coordinator, advocating for increased women’s participation in the Nigerian judiciary and addressing barriers to women’s leadership in the legal profession.

Justice Oyekan-Abdullai is a retired Administrative Judge of the High Court of Lagos State. Her work at the Family Court in Lagos advanced child-sensitive, family-focused justice, which aligns with the WILIL Initiative in Nigeria’s mission to support inclusive legal systems, empower women in law, and promote justice for women, children, and families.

Their appointment reflects the Initiative’s commitment to strengthening judicial engagement, advancing women’s leadership in law, and promoting justice-centred advocacy across Nigeria.

For enquiries:
WILIL Initiative Nigeria
Email: [email protected]

Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan

Justice Oyekan-Abdullai

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

When executive power meets judicial process

The constitutional questions behind President Tinubu’s directive to the EFCC over Osun’s frozen accounts

By Law & Society Constitutional Review

The controversy over the freezing of Osun State Government’s accounts has generated more heat than light. Political arguments surfaced almost immediately. One side accused the Federal Government of attempting to influence a governorship election. The other defended the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), insisting that the anti-graft agency was merely carrying out its statutory duty. Lost amid the exchanges was a constitutional question whose significance stretches far beyond the fortunes of any administration or political party.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s response to the controversy transformed what might otherwise have remained a routine dispute over anti-corruption enforcement into an important constitutional moment. In a public statement, the President directed the EFCC to return to court and seek to vacate the order freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government, explaining that although he had consistently allowed law enforcement agencies to operate without interference, the timing of the order—coming only days before the governorship election—risked undermining public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

The statement immediately divided opinion. Some praised the President for acting to preserve confidence in the election. Others questioned whether the directive itself compromised the operational independence he had just reaffirmed.

The debate, however, has been framed too narrowly.

The real constitutional issue is not whether the President may express concern about the political consequences of an investigative decision. Nor is it simply whether the EFCC should exercise restraint during an election period. The more enduring question begins at the point where the Commission left its offices, approached a court and obtained a judicial order.

That step changed the character of the dispute.

Once judicial proceedings commenced, the controversy ceased to belong exclusively to the Executive. It entered a constitutional space occupied by three institutions, each exercising distinct powers under the Constitution: the Presidency, the EFCC and the Judiciary. Understanding how those powers intersect is essential to understanding why the Osun episode deserves closer attention than the political arguments it has generated.

More Than Politics

Constitutional democracies are not tested only when institutions clash over power. They are tested when institutions, each acting within what they believe to be their lawful authority, arrive at different conclusions about where the public interest lies.

The President considered the imminent election and concluded that the timing of the freezing order threatened public confidence in the democratic process. The EFCC evidently believed that its investigation justified immediate action and persuaded a court to grant the order it sought. The court, acting on the material placed before it, exercised judicial power by issuing the order.

Each institution was performing a different constitutional function.

That is why reducing the controversy to a contest between the Presidency and the EFCC misses the larger picture. The constitutional architecture is more complex than that.

The President heads the Executive Branch. The EFCC is a statutory agency established by the National Assembly to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes. The Judiciary exercises the judicial powers of the Federation under Section 6 of the Constitution. Their responsibilities occasionally overlap, but they are neither identical nor interchangeable.

The Osun controversy sits precisely at that intersection.

The Executive’s Constitutional Responsibility

The President’s constitutional position is neither symbolic nor ceremonial. Section 5 of the Constitution vests the executive powers of the Federation in the President, extending to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and all laws made by the National Assembly.

Those powers carry immense responsibility. The President is expected to ensure that government functions effectively, maintain public order and protect the democratic process. He is also politically accountable for the actions of executive agencies. Even where operational decisions are made without presidential involvement, the public often attributes responsibility to the Head of State.

President Tinubu acknowledged that reality in his statement. He explained that although he had no prior knowledge of the EFCC’s application to freeze Osun’s accounts, actions taken by federal institutions are inevitably credited to the Presidency. He reiterated that anti-corruption agencies should be allowed to discharge their statutory functions independently and without political interference.

Standing alone, that proposition reflects an important constitutional value. Institutions created by law are expected to perform the functions assigned to them by law.

Yet the statement did not end there.

Having affirmed institutional independence, the President directed the EFCC to approach the court and seek to vacate the freezing order because of the proximity of the governorship election.

It is here that the constitutional analysis begins—not because the President expressed concern, but because the concern took the form of an executive instruction directed at an agency already engaged in pending judicial proceedings.

The EFCC’s Constitutional Position

Much of the public commentary has described the EFCC as an “independent” institution. That description requires careful qualification.

The Commission was established by the EFCC (Establishment) Act as a specialised anti-corruption agency with extensive investigative and prosecutorial powers. It is designed to investigate financial crimes, prosecute offenders and, where necessary, approach the courts for orders preserving assets or preventing the dissipation of property under investigation.

Its operational mandate is intended to shield investigations from improper influence. That objective explains why successive administrations have often emphasised the Commission’s professional autonomy.

Autonomy, however, should not be confused with constitutional isolation.

Unlike the courts, the EFCC is not a separate arm of government. It forms part of the Executive Branch, albeit one entrusted with specialised statutory responsibilities. Recognising that constitutional reality does not diminish the importance of operational independence. It simply acknowledges that the Commission occupies a distinctive position within the executive structure established by law.

That distinction becomes significant once litigation begins.

The Constitutional Turning Point

Every investigation follows a familiar path.

Investigators gather evidence.

Suspects are questioned.

Documents are examined.

Assets may be traced.

Throughout that process, decisions remain administrative and investigative in character.

The constitutional landscape changes once the agency invokes judicial power.

When the EFCC approached the court and obtained an order freezing Osun State’s accounts, the dispute acquired a different legal character. The order was no longer merely the product of an executive decision. It became an order of a court exercising judicial authority under the Constitution.

That transition is more than procedural.

It reflects one of the fundamental principles of constitutional government: although the Executive may initiate proceedings, the court assumes responsibility for supervising its own process once judicial proceedings have commenced.

The distinction is easily overlooked because the same agency remains involved. Yet the source of legal authority has changed. The freezing order derives its continuing force not from the EFCC’s investigation but from the court’s decision to grant the application placed before it.

That is why the constitutional conversation cannot end with questions about executive supervision of the EFCC. A third institution has entered the picture.

The Judiciary.

From that moment onward, every subsequent step—including any application to discharge or vary the order—falls within the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over its own proceedings.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

176 Returned Home. But Nigeria’s hardest work is only beginning

While 176 women and children from Kwara finally returned after six months in terrorist captivity, another community was already counting its own missing. In Nigeria’s kidnapping crisis, rescue has become an event; recovery remains the neglected story.

For six months, they existed in the minds of their families as unanswered prayers.

This week, 176 women and children abducted from Woro community in Kaiama Local Government Area of Kwara State finally regained their freedom after months in the custody of armed terrorists. Across Kwara, the announcement brought relief to families who had lived with uncertainty since the February attack that emptied their community of loved ones.

The operation deserves recognition. Every hostage brought home alive represents a significant achievement for the security personnel who risked their lives to secure that outcome.

Yet the return of the Woro captives also exposes a question that receives remarkably little attention in Nigeria’s public conversation.

What happens after the rescue?

For many of those released, the journey out of captivity is unlikely to be the end of their ordeal. International humanitarian experience shows that people emerging from prolonged confinement frequently require far more than transportation back to their communities. Medical examinations, nutritional support, psychological care, family reintegration, educational assistance for children and economic support for households are all recognised elements of post-captivity recovery.

Those needs rarely disappear because a rescue operation has succeeded.

The attack on Woro in February left an entire community devastated. Scores of residents were reportedly killed. Farms were abandoned. Livelihoods collapsed. Families exhausted savings while searching for missing relatives. The return of the captives restores hope, but it cannot by itself restore the lives interrupted by six months of violence and uncertainty.

So far, there has been no comprehensive public account of the condition in which the former hostages were recovered or the support that will follow their return. That is not a criticism of the rescue operation itself. It is recognition that humanitarian recovery requires a different set of institutions, resources and expertise than military operations.

Around the world, governments responding to terrorism increasingly recognise that former hostages require structured reintegration programmes involving healthcare professionals, psychologists, educators, social workers and community leaders. The objective extends beyond survival. It is to help victims rebuild lives fractured by violence.

Children require particular attention.

Six months away from school can alter educational development. Prolonged exposure to fear and uncertainty may affect emotional wellbeing long after physical freedom has been restored. Child protection specialists have consistently emphasised that early psychosocial intervention significantly improves long-term outcomes for children emerging from conflict and prolonged captivity.

Communities also carry invisible wounds.

When hundreds of residents disappear, farming stops, local commerce contracts, schools struggle to function and confidence in public institutions weakens. Families who have sold livestock, farmland or other assets to survive the months of uncertainty often return to a different form of hardship even after loved ones come home.

These are not simply humanitarian concerns.

They are questions of governance.

The Constitution places a duty on the Nigerian state to protect life and preserve the dignity of every citizen. Those obligations do not end when hostages leave the forest. They extend to helping survivors rebuild lives disrupted by organised violence and ensuring that communities can recover with dignity and security.

The timing of the Woro release illustrates another reality.

As former hostages prepared to return to Kwara, another community was confronting its own nightmare. In neighbouring Zamfara State, armed men attacked a military Forward Operating Base and the adjoining community at Kasuwar Daji in Kaura Namoda Local Government Area. During the assault, an army officer and a police officer were killed, while dozens of civilians were abducted before troops rescued some of those taken.

The contrast is striking.

One community celebrated reunion.

Another began the long wait for news of missing relatives.

For communities living across Nigeria’s expanding kidnapping corridors, this cycle has become painfully familiar. One hostage crisis ends while another begins. Security forces launch rescue operations even as armed groups continue to identify new targets. The humanitarian burden shifts from one locality to another without ever truly disappearing.

The rescue of the Woro captives’ forms part of a wider operation in which security agencies recovered more than 300 abducted persons from the Kainji Lake axis spanning parts of Kwara and Niger States. It was one of the largest hostage recoveries recorded in recent years and reflects the growing operational pressure being mounted against armed groups operating in the region.

That achievement deserves acknowledgement.

It should also encourage a broader national conversation about what follows successful rescue operations.

Nigeria has devoted increasing attention to counting kidnappings, announcing rescues and measuring operational successes. Far less attention has gone into building a comprehensive framework for helping former hostages reclaim ordinary lives. As mass abductions continue to affect communities across several regions, that imbalance is becoming more difficult to ignore.

The story of Woro did not begin with the abduction, and it does not end with the release.

For the women and children who have returned, recovery will be measured in quieter ways: the child who goes back to school without fear; the mother who receives medical care before hidden injuries become permanent; the farmer able to cultivate abandoned land again; the family that no longer has to choose between rebuilding a livelihood and paying debts accumulated during months of searching for loved ones.

Military operations can bring people home.

The work of restoring lives belongs to the institutions that remain long after the soldiers have left.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Relief as six-year-old twins kidnapped by family security guard are freed after ransom payment

Six-year-old twin boys allegedly abducted by their family’s security guard in the Brighter area of Minna, Niger State, have regained their freedom after a ransom was reportedly paid to secure their release.

Police have commenced an investigation into the incident, which has sparked outrage over the alleged involvement of a trusted household employee in one of the country’s most persistent security challenges.

LIB reported that the siblings, Umar and Anas, were allegedly abducted by their family’security guard during the Eid al-Adha celebrations in June, 2026.

Their father, a businessman identified simply as Danjuma, said he became worried after he could not locate the children and subsequently discovered that the security guard, Sani Abdulrahman, was also missing.

Mr Abdulrahman had reportedly told some household members that he was taking the children out on a motorcycle to celebrate the Eid-el-Kabir festivities in town while their father was away. 

Details surrounding how they were located and their current condition have not yet been officially disclosed. 

It was gathered that the captors freed the boys after ransom payment. 

Six-year-old twin boys allegedly abducted by their family
Six-year-old twin boys allegedly abducted by their family
Six-year-old twin boys allegedly abducted by their family

The president, the EFCC, and the ghost of our democracy

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

So the news came late in the day: at President Tinubu’s direction, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has lifted the freeze on the Osun State Government’s bank accounts. Thus, came the reprieve via a scathing statement by the President, in which he described “the timing of the EFCC’s action, coming about 10 days to the upcoming Osun State governorship election, as deeply embarrassing” to him. On the surface, it is good news. Teachers will get paid. Hospitals will buy drugs. Pensioners will not have to wait another month for what is owed them. For a democracy that was 10 days away from an election, breathing room matters.

But good news can also be dangerous news, because it forces us to ask the question we have been avoiding for 20 years. Who does the EFCC actually work for? Earlier today I argued, and I still believe, that the Commission was within the law when it acted. Section 34(1) of the EFCC Establishment Act gives it power to investigate. Sections 7(6) and 7(7) of the Money Laundering Prohibition and Prevention Act 2022 allow it to place a post-no-debit on an account for 72 hours where suspicious transactions are detected, after which it can run to the Federal High Court for an order to keep the freeze in place pending investigation. Our courts have even stretched that to over 90 days in some cases. By that standard, the letter to First Bank on August 5th was not illegal; it was textbook.

But legality is not the same thing as sagacity, and it is certainly not the same thing as democratic judgment. To freeze a statutory allocation account is to freeze a state. It is to freeze salaries in Ilesa, drugs in Osogbo, and road contractors in Iwo. The people who feel that freeze are not the political appointees in Government House. They are the nurse who has two children in school, the retired headmaster waiting for his pension, the young graduate who just got a teaching job and expects his salary. To do that just ten days to an election, without visible exemptions for essential services, without a public explanation that citizens could understand, was reckless. It was also politically tone-deaf. In a country with our history, optics are not mere vanity; they are oxygen. The moment you touch a state’s money on the eve of an election, you have entered the arena of politics, whether you intended to or not.

Then comes the second act. The freeze is lifted, and we are told it was “at the President’s direction.” That sentence should worry all of us, no matter which party we support. Because if the President can order a freeze, then the President can also order an unfreeze. And if the President can do both, then the EFCC is not an independent law enforcement agency. It is a department in the Villa with a fanciful letterhead.

The Constitution does not say that. The EFCC Act does not say that. The oath that every EFCC officer swears is to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not to any man in Aso Rock. The entire idea of an anti-corruption agency in a democracy is that it must be insulated from the very power it is meant to check. The moment it becomes an extension of presidential whim, it loses both credibility and legitimacy.

This is the long-held suspicion Nigerians have carried in their hearts. We have seen it in how some cases move at lightning speed while others gather dust for years. We have seen governors under investigation become saints the day they defect. We have seen petitions against powerful people vanish, and petitions against opponents become press conferences. We tell ourselves stories to explain it away. “They had better evidence.” “The other case was weak.” But deep down we know the truth. The hand on the lever is not the law. It is politics.

Now, to be fair, the President may have acted for the right reasons. Perhaps he was told of the humanitarian impact. Perhaps he was briefed that the optics were damaging to the government and to the election. Perhaps he genuinely wanted to prevent suffering in Osun. Those are good motives. But good motives do not cure bad process. In a democracy, process is the point. If the EFCC is independent, then the President should not be giving directions to freeze or unfreeze. If the President can give directions, then let us stop pretending that the Commission is independent and amend the law to say so.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot cheer when the President intervenes to “save the people” and then turn around and demand that the EFCC be allowed to do its job without interference. Either the law governs us, or men do.

There is also the larger damage. Every time this happens, public trust erodes a little more. The next time the EFCC moves against a state, nobody will ask about the evidence. They will ask, “Whose side is the President on?” The next time an opposition state is investigated, it will be dismissed as a witch-hunt. The next time a friendly state is spared, it will be called a cover-up. That is how institutions die. Not in one dramatic collapse, but in a thousand small decisions that teach citizens that the rules are negotiable.

What should have happened was simple. The EFCC, if it had genuine intelligence of N11 billion in suspicious Ecology and FAAC funds, should have gone to court, gotten an order, and made provisions in that order to protect salaries and essential services. It should have communicated clearly to Osun and to the public what it was doing and why. And once the investigation was done, the court, not the President, should have decided whether to continue or lift the freeze. That is how it works in countries that take both corruption and democracy seriously. We are not there yet. But we can get there if we decide that the Constitution is not just a speech we read on Democracy, Day but a practice we live every day.

President Tinubu did what he thought was right for Osun in the short term. For that, the teachers and pensioners can be grateful. But for the long term, he has handed us a problem. He has confirmed, in action, what critics have only been saying in words: that the EFCC answers to the President and not to the Constitution. That cannot stand. If we want an anti-corruption war that Nigerians will believe in, we must give the EFCC real independence. Security of tenure for the Chairman. Budgetary autonomy. A requirement that all freezes and unfreezes go through the courts, on record, with reasons given. And a clear convention that the President does not pick up the phone to direct cases.

Democracy is not protected by good men making good decisions. It is protected by bad men being unable to make bad decisions because the law won’t let them. Osun’s accounts are open again. That is relief. But the bigger account, the account of public trust in our institutions, remains frozen. And only the law, consistently and courageously applied, can unfreeze it.

Kachi Okezie, Esq is a legal practitioner and chartered mediator; a member of the Abuja branch of the Nigerian bar Association.

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

Is Nigeria finally ready to confront autism with more than good intentions?

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

For years in Nigeria, the conversation about autism has lived in whispers. In school staff rooms it was “that slow child.” In churches and mosques it was “spiritual attack.” In many homes it was a secret kept from neighbours. We recognised the behaviour, but we had no language for it, no plan for it, and certainly no system to support it.

That may finally be changing. The call came again this month, clear and urgent, from Mr. Segun Agbaje, CEO of Guaranty Trust Holding Company, at the 16th edition of the annual GTCO Autism Conference in Lagos. His message was not about awareness posters or ribbon pins. It was about classrooms. About teachers. About skills. Schools and educators, he said, must shift focus from simply recognising autism to building practical classroom skills that support neurodivergent pupils.

That distinction matters because recognition without capacity is the grave where good intentions are buried in Nigeria.

We have done the first part. NGOs, parents’ groups, celebrities, and corporate initiatives like GTCO’s conference have dragged autism out of the shadows. More parents now know the word. More paediatricians and specialist professionals can screen. Social media has given mothers in Kano and Enugu and Port Harcourt a community where they can say “my child is autistic” and not be judged. That is progress, and we should not downplay it.

But recognition was the easy part. The hard part starts at 8am on a Monday, in a classroom of 45 pupils in Surulere, or 60 in Onitsha, or 30 in Kaduna, with one teacher, no teaching assistant, no sensory corner, and a curriculum that assumes every child learns the same way at the same speed. What does a teacher do when a bright 7-year-old cannot make eye contact but can recite the entire times table? What does a school do when a child covers his ears and shuts down during assembly, not because he is stubborn, but because the noise is physically painful? What happens when parents are told “we don’t take those kind of children here” not out of cruelty, but out of fear and ignorance?

That is where Nigeria has stalled. We have awareness campaigns but not yet a system. A system looks like teacher training colleges where special and inclusive education is not an elective in year 3, but a core competency from day one. It looks like schools with simple, low-cost accommodation: visual timetables, quiet spaces, peer-buddy systems, and lesson plans that allow for different ways of demonstrating knowledge.

It looks like education ministries tracking how many neurodivergent children are in school, and why others are not. And it looks like school counsellors who know the difference between a tantrum and sensory overload.

For the first time, government is beginning to match that ambition with structure. Dr. Tunji Alausa, Minister of Education, recently announced that the Federal Government plans to expand university training for autism-related specialists from just 2 institutions to 20. Right now only Ondo State University of Medical Sciences and Obafemi Awolowo University run degree programmes in occupational therapy, audiology and speech therapy.

But about 20 other universities have indicated readiness, with 8 already at advanced stages. A national committee involving NUC, TETFund and the Medical Rehabilitation Therapists Board has been set up to fast-track accreditation and curriculum. The goal is to end the acute shortage of therapists that forces parents to wait months for an appointment, or to travel abroad for basic intervention. “There is no cure for autism,” experts remind us, “but early intervention can significantly improve outcomes.” Such framing makes autism out to be a disease. It isn’t. It’s about being different, with recognition and acknowledgement.

That said, intervention cannot happen if we do not have the competent professionals to deliver it.

At the same time, the Senate is considering a Bill to establish a National Centre for Autism in Abuja with six zonal centres across the geopolitical zones. The proposed centres in Kaduna, Bauchi, Enugu, Port Harcourt, Ibadan and Abuja/North Central would provide diagnosis, therapy, education, and research. They would also train practitioners: teachers and carers, and serve as referral hubs for state-level facilities. The sponsor, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, described it as “an act of social justice” and a federal response to a developmental and public health challenge. If passed, it will be the first comprehensive federal law dedicated to autism diagnosis, care and inclusion in our history.

These two moves address exactly the bottleneck Mr. Agbaje identified. You cannot ask schools to build practical classroom skills if there are no trained therapists to support teachers, and no regional centres to diagnose children early. For 16 years GTCO has funded free screenings and consultations and brought together healthcare professionals, educators and families. Now policy is catching up.

The truth is, Nigeria cannot afford to keep getting this wrong. One in 100 children globally is estimated to be on the autism spectrum. With our population, that is hundreds of thousands of Nigerian children. Many of them are gifted with pattern recognition, memory, art, and problem-solving that the economy desperately needs. But a gift that is not nurtured becomes a burden: to the child, to the family and to the country.

Are we ready to confront this in a structured and determined manner? We are at the threshold. The willingness is here. Parents are organising. Corporates like GTCO are funding and convening year after year. Some private schools in Lagos, Abuja and Ibadan are already training staff and creating inclusion units.

Now the Federal Ministry of Education has a plan to grow the workforce, and the National Assembly has a bill to institutionalise care. What remains is execution. Expanding to 20 universities is excellent, but we will need funding, clinical placements, and jobs for graduates so they do not leave the country.

Passing the Autism Centres Bill is vital, but we will need budgets, equipment, and standards so they do not become empty buildings with nice signboards.

Determination will look like this: a headteacher in a public primary school in Bauchi who knows how to support a non-verbal child because a therapist trained in Kano visited her school. A parent in Port Harcourt who can get a diagnosis and therapy plan at the zonal centre instead of flying to Lagos. A government that funds assistive tools the way it funds textbooks, and assesses pupils in ways that measure what they know, not just how they sit still. It will look like moving from awareness to action, as stakeholders have urged ahead of World Autism Awareness Day.

The GTCO conference has done the heavy lifting of keeping the conversation alive for 16 years. The Minister and the Senate have now put policy and infrastructure on the table. The baton must move from the conference hall, to the training college, to the zonal centre, to the classroom.

Nigeria is not fully ready yet. But for the first time, we have no excuse not to be. The knowledge exists. The models exist. Even within Nigeria, there are schools getting it right quietly.

The question before us is no longer “what is autism?” The question now is “what kind of schools and health systems are we willing to build?”

If we answer that question with skills, with policy, with funding and with practice, then yes. Nigeria may finally be ready. Not just to recognise our neurodivergent children, but to teach them, support them, and let them thrive.

-Kachi Okezie, Esq is a legal practitioner and chartered mediator. He’s also a trustee of the Royal School of Educational Therapy Foundation (RSETF).

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

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

300 groups urge Tinubu to reverse Fasina’s appointment, say Senate confirmed nominee despite pending sexual harassment cases

A broad coalition of more than 300 women’s rights organisations, civil society groups, professional associations and prominent public figures has urged President Bola Tinubu to halt the appointment of former Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE) Vice-Chancellor, Professor Abayomi Sunday Fasina, as Nigeria’s ambassador-designate, arguing that the Senate ignored pending court proceedings and failed to exercise adequate diligence before confirming his nomination.

ABUJA — One of the largest coordinated interventions by civil society in recent years has emerged against the Senate’s confirmation of former Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE) Vice-Chancellor, Professor Abayomi Sunday Fasina, as an Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, with more than 300 organisations asking President Bola Tinubu to withdraw the appointment over what they describe as serious unresolved legal and ethical concerns.

In a petition released under the platform of WOMANIFESTO, the coalition accused the Senate of confirming the nomination despite petitions, documentary evidence and pending proceedings before the National Industrial Court relating to allegations of workplace sexual harassment and victimisation involving the former university administrator. The coalition argues that ambassadorial appointments demand not only professional competence but also the highest standards of public integrity and public confidence.

The organisations further contend that the confirmation process fell short of the diligence expected of a constitutional institution charged with scrutinising nominees for high public office. According to the petition, the Senate relied heavily on representations made during the screening exercise without hearing from complainants or considering the full body of documentary materials earlier submitted by civil society groups.

Among the issues raised by the coalition is its contention that the Senate was mistaken in stating that no petition had been submitted against Professor Fasina. The petition alleges that detailed memoranda, accompanied by supporting documents relating to ongoing civil proceedings before the National Industrial Court in Abuja and Lagos, had previously been acknowledged by both the Office of the Senate President and the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The coalition also disputes the Senate’s reliance on what it described as the nominee’s clearance by the Police and the Governing Council of FUOYE. It argues that neither institution possesses the constitutional authority to make a final determination on allegations of workplace sexual harassment, insisting that such questions ultimately fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.

The petition further challenges statements reportedly made during the Senate proceedings suggesting that alleged complainants failed to appear before lawmakers. According to the coalition, no invitation was ever extended to the complainants or to the civil society organisations that submitted petitions, making it impossible to conclude that they deliberately declined to participate in the screening process.

The organisations also argue that ambassadorial appointments should command unquestionable public confidence, particularly where Nigeria’s representatives are expected to project the country’s commitment to integrity, accountability and respect for the rule of law before the international community.

Beyond Professor Fasina’s nomination, the coalition describes the development as a broader test of institutional accountability, warning that confirming nominees while judicial proceedings remain pending could discourage victims of workplace misconduct from seeking legal redress and erode public confidence in constitutional oversight mechanisms.

The petition concludes by calling on President Tinubu to review the appointment in the wider public interest, arguing that constitutional responsibility requires public appointments to be judged not only by the absence of criminal conviction but also by the credibility, transparency and integrity of the appointment process itself.

The full text of the statement reads:

Confirmation of Professor Abayomi Sunday Fasina as ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Acharade of shame

  1. INTRODUCTION

In the Senate/Upper House of the National Assembly, in what appears to be a charade of shame, travesty of justice and in total oblivion of existing petitions, the Senate proceeded to confirm Prof. Sunday Abayomi Fasina as an Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Despite objections by notable senators, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, proceeded to confirm him, anchoring his confirmation on four points.

First, that Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina’s state of origin and constituency is Lagos State and given that there is no opposition from Lagos State, the confirmation was solidified. Secondly, no petition was submitted that substantiated allegations of sexual harassment against Professor Sunday Abayomi Fasina. Thirdly, there is a presumption of innocence in his favour. Finally, they claim that the Police and the FUOYE Governing Council have cleared Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina. 

We, the undersigned CSOs, respond that the appointment of Professor Sunday Abayomi Fasina and the basis of his confirmation is erroneous, constitute an affront to the tenets of democracy and the protection of the dignity of women.   

First, Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina, although educated in Lagos State, is from Abeokuta South, Ogun State. Secondly, a plethora of petitions were submitted to the Senate with substantial evidence of the cases against Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina at the National Industrial Court, Abuja and Ikoyi, respectively. Thirdly, presumption of innocence does not cancel the prima facie case of sexual misconduct against Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina. Neither the Police nor the FUOYE Governing Council has the constitutional power to clear Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina of allegations of misconduct; only the court has such power. 

The purpose of this Petition is to bring to the attention of the Nigerian government and the entire Nigerian population these material facts and public-interest considerations arising from the confirmation of Professor Abayomi Sunday Fasina, former Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), as an ambassador. We humbly urge the Nigerian government and the entire Nigerian Community to jettison his appointment as an Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria based on the following points as detailed in the subsequent paragraphs.

  • MISREPRESENTATION OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN OF PROF ABAYOMI SUNDAY FASINA

Undoubtedly, Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina is from Abeokuta, Abeokuta South Local Government Area of Ogun State. While he may have schooled extensively in Lagos State, his state of origin remains Ogun State. Thus, the argument projected forward by Senator Godswill Akpabio is unfounded and erroneous. 

  • EVIDENCE OF SUBMISSION OF MATERIAL FACTS ABOUT THE CIVIL CASES IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT, ABUJA AND IKOYI, TO THE SENATE

 Regardless of the material facts/evidence that we presented against Prof Fasina, the acknowledged copy by the Office of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and the Chairman Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Abubakar Sani Bello, which is attached to this petition, shows that the Senate was totally oblivious to the existence of any pending suit against Prof Fasina. In a petition dated 25th June 2026 and 29th June 2026, we presented material evidence about the cases currently before the National Industrial Court, Abuja and Ikoyi, respectively, against Professor Sunday Abayomi Fasina which included the 37 minutes recording. For the avoidance of doubt, the facts of these cases are detailed:

SUIT NO NICN/ABJ/201/2025- A female staffer under Fasina’s institution, FUOYE, filed the case of sexual harassment against Fasina for sexual harassment at the National Industrial Court, Abuja. Her case is substantiated by a 37-minute recording of Prof Abayomi Fasina pressing her for sex/ sexual relations.

Some of the excerpts from their conversation in the 37-minute tape read that Fasina told her thus, ‘You know that you and Adenigba Adele and a few people; we were in Ikole together. I did not pass my boundary; we have come too far, we have come a long way. But let me tell you, I’m dying for you, I’m dying for you inside, I’m really dying inside. I don’t do this kind of thing, but if someone is in love with someone, as you can see me, I’m thinking about you, I can’t even sleep,”.

SUIT NO NICN/LA/61/2025 – Another female staffer filed a case of harassment and victimisation against Fasina for failing to promote her simply because she declined what she thought was his immoral conduct and advances towards her. She alleged that she complained to the past Pro-Chancellor of FUOYE about this conduct. Prof Fasina initially informed the then Pro-Chancellor that she had passed all her assessments, but later changed her assessment outcomes, claiming she had self-plagiarised. This claim is irrespective of the judgement against Fasina in AKINGBE V FUOYE, which held that self-plagiarism is alien to Nigerian law.

While her case was ongoing and in violation of a court order requiring the parties to maintain the peace, Prof Fasina, as the Vice Chancellor of FUOYE, in flagrant disobedience to the court order, secured the termination of her appointment by FUOYE. 

  • AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENT DEMANDS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INTEGRITY WHICH PROF SUNDAY ABAYOMI FASINA DOES NOT POSSESS

Ambassadorial Appointments are public trust appointments requiring the highest standards of integrity and public confidence. An Ambassador acts as the official representative of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before foreign governments, international organisations, and the global community. Such appointments necessarily require technical competence, as well as unquestionable public credibility, ethical standing, and the confidence of both domestic and international stakeholders.

Prof Sunday Abayomi Fasina has two sexual harassment cases pending against him at the National Industrial Court, Ikoyi and Abuja. The existence of two sexual harassment cases against him is a prima facie indictment of his questionable public credibility and lack of ethical standing.

  • THE POLICE DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS TO CLEAR A PERSON FOR AN ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL HARRASSMENT

Even though the police don’t have the constitutional right to decide, with finality, the rights and liabilities of an individual, Senator Godswill Akpabio claims that the Police have cleared Prof Fasina and, as such, he is now fit and proper for the position of Ambassador. In rebuttal, the police report did not explicitly clear Fasina of workplace sexual harassment in its entirety. Still, it dismissed any claim of physical sexual assault, which is distinguishable from workplace sexual harassment. Moreso, the court and not the police have the constitutional right to clear a citizen of sexual harassment allegations. Only the court has the power to do so with finality.

Another vital point is that the other sexual  harassment claim against Fasina has not been subject to any police investigation. 

  • CLEARANCE BY FUOYE PANEL BASED ON TECHNICALITY RATHER THAN MERIT AND A PANEL COMPOSED OF FRIENDS, EMPLOYEES AND ALLIES OF PROF FASINA

The claim of the Senate that Prof Fasina was cleared of sexual harassment is defeated by the unconstitutional composition of that panel and the basis upon which he was cleared. The purported panel was largely composed of FUOYE employees (4 out of 8, with the secretary, a FUOYE employee). All of them were under the control of Prof Fasina. By section 9(2) of the FUOYE Establishment Act 2015, Professor Fasina, as the Chief Executive Officer of FUOYE, had control over all the affairs of the University.

Even the purported external members of the committee from the University Council were alleged to be allies of Prof Fasina because he controlled their remuneration and allowances.  As such, it is not surprising that the verdict was against the female staffer (Engr Folasade Adebayo). The basis for the verdict is that the woman did not petition the Council herself and that she recorded Prof Fasina without his permission.  The case that Prof Fasina made unwanted sexual advances at her and victimised her as a result was never rebutted.

Their position is that the allegation of sexual harassment was unfounded. Note that the second case by the female staffer of victimisation and harassment against Fasina at the National Industrial Court was not determined by any panel or investigated by any law enforcement agency.

  • THE CLAIM BY THE SENATE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIMS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE IS FALSE

One of the principal justifications advanced during the Senate proceedings was that the alleged victim failed to appear before the Senate Committee when Professor Abayomi Fasina was screened. This assertion is demonstrably false. At no point did the Senate Committee invite Engr. Folasade Adebayo or any of the other victims, complainants or civil society organisations that submitted petitions and documentary evidence against Professor Fasina. Having never been invited, it is legally and factually impossible to conclude that the victims “failed to appear.”

This narrative creates the false impression that the victims deliberately refused to participate in the legislative process, whereas the truth is that they were denied any opportunity to be heard. Such a conclusion offends the constitutional principle of fair hearing and undermines the credibility of the Senate’s fact-finding process. Rather than hearing from both parties before reaching a decision, the Senate relied exclusively on representations made by Professor Fasina while excluding those who possessed first-hand evidence of the allegations.

The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is enshrined in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. It entails that both sides must be heard. Despite the material facts presented before the Senate by the undersigned NGOs, the Senate President did not at any point deem it fit to hear from Prof Fasina’s Victims. The Senate had ample opportunity to invite the victims for a plenary hearing to enable them to determine the suitability of Prof Fasina from an informed rather than a one-sided narrative from the point of view of an alleged aggressor.

  • OF THE RECORD OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEMONSTRATES THAT ONE PROF. ABAYOMI FASINA’S VICTIMS HAS CONSISTENTLY SOUGHT ACCOUNTABILITY

The claim that the complainant failed to pursue accountability is equally inconsistent with the documentary record. Following the decision of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti Governing Council in 2025 which dismissed the allegations, victim-blamed Engr. Folasade Adebayo and directed her to apologise to the University, she formally petitioned the House of Representatives Committee on University Education requesting legislative intervention.

The Committee acknowledged her petition, requested that both parties submit all documentary evidence and fixed 15 May 2025 for a formal hearing. In compliance with the Committee’s directive, Engr. Adebayo submitted over one hundred pages of documentary evidence and travelled from Ekiti State to Abuja on 14 May 2025, a day before the scheduled hearing, in readiness to appear before the Committee. However, after her arrival in Abuja, the Committee officially communicated that the hearing had been postponed indefinitely because Professor Abayomi Fasina had failed to respond to the Committee’s invitation. These official correspondences formed part of the materials submitted to the Nigerian Senate prior to Professor Fasina’s confirmation.

It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to suggest that the complainant has ever refused to appear before a legislative body. The documentary evidence demonstrates precisely the opposite: she honoured every invitation extended to her, whereas Professor Fasina failed to cooperate with the investigative process before the House of Representatives.

  • THE SENATE FAILED TO EXERCISE THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF DUE DILIGENCE EXPECTED OF A CONSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTION

Beyond the petitions submitted by civil society organisations, the Senate had before it sufficient information indicating that serious judicial and investigative proceedings concerning Professor Fasina remain pending. In 2025, following petitions submitted by civil society organisations, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) commenced a criminal investigation into allegations relating to abuse of office and sexual harassment involving Professor Fasina. Rather than honouring the Commission’s invitation and cooperating with the investigation, Professor Fasina approached the court and obtained an order restraining the ICPC from proceeding with its investigation.

That matter remains pending before the court. The Senate was informed of these facts through the petitions and supporting documents submitted before the confirmation process. As the constitutional body responsible for scrutinising presidential nominees for some of the highest public offices in the country, the Senate owed Nigerians a duty to undertake reasonable due diligence. At the very least, it could have formally requested information from the ICPC regarding the status of its investigation or sought clarification from the House of Representatives Committee on University Education regarding its pending proceedings. No evidence has been presented that the Senate undertook either step before confirming Professor Fasina.

The failure to verify readily available information from two public institutions the ICPC and the House of Representatives and the Civil Society Organizations, raises serious concerns about whether the confirmation process met the standard of diligence, fairness and accountability expected of the Nigerian Senate. Conclusion This Petition is a call for constitutional responsibility, institutional integrity and public accountability. Public appointments, particularly ambassadorial appointments, demand more than the absence of a criminal conviction. They require public confidence, ethical credibility and demonstrable respect for accountability processes. Confirming a nominee while multiple judicial proceedings remain pending, while an anticorruption agency’s investigation is stalled before the courts, and without hearing from those who submitted detailed evidence undermines public confidence in the Senate’s oversight function and sends a dangerous signal to survivors of workplace sexual harassment.

Signed: Wumi Asubiaro-Dada, Co-Convener, Womanifesto  on behalf of listed groups.

Among the organisations endorsing the petition are WOMANIFESTO, ActionAid Nigeria, Baobab for Women’s Human Rights, Bring Back Our Girls, International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC), Women Aid Collective (WACOL), Women’s Rights Advancement and Protection Alternative (WRAPA), Women Consortium of Nigeria (WOCON), Women at Risk International Foundation (WARIF), Education as a Vaccine (EVA), Enough is Enough Nigeria (EiE), Yiaga Africa, National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), Federation of Muslim Women’s Associations in Nigeria (FOMWAN), Nigeria Association of Women Journalists (NAWOJ), WIMBIZ, WISCAR, The Guardian Newspapers, Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili, and hundreds of other civil society organisations, professional associations, women’s groups and development partners.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

1...151617...1,470Page 16 of 1,470

TIPS

Load more