The true hallmark of a successful government is not limited to the grand policies it drafts or the eloquent promises made during election campaigns. Sure, those look great on paper (and even better on billboards), but the objective measure of success lies in its priorities. A government’s focus reveals its true objectives—actions speak louder than manifestos. It would be ironic if a government claims to prioritize poverty alleviation and tackling unemployment yet spends lavishly on refurbishing official residences and upgrading motorcades.
If people struggle to make ends meet, should the most significant concern be the thread count of government office curtains or the latest model of bulletproof SUVs? Priorities matter, and they tell the real story—far more than well-crafted political speeches ever could. This is the current reality for Nigerians, as we have witnessed countless government policies that seem to embody misplaced priorities.
The paradoxical part? The people are not expecting the government to wave a magic wand and instantly transform the nation. We understand that actual progress and development take years of consistent efforts. However, the foundation of that progress lies in how policies are designed and implemented. When priorities are misaligned, even the best intentions fall flat. The question is not whether change can happen overnight—it is whether the steps being taken today are leading us in the right direction.
Yet again, we witness another striking example of misplaced priorities—the proliferation of mass weddings. This initiative is designed to sponsor hundreds of individuals as they tie the knots with their beloved, courtesy of state funds. The concept is not new. Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso, who ran for president and was Kano State Governor, introduced this scheme during his eight-year leadership period. A decade removed from state office because of his troubled relationship with former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje ended with Kwankwaso in the spotlight for attending a large mass wedding of 1,800 couples in 2023. The government under Abba Yusuf organized this expensive event, which cost 854 million naira, leading to serious concerns about governance and public service priorities. Much of the public media viewed this as nothing more than electioneering—a strategic move by Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso to win public favour through the platform of Abba Yusuf, support he undoubtedly needed as he set his sights on leading the country.
The current administration has reintroduced mass weddings into its budget and secured legislative backing, with the Kano State House of Assembly officially signing it into law. This year, the program is set to cost a staggering 2.5 billion naira. What is the rationale behind this initiative? To the propaganda machine, it is to curb indecency, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and lower the rate of extramarital pregnancies in Kano. The state government has declared it would galvanize efforts to improve human capital. If, by this new definition, human capital development now translates to mass weddings and an increased birth rate in the state, then the government is undoubtedly on track and appears to have found the perfect compass to navigate such endeavours. Bravo!
The government’s intention may be well-founded in its logic, but the approach leaves much to be desired. When viewed from a broader perspective, mass weddings inevitably lead to mass childbirths and larger families. The critical question then arises: how will these families be sustained? Many beneficiaries of this initiative are already struggling financially. Adding more mouths to feed without a transparent economic support system further deepens their poverty. While the government has provided stipends to prospective brides to start small-scale businesses, the reality is that these funds are meagre and unsustainable in the long run.
The Kebbi State government has now joined the trend, announcing its plan to sponsor mass weddings for 300 couples, a venture that will cost the state 54 million naira—excluding the additional expenses for free laboratory tests covering pregnancy, genotype, and infectious diseases for the prospective couples. Scheduled for February 27, 2025, this mass wedding is far from a one-time event. Similar ceremonies have been held in Kebbi before, and the incumbent governor, Nasir Idris, has vowed to keep it as a recurring program under his administration. Like the Kano State government, Kebbi’s administration has not left the couples empty-handed, providing foodstuffs and furniture to help them settle into their new lives.
But here is the real puzzle: how does the government expect that a few handouts will ensure these families’ long-term survival and stability? Marriage is a lifelong commitment, not a single-day event. Imagining a few bags of rice and a new couch as a sustainable economic plan is pretty brain-peeling.
This is hardly the right strategy for fostering human capital development. Actual progress lies not in ceremonial gestures but in establishing systems that create real, long-term opportunities that empower individuals to lift themselves out of poverty rather than be trapped in a cycle of dependence. It is evident that while these governments may have well-intended goals to attain short-term political applause, their actions risk becoming a harbinger of deeper poverty in the state. If history has taught us anything, economic hardship often breeds social unrest. We may soon witness a surge in prostitution and other social vices—not as a moral failing but as a desperate response to survival.
The bitter truth is that desperation thrives where hunger persists. A hungry man is, undeniably, a desperate man. When these newly formed families cannot meet their basic needs, many will be forced into disdainful acts just to get by. Ironically, the initiatives to curb these societal issues offer only temporary relief. The existing economic framework fails to support these temporary solutions, which will bring about severe social deterioration due to the country’s critical economic situation.
Struggling citizens need economic support from government-led structural development instead of marriage prioritization. Nothing stops the government from redirecting these resources toward skill acquisition programs or agricultural investments, which would offer long-term benefits. Agriculture remains one of the most lucrative industries in Northern Nigeria . Rather than funding mass weddings, the government could have established an agricultural relief fund to boost farming activities, providing a sustainable source of income for countless individuals and families. With economic stability in place, those who genuinely desire marriage could take that step on their terms, knowing they can provide for their families. After all, marriage is not just about the wedding day but the lifelong commitment to sustenance, security, and stability.
As long as the government continues prioritising trivial matters and temporary fixes instead of addressing the root causes of our challenges, the country will remain trapped in this deplorable state as a nation. We need authentic leadership that makes better decisions and follows through on its promises. Manifestos should not be mere campaign anthems; they should serve as actionable blueprints for governance.
At sixty-four years of independence, a nation should have a clear sense of direction, with well-established structures to preserve and actualize its priorities. Yet, Nigeria still operates as though it is in the nascent stages of self-governance, a reality that speaks volumes of stagnation rather than progress. The government owes the people more—and it can do more. We need structured, strategic agendas that tackle the real issues, drive sustainable development, and create meaningful progress. The future of the nation depends on it.
What is needed is the mass recapitalization of poor citizens and not mass weddings to produce mass children without great futures.
The following article reflects on the essay by Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir–Participatory Interfaith Dialogue and Development: The Keys to Addressing People’s Needs in Morocco (published on 7 January 2025 in The SAIS Review of International Affairs)–where he outlines the challenges faced by farming communities on their way towards a sustainable rural Morocco.
On the 7th of January, Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir, president of the Moroccan NGO, High Atlas Foundation, published an essay in Johns Hopkins University’s The SAIS Review, which sheds light on how people’s needs in Morocco can be addressed through participatory interfaith dialogue.
The story described in this article is a truly Moroccan story. There are few places in the world where the past nurtures the present as much as in Morocco. Isn’t it a fascinating symbol of interfaith, when places of culture and spirit are turned into places of nature and modernity? Isn’t this what sustainability is in a way about, one group nurturing the other, a mutualistic relationship between a group in the present and a group in the past?
Nowadays, Moroccan farmers may not know who the people buried in the ancient Jewish cemeteries all around their country actually were. And neither necessarily would the new generation of Jewish people who left the country know that their grandparents used to live alongside Moroccan Muslims and now are buried in this country. But using the land of the Jewish communities nearby these places for endemic fruit tree nurseries will in one way or the other guide everybody to understanding what your past looked like.
The Moroccan people take care of cemeteries fully knowing their heritage. And realisation strengthens the ties between two groups, who do not live side by side in Morocco anymore. The Ministry of Culture in Morocco goes even further and claims that this is what empowerment looks like. And somehow it does.
First, knowing what your past looks like, will let the roots you have in the earth of your place of origin grow deeper and will finally tie you to the place you live. This makes the incentive of improving this place inevitable. Thereby comes development. Also, it is empowering in a sense of economic well being that you are lent land without cost and thus trusted to care for it.
Having a tree nursery closeby a Jewish cemetery implies trust from the community. With this trust comes new fruit yield. What is beautiful is the High Atlas Foundation’s role in the process of interfaith. They are not the creators, but the catalysts. HAF does not preserve a connection, but rather it builds the renewed basis.
In no case is HAF the party that decides what is done, but rather the party that carries out what is wished to be done. As Yossef Ben-Meir writes in his article: “The development process begins with local communities determining their development goals from an empowered disposition to help ensure that their decisions reflect their priority interests.” This clearly shows HAF’s role. HAF facilitates what is locally determined.
There is a Jewish-Muslim connection in Morocco, which can be found nowhere else in the world in the same way. This connection is there and the question over the past has been whether and how to apply it to meet people’s needs. HAF as a convenor between two groups has applied this connection for sustainable development.
HAF did not tie the bonds between Jewish and Muslim people; HAF only provided the resources. On behalf of the farming families, HAF approached the Moroccan Jewish community to request in-kind leases for building tree nurseries on this land. HAF facilitated the process wished by the communities.
What must be mentioned too is HAF’s partnership with the Moroccan government. The title “House of Life” was given in 2015 by the Governor of Al Haouz, Younes El Bathaoui, beautifully sums up what the High Atlas Foundation and the Jewish and Muslim communities have created together: places of life where every aspect of living comes together. Dialogue, work, and faith, just to name a few, are all present hand-in-hand here.
Noah Schrott-Schubert Interns in Morocco with the High Atlas Foundation, as part of its partnership with Austria Service Abroad.
1. Our judiciary has come to sadly accept that there is such a thing as a ‘political judicial trial’; these are two streams whose waters do not mix. It is either they choose brackish political trial and allow politicians to do their thing or retain the purity of judicial trial where the rule of law prevails.
2. Kanu’s video shows us that subjecting trials to political whims can diminish the court’s legitimacy and its ability to make enforceable orders. Institutional legitimacy is a prerequisite for the enforcement of rightful and justified authority.
3. The Judiciary endangers itself each time they enable the justice system to be pawned. Politicians come and go but justice just has to be a constant in order that it may command the respect of all. The Court loses moral authority if the executive can sway them wherever and whenever they will. To put it more starkly: No Judiciary should allow the executive to ever think or imagine that the Judiciary is ‘their boy’.
4. I return to my (1) above: The state and lawyers must not like someone to defend them from injustice. Judges and Lawyers swear to uphold the Constitution when we act otherwise -regardless of the situation, we perpetuate everything else other than justice. When this happens the courts become a shrine for all sorts of despicable libations rather than retain its hallowedness as a Temple of Justice.
Gloria Mabeiam Ballason, lawyer and C.E.O. House of Justice
“This is a rape of democracy”, those were the words reportedly used by 36 lawmakers of the Lagos State House of Assembly to describe the invasion of the premises by officials of both the Department of State Security Services (DSS) and the Nigerian Police.
“The purported impeachment of Mr. Mudishiru Obasa, as Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly is a defilement of democracy because it did not comply with the procedures prescribed by both the Nigerian Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Lagos State House of Assembly”.
So it appears that there are two major allegations to deal with, they are as follows:
Rape of Democracy; and
Defilement of Democracy.
In this article, the analogy of the crimes of “rape” and “defilement” would be used to assess the ongoing saga at the Lagos State House of Assembly.
While the alleged action of Mr. Mudishiru Obasa (inviting officials of the DSS and police) can be classified as a “rape” of democracy.
On the other hand, the actions of the 32 (now 36) legislators who purportedly impeached Obasa on the 13th January 2025, can be regarded as a “defilement” of democracy.
So while Mr. Obasa and his supporters can be regarded as “rapists”, the 32 legislators can be regarded as “paedophiles”.
Generally speaking, although, “rape” is regarded as a serious offence, a felony under Nigerian law, the offence of “defilement” which is the rape of a child or minor is regarded as a more serious offence or felony.
“In Nigerian law, rape is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without a woman’s consent, or with consent obtained through force, threat, or fraud, punishable by life imprisonment under both the Criminal Code and Penal Code, with potential for lesser terms and fines.”
“Defilement is one of the sexual offences under Nigerian Criminal Law. As a general rule, the offence of defilement is statutorily provided for under Section 218 of the Criminal Code Act. The section states that Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 13 years is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
So it can be argued that what Mr.Obasa committed on 17th February 2025 was a “rape of democracy” by his invitation of officials of the DSS to seal the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly.
However, on the other hand, the actions of the 32 law-makers who purportedly impeached Obasa on 13th January 2025 can be regarded as “defilement” of democracy, especially considering that they allegedly defiled some provisions of the supreme law of Nigeria which is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
So when considered comparatively, Mr. Obasa’s alleged violation may be regarded as a violation of the Public Order Act, a legislation, which is classified as a misdemeanour, whereas what the 32 legislators committed can be regarded as the highest form of felony considering that it involves an alleged violation of the highest law of Nigeria which is the Nigerian Constitution.
Mr. Obasa’s alleged action of invitation of officials of the DSS and the police can even be excused as a resort to law enforcement officials to maintain the status quo while the court of law is handling the issue of his alleged impeachment.
Whereas the action of the 32 law-makers who allegedly impeached Obasa on 13th January 2025 can be regarded as a defilement of the following provisions of the Nigerian Constitution as listed in the lawsuit of Mr. Obasa as follows:
“…February 12, 2025, filing “concerns the interpretation of Section 36; 90(2)(c); 101 and 311 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) vis-à-vis Order V Rule 18(2) and Order II Rule 9(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii) of the Rules and Standing Orders of the Lagos State House of Assembly (which enjoys constitutional flavour and status).”
Mr Obasa challenged the constitutionality of the January 13, 2025, plenary session where lawmakers orchestrated his impeachment, claiming the sitting was not authorised.
“The action challenged the sitting and proceedings of the Lagos State House of Assembly to sit during recess without reconvening the House or giving any other person powers to reconvene the House,” the court documents added.”-Peoples Gazette.
Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, Executive Director, Nigerian Law Society (NLS).
The topic of the legal meaning and effect of the doctrine of next of kin was widely received with meaningful responses from Nigerians. I will share some of these responses with you anonymously for now.
REJOINDER 1:
1st Respondent:
“I respectfully do not share your views on this matter. By virtue of the 2nd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution ( as variously altered), inheritance is a residual matter. I do not think that the National Assembly has the vires to make law on inheritance for the whole country. It may make such a law for the FCT only. The federal government can cover the field only where the matter falls within the concurrent list. Read Items 60 (a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List and Paragraph 2 of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution, pursuant to which the National Assembly enacted the Child Rights Act. Apart from the Constitution (next to which is the African Charter), none of the relevant laws is sacrosanct; their validity is open to scrutiny and they can be struck down in legitimate cases.
The constitutionality of a presumed legislative power to regulate post-mortem affairs is not a given; it can (and should) be dispassionately and objectively interrogated against the prism of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. It is trite law that most (not all) of those rights can only be derogated from in the circumstances stated in Section 45 of the Constitution. In other words, the question is: whether those laws are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of public order, public health, defence, morality, etc, or are necessary to protect the interest of other persons. Needless to say, any law that fails these tests is invalid.”
2nd Respondent:
“Next of kin taking decisions if a person is incapacitated. Dear SAN, is there a provision of Power of Attorney for Health and Financial matters in the Nigerian Constitution. If a person becomes incapacitated, I agree Next of Kin is there to be informed but may not have the power to make decisions while the person is alive though incapacitated without a Power of Attorney. I hope I have not diverted from your intended discussion. Thank you very much, interesting topic.”
The issue of the right of choice of a testator should speak during his lifetime, but once he has transited to the great beyond, he loses the power of absolute control over his assets in terms of sharing and distribution. The right of choice is subject to certain limitations in law. In this regard, I have in mind the case of Chief Obafemi Awolowo v. Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs (1962) LLR 177 on the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the right of choice of counsel. In that case, the appellant (Awolowo) who was standing trial for treasonable felony and conspiracy engaged the service of a British lawyer, Mr. E.F.N Gratiaen Q.C. to defend him. On arrival in Lagos, Mr. Gratiaen was denied entry into Nigeria by the federal ministry of internal affairs (respondent). The appellant approached the High Court of Lagos (1) for a declaration that:
(a) the plaintiff is entitled under the Nigeria (Constitution) Order-in-Council to be defended in the Charge No. LA/68C/1962 in which he is the 27th accused person by Mr E. F. N. Gratiaen Q.C., or any other counsel of the plaintiff’s choice whether British or indigenous.
(b) the order of the defendants prohibiting the entry of the said Mr E. F. N. Gratiaen into Nigeria for the purpose of defending the plaintiff in the aforementioned Charge No. LA/68C/1962 is ultra vires the said Nigeria (Constitution) Order-in-Council and is therefore null and void.
(2) An injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the said Mr. E. F. N. Gratiaen Q.C., or any other British counsel who might be counsel of the plaintiff’s choice from entering into Nigeria for the purpose of defending the plaintiff in the said Charge No. LA/68C/1962.”
In determining the case, the trial judge referred to section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 84 in the 1958 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos) which provides that:
“13. Notwithstanding anything in this Ordinance contained, the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, prohibit the entry into Nigeria of any person, not being a native of Nigeria.”
In his decision, the learned trial judge (Udoma, J.) held that the Minister acted within his powers under that section 13 when he directed that Mr Gratiaen should not be allowed to enter Nigeria; and in regard to the issue of breach of appellant’s constitutional right to counsel of his choice, the judge held that:
“The Constitution is a Nigerian Constitution, meant for Nigerians in Nigeria. It only runs in Nigeria. The natural consequence of this is that the legal representative contemplated in s. 21 (S)(c) ought to be someone in Nigeria, and not outside it. It is clear that any legal representative chosen must not be under a disability of any kind. He must be someone who, if outside of Nigeria, can enter the country as of right; and he must be someone enrolled to practice in Nigeria.”
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellant lodged an appeal against it, contending that the denial of entry into Nigeria of Mr. E.F.N. Gratiaen was a breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to counsel of his choice and thus section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance should be struck down for being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the trial court and held that the disability imposed upon Mr. E.FN. Grateaen by law did not constitution an infringement of the Constitution.
“It appears clearly enough that this provision of the Constitution recognises the legality of the Immigration Act, and we cannot see anything unconstitutional in the provision of section 13 of the Act which confers power on the Minister to prohibit in his absolute discretion the entry into Nigeria of any person who is not a native of Nigeria, or who is not a citizen of Nigeria (according to section 26(1) of the Constitution).”
The right of a litigant to be represented by counsel of his choice in court is expressly granted by the Constitution and courts rarely interfere in the exercise of this right. But in Awolowo’s case, that right was impeded by the inability of his counsel to obtain a relevant permit to enter the country to render legal services to his client. So long as the law vests the grant of permit to enter a country in the sovereign, the consideration of the right of an individual cannot in any way override an existing law. In relation to a testator, nobody denies him the right to his assets or the choice of how he wants them distributed but the procedure of the exercise of that right can be regulated by law without necessarily taking away his choice. A citizen of Nigeria is entitled to aspire to study law and graduate as such but for him to be qualified to practice law as a barrister and solicitor, he must go through the compulsory training of the Council of Legal Education and must be called to the Bar by the Body of Benchers.
That certainly cannot constitute a hindrance to the exercise of the right of choice. To my mind, the Administration of Estates Law of the various States as well as the Wills Law fall within the category of those laws that ‘are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of public order, public health, defence, morality, etc, or are necessary to protect the interest of other persons.’ Even without these laws, the chaos and mayhem attending the distribution of estates are enough to warrant legislative intervention to guarantee public order, public health, public peace and morality. Furthermore, these laws are clearly needed to protect the interests of those who may have been excluded arbitrarily from the estate for one reason or the other. This will achieve equity and justice which are part of the cardinal objectives of legislation.
Though the Constitution is the grundnorm of our legal system, it contains provisions to preserve existing laws that are necessary for the smooth management of society and I dare say that all legislations addressing the mode of distribution of assets of a deceased person deserves to be protected and enforced. The ultimate goal is to see to it that the wish of the testator is respected. If any beneficiary has reason to question the mode of distribution of an estate, the law permits him to approach the court for redress, instead of aniline the entire law regulating the process. Given the importance of this topic, I do not think that it can end here through this medium. In the course of time, useful interventions from many quarters will help to shape the fate of assets of deceased persons in such a way that will engender peace, justice, equity and harmony for the beneficiaries and society at large.
‘Bad boy’, Gambaryan, chose the day of love to throw sand in the gari of honour of the officials of this government. He chose Valentine’s Day to go for the jugular of officials of the Bola Tinubu government whom he accused of unimaginable graft.
The American understands Nigeria very well. He said so himself that he “met amazing people in Nigeria”, but regrettably, “It’s a shame that these muppets are in charge.” He knew the psychology game he wanted to play, and he went for the very soul of the nation’s security architecture by accusing the National Security Adviser (NSA), Malam Nuhu Ribadu, of demanding bribes running into millions of dollars from him.
Do Nigerians trust their governments – federal, state and local? Do they have confidence that at any given time those in charge of the nation’s affairs will do that which is right, noble and of goodwill? In any dispute or accusation between the officials of the Nigerian government and any foreign body, who will the Nigerian populace believe, who will they trust?
Lack of trust between our government and the citizenry has been a disturbing issue from time immemorial. This is so because of the three ingredients of Trust: Competence, Character, and Caring, enunciated by the American military psychologist, Patrick J. Sweeney. Our leaders are below zero point in all! If there are a few exceptions among them, the number is so small and abysmally inconsequential.
This is why when the American fugitive, Tigran Gambaryan, an executive of the notorious Binance Holdings Limited, who was released on ‘parole’ by the Nigerian government in October 2024 after many months in detention, came calling with his allegations of bribery against top officials of the government, many Nigerians believed him. You cannot blame them!
Trust is a phenomenon that any government takes lightly at its own risk. It is too key an issue to be treated with levity. Unfortunately, in this clime, the government cares less about its trust equity with the people. This is why they carry on in the art and act of governance in the usual street parlance of business-as-usual! Too bad, too sad!
There is no gainsaying that corruption wears a three-piece suit in the Nigerian governance circles. Corruption in Nigeria is not just endemic, permeating every facet of our system, it is as old as the foundation of the entity itself. The only era in the history of Nigeria where one can say with boldness that great men ruled would be the First Republic. Thereafter, it has been a free fall to the bottomless pit of monumental sleaze!
This present political dispensation which began in 1999 has opened our eyes to see the stuff our leaders are made of. The recycling of those who took the batons of leadership in 1999 in our political firmament has shown that there is nothing altruistic in the scrambling for power in Nigeria. This is why it is easy for someone, using one political platform, to be speaker of a House of Assembly for eight years: governor of the same state for another eight years under the same party and in the next round of election to pick up a ministerial appointment for another eight years in the opposition party. Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State comes to mind in this case.
Gambaryan and his fellow felon, Nadeem Anjarwalla, were in 2024 arrested by the Federal Government on the accusation of financial impropriety. The duo, who were then top executives of the cryptocurrency firm, Binance, were accused of manipulating FX rates in Nigeria thereby destroying the country’s economy. They were charged to court. While on trial, Anjarwalla ‘escaped’ from custody and simply walked out of Nigeria! The excuse those in charge of his security gave was that he was allowed to go and pray!
Until the American Government intervened, Gambaryan was in custody and appearing in court. Then the Federal Government dropped all charges against him and he was released. Seizing the opportunity of his negotiated ‘freedom’, Gambaryan, last week released some tweets on his X account, accusing Ribadu of demanding bribes from him
Understandably, the reactions of Nigerians to the allegation were that of affirmation. Many, who believe that nothing good could ever come out of the Nazareth of this government were ready to dance to the drumbeats of shame Gambaryan was beating for Ribadu.
This is so because Gambaryan had earlier last year accused three members of the House of Representatives of demanding bribes in the sum of $150 million from Binance to bury the case. That allegation led to one of the accused, Ginger Obinna Onwusibe, who is the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Crimes, to sue him, claiming the sum of $3bn as damages.
In his latest accusation, Gambaryan alleged that Ribadu demanded “billions in payouts to fund his future political ambition.” The American claimed: “@NuhuRibadu invited us to the official meeting and worked through Sa’ad Abubakar. Another key figure in this situation was Hamma Adama Belloji,” Gambaryan wrote… “Ribadu emphasized that he wanted billions in payouts to fund his future political ambition. However, when the corruption scandal came to light, he was trapped — because any settlement would now be perceived as a bribe. I guess he really wanted his boss’ job.”
This is where I lost it with Gambaryan. His claim that Ribadu needed the alleged bribe because the NSA “really wanted his boss’ job”, is, to me, off the mark. That is what fired my suspicion and why, in this matter, I would rather hold on to my hunch that Gambaryan was and is up to something different.
I am not the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here; get that! I also do not hold brief for Ribadu’s publicist or any of the other persons named in this ‘scandal’. But many things are not adding up and I strongly feel that we cannot just allow that to pass.
The first is that going by the Patrick J. Sweeney’s three “Cs” component of Trust (Character, Competence and Caring), Gambaryan, the modern-day ‘accuser of the brethren’ is not in any position to accuse any Nigerian of corruption. Why? Simple. Both Gambaryan and the company he represented here in Nigeria, Binance, are the very artistic impression of corruption.
A man like Gambaryan, who had his trial for corruption negotiated by his home country, without exploring all the legal opportunities to clear his name, is not in any position to accuse anyone of corruption. It would have been a different ball game if he had availed himself the opportunity to defend his name, and the accusation of corruption levelled against his company.
He was equally accused of offering a $5 million down payment in exchange for his freedom, in favour of a more beneficial settlement with the American government. He didn’t wait to defend that before he got his country to negotiate his ‘freedom’. How do we then resolve the issue of his complicity or otherwise in the $5 million settlement?
A man of “Character”, in Sweeney’s reckoning, would not accept a negotiated deal to abort his trial the way Gambaryan did. If he had no skeleton in his cupboard, and as a man of integrity that he is portraying himself to be, one would have expected that he would see his trial through. The fact that his partner-in-crime, Anjarwalla, ‘escaped’ while on trial, speaks volumes of the duo. Would one be safe to conclude that Gambaryan too would have ‘escaped’ if given the opportunity “to go and pray?”
Again, what of the antecedents of the cryptocurrency firm, Binance, in terms of corruption? What happened to its operations in China, Canada and even in the United States of America? Why was the company fined, deregistered and banned in those countries? A man who seeks equity must come with clean hands. I would have preferred if Gambaryan’s company had come clean in all its operations in the past. When the USA, for instance, got Binance to forfeit the sum of $2,510,650, 588 and pay a criminal fine of $1,805,475,575 for a total financial penalty of $4,316,126,163, why did Gambaryan stay on the Board of the company? How come his pot is the one to call the kettle black and we would be dancing Azonto for him?
I know that the argument that Binance is corrupt does not mean the allegations of bribery against Ribadu and the three legislators cannot be true. My point here is that the man making the allegations is not someone that we can trust because he lacks the “Competence, Character and Caring” elements to earn our Trust. The Federal Government of Nigeria accused Gambaryan and his company of destroying our economy. Rather than defend his name, the man got the USA to negotiate his release. On what terms? Nobody knows.
Then the next we heard from him is how the NSA demanded for “billions in payouts to fund his future political ambition”, concluding that Ribadu. “…really wanted his boss’ job.” What is the motive behind those statements? What did he want to achieve? Methinks that Gambaryan knows too well how important the Office of the NSA is in this government. And concluding that our leaders are “muppets’, he knew that such an allegation of ambition when Ribadu’s principal is angling for a second term, would no doubt cause a disconnect in the system. But that is the government’s ‘cup of tea’, as they say.
My worry for Ribadu in this scandal is that I know it will take the second coming of our Lord for him to convince Nigerians that there was nothing to the allegation but sheer blackmail. Nobody will believe him, not necessarily because Nigerians believe that Ribadu is corrupt; but more because of the political company he keeps! Bad company, they say, corrupts good manners!
The Office of the NSA stands topmost in the nation’s security architecture. That position is usually reserved for the president’s most trusted ally. So, if we may ask, at what point did Ribadu become Tinubu’s most trusted ally? What changed? What happened? These are the gaps in Ribadu’s relationship with his principal, Tinubu vis-a-vis the allegation of bribery Gambaryan threw at the NSA. Ribadu needs all the energy, wisdom and strategies at his disposal to build the Trust in the public that he is just a victim of a depraved American mind, who in an attempt to save himself from drowning would drag anybody down to the depth of the sea.
In closing, we consult Aristotle, who in his Nicomachean Ethics (1876), says: “Trust is a virtue because this character trait, along with being trustworthy, assists us to achieve eudaimonia” (state of happiness). Ribadu is no doubt walking precariously in his white garment at the Gambaryan’s palm oil store. This is not the time ‘silence is golden’ for him. The NSA owes the duty to convince Nigerians to Trust him or believe the American. I do not envy him, honestly!
The outspoken elder-statesman and Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) leader, Edwin Clark, is dead.
The death of the former Federal Commissioner for Information and South-South leader’s death aged 97, was confirmed in a statement by a representative of the family, Prof. C. C. Clark, on Tuesday.
The statement read, “The Clark-Fuludu Bekederemo family of Kiagbodo Town, Delta State, wishes to announce the passing of Chief (Dr.) Sen. Edwin Kiagbodo Clark OFR, CON on Monday, 17th February 2025.
“The family appreciates your prayers at this time. Other details will be announced later by the family.”
Born 25 May 1927, Clark is an Ijaw leader and politician from Delta State who collaborated with the administrations of military governor Samuel Ogbemudia and head of state General Yakubu Gowon from 1966 to 1975.
In 1966, he served on an advisory committee to the military governor of the Mid-Western Region, David Ejoor, and was appointed Federal Commissioner of Information in 1975.
Known for his philanthropy, he founded the Edwin Clark Foundation and established a university, Edwin Clark University in his hometown, Kiagbodo, Delta State.
Clark was born in Kiagbodo, in the Ijaw area of what is now Delta State. He attended primary and secondary schools at Effurun, Okrika and Afugbene before completing further studies at the Government Teacher Training College, which later became Delta State University, Abraka. Thereafter, Clark worked briefly as a school teacher before travelling abroad to earn a law degree.
The notable Nigerian poet J. P. Clark was his younger brother.
The announcement of her passing was made known to the public in a press statement.
The distinguished diplomat and public servant breathed her last on Wednesday, February 12, 2025, in Lagos, according to the statement from her family.
The late ambassador hailed from the esteemed families of Late Brigadier General George T. Kurubo of the Grand Bonny Kingdom in Rivers State and Late Eze Sir Daniel Okereke of Okpala, Ngor Okpala Autonomous Community in Imo State. Her passing has been met with deep sorrow but also gratitude for a life well spent in service to the nation.
Ambassador Kurubo’s illustrious career spanned decades of service in both civil and public sectors. She began as a schoolteacher and later rose to the ranks of principal, administrator, and permanent secretary. Her dedication to national development saw her serve in the Rivers State Government before assuming the esteemed role of Nigerian Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago from 1999 to 2003.
Her tenure as a diplomat was marked by unwavering commitment to strengthening Nigeria’s international relations. “She played a key role in fostering diplomatic and economic ties between Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, earning respect for her leadership and integrity. Beyond diplomacy, her contributions to the country’s administrative and educational sectors left a lasting impact on generations of Nigerians,” the statement added.
In a statement, the family described her as “a remarkable woman whose contributions to the growth of Nigeria will never be forgotten.” They added, “Her leadership, dedication, and selfless service were an inspiration to many.”
A devout Christian, Ambassador Kurubo remained steadfast in her faith throughout her life. “She lived by the values of faith, service, and integrity until her last breath,” the family said.
She is survived by her children, including Colonel Boma Kurubo, Mr. Gogo Kurubo, Mrs. Kalanne Gigi Ojukwu, and her siblings, Dr. Tati Okereke, and Prof. Mrs. Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, among other cherished family members.
The family has announced that funeral arrangements will be communicated in due course.
“May her soul rest in perfect peace,” the statement concluded.
Carl Jones was a respected figure in his community. A father, with a good job in a position of power, he was seen by many from the outside as the ‘perfect dad’.
He was trusted, and was quick to offer a favour. But behind this façade lay his true character. Jones, from Salford, was a sexual predator, who offended with impunity for 20 years.
He targeted his victims with skill and cunning. Jones’ home, with a huge TV, a pool table, slot machines and game consoles, was a ‘carefully manufactured magnet’ for children.
And once he had lured them in, Jones would abuse them in the worst ways imaginable. Among his 11 young, vulnerable victims, was a boy he should have gone out of his way to protect.
But such were his vile urges that Niall Johnson, Jones’ own son, was not spared from his campaign of abuse. For years, Niall was routinely and systematically sexually abused by his own father.
More than two decades after that abuse began, Niall, now 27, addressed his dad in court as Jones was handed a life sentence. Niall’s speech, in front of a packed courtroom, was one of the most courageous and remarkable displays seen in Manchester’s courts in recent years.
He looked over at his dad, who, others noticed, kept his gaze away from his offspring, as Niall detailed the graphic and moving account of how the unspeakable abuse has affected his life. Niall recounted ‘multiple’ suicide attempts, psychological torment, and helplessness. All the while, he maintained a composure and dignity which he could have been understandably lacking.
He is not part of the ‘hang ‘em’ crowd’. Rather than calling for the noose, Niall says he would even like to meet his dad again in the future to discuss his crimes in more detail, and partly to help his father reform himself. It is possible to report all of this for the first time after Niall bravely waived his automatic right to anonymity and gave an in depth interview to the Manchester Evening News.
He has even changed his career, and is training to become a social worker to help other young people who may face similar trauma. Niall has not let what happened to him ruin his life, as it so easily could have.
He has a family of his own, is engaged to be married and is a dad. Niall wants his remarkable story of bravery and forbearance to be told to help other victims of abuse, to assist in stopping perpetrators and to tackle abuse which he has shockingly received in the aftermath of his father’s court case.
It is a reality which, although years in the past, is still graphically vivid for Niall. His parents split when he was just four.
He would be with his mother during the week, before spending the weekend with his father. The abuse, which would involve Jones sexually assaulting his son, continued for years until he was 12.
“From what I remember there was a lot of sexual acts going on, mainly him to me,” Niall recalled. “There’s a lot of vivid memories of being in the bed, having clothes on, waking up unclothed.
“It would just be the same routine every weekend. Going there, it might happen once, it might happen twice, or it might not happen at all. It was very hit and miss, you wouldn’t know what you were walking into.
Evil dad
“When I got to about seven, alcohol was introduced. He always said ‘if you drink now, you won’t be bothered when you’re 18’. I don’t know if that was the case, or if it was to get you drunk so you didn’t remember or didn’t realise what he was doing.
“There were only five vivid images in my head, that I replay, from five occasions. But when we counted I knew it happened every weekend, it’s just you have a mental block.
“That’s what I reported to the police, I said ‘I can only tell you about five, but it happened near enough every weekend, between the ages of five and the age of 12.”
Niall says his mother had no knowledge of what was happening when she packed her son off to his father for the weekend. He said: “She had no idea until about three years ago when I told her. Nobody really knew.”
Nail says, “If anything, it takes a lot more strength speaking about it.” (Image: Manchester Evening News)
“When I got to about seven, alcohol was introduced. He always said ‘if you drink now, you won’t be bothered when you’re 18’. I don’t know if that was the case, or if it was to get you drunk so you didn’t remember or didn’t realise what he was doing.
“There were only five vivid images in my head, that I replay, from five occasions. But when we counted I knew it happened every weekend, it’s just you have a mental block.
“That’s what I reported to the police, I said ‘I can only tell you about five, but it happened near enough every weekend, between the ages of five and the age of 12.”
Niall says his mother had no knowledge of what was happening when she packed her son off to his father for the weekend. He said: “She had no idea until about three years ago when I told her. Nobody really knew.”
He said that he tried to talk about it when he was five, but that being so young, he was unable to utter the correct words to describe what was happening to him.
Niall said: “The way it came across was, I said ‘dad’s gay’. Obviously I now understand it’s not ‘gay’, it’s paedophilia. I thought boy on boy, I know that as being gay.”
The next time he spoke about his ordeal was at the age of 17. At the time, he did not feel ready to go to the police.
Asked why, Niall said: “It’s that stigma in society, especially from a male perspective. It’s not spoken about, it’s shameful. It’s not until the past few years where it doesn’t bother me anymore.
“I’ve had to deal with it, I’ve had to get therapy for it. It needs to be spoken about more to end the stigma and the shame of it.
“It’s nothing to be ashamed about, it’s not something you’ve asked for. It’s something that has been put on you, and something you have had to deal with.
“If anything, it takes a lot more strength speaking about it.” The fact that his abuser was the one who should have been looking out for him more than anyone else has only exacerbated his hurt.
“That’s what has made it the hardest,” Niall said. “It is your dad, and you have that emotional connection of, that’s your idol.
“Take the sexual abuse aside, you would have seen him as, and a lot of society did see him as the perfect dad. The perfect, functional person.
“He was loved. He was absolutely loved by everybody. Whether that was a façade, or whether that’s who he is. Everybody loved him, he was the person that you could rely on, the person who was always there for you, the person who would always listen, he would help you out at any given moment.
“He worked in management, he worked in manufacturing and production and was a manager. He was really well respected there as well, in a position of power and trust.”
At one time, Jones became aware that Niall had been starting to discuss the abuse more openly. But Niall claims he quickly moved to try to discredit his son.
Niall said: “Even when he did get wind of how I did say these things, it got shut down. Basically being called a liar, that I’m just doing it to get him in trouble or doing it for money, that sort of thing. Obviously that’s not what I’m bothered about. I don’t need money. I just said it because it needed to be said. I started to get this sense of ‘I need to protect others’.”
Niall admits he feels a sense of guilt. More boys were abused after Jones turned his attention from his own son to other children.
He said: “That guilt of thinking I could have saved somebody else, that’s what gets me the most. It shouldn’t be up to the child to say it. It should be the parents, the teachers, the care givers who ask those awkward questions.”
Jones’ false cloak of respectability finally came crashing down in March last year. The mother of another of his victims went to the police.
Niall felt that the time was right for him to speak out. The day after that first report, he went to the police.
He recalls: “At the time I was settled. I had totally moved away from everything, getting a fresh start. But I had this gut feeling that I had to do something.
“I rang them [the police] up. It was fate. Literally as I was ringing them, they were about to release him from custody. With my statement, they were able to hold him for a little bit longer.
“Because I was very close with my dad I knew where all his hiding places were. I was able to direct the police exactly to where things might have been.
“Then I got a phone call from the police at around 3am saying ‘thank you very much’. Then I went down the next day and did a formal statement.”
The first indications were that Jones would contest the allegations. He denied any abuse of Niall.
Later he pleaded guilty to some offences in court, but held out on others. But at the 11th hour, as he was set to go on trial, he changed his plea to guilty on all charges.
“It was a surprise,” Niall says. “He is a proud man. But I think with the amount of people who came forward, the amount of evidence we were able to accumulate between us all, there was no denial really.
“I don’t think he wanted to go through with that trial. I don’t think he wanted to listen to the evidence and be judged.
“It could have been to save us all from the pain, he might have had a little epiphany. But it was a massive relief. I thought ‘I don’t think I can go through months and months of that’, but I was ready to if I needed to.”
In total, Jones had admitted abusing 11 boys including Niall. In total Jones pleaded guilty to 47 offences, including multiple counts of rape of a child, sexual assault of a child, engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and indecent assault.
It was Friday, January 31 that justice would finally be done. Court five in Minshull Street Crown Court was packed with Jones’ victims and their loved ones, offering each other support on a momentous day.
Niall was sat in what is usually the jury box, in the old Victorian, wooden panelled court room, allowing him to look straight at his father. Jones was brought up the stairs from the cells downstairs into the dock to learn his fate.
“I felt in a position of power, for once,” Niall said. “But it was very strange seeing him in that environment. I recognised him but it was also seeing a stranger at the same time.
“I needed him to hear what he had done. A lot of the time you don’t see physically, it’s all inside your head.”
After the prosecutor had outlined Jones’ crimes to the judge, then came Niall’s turn to speak. He rose to his feet, looking straight at his dad, to read his statement.
“I’m glad I held it together to make it so everybody heard,” he said. “The judge’s response was very nice as well, he sort of smiled and gave me a nod of like, ‘thank you, well done’.
“I felt proud, I felt relieved. I felt very empowered in that moment.”
What he read out is surely among one of the most harrowing statements ever uttered in that courtroom, which has been in operation since the 19th century.
“When someone you love is doing things like that to you, that’s how you portray love,” Niall says, detailing the impact of the crimes on him. “It caused a lot of psychological problems, a lot of mental problems.
“It caused a lot of confusion around sexuality. I used to sit there thinking ‘am I homosexual because I’ve done these things with my dad?’ In my head, I didn’t know what I was.
“But I learned not to let that define me, then I realised I was a straight male. But then I didn’t know how to love or how to be loved, which caused a lot of depression and anxiety.”
Niall told how he’d made suicide attempts on ‘multiple’ occasions from the age of 16. “That’s the time when you are trying to find your identity,” he said. “I just didn’t know what I was, what I wanted to be, what I wanted to do. I had all this anger, all this guilt, everything inside of me all at once.
“I just didn’t know how to deal with that. I tried hanging myself. I’ve had some sort of guardian angel over me to make it unsuccessful which I’m very grateful for now.
“It gets harder when you have children of your own, because you’ve not been parented right. How do I transfer that love onto my children? It was very hard and made me depressed. But I try and be the best parent I can be.
“It has made me vulnerable as a person. It has caused a cycle of grief and harm. Even now I’m still getting therapy and help, and trying to be a positive person in my kids’ lives. I’m just trying to go day by day.”
After his dad’s barrister gave his speech in mitigation, it fell to the judge to tell Jones that he was receiving a life sentence. Under the terms of the punishment, Jones must serve at least 25-and-a-half years in prison before he can even be considered for release.
He must satisfy the Parole Board that it is safe for him to walk the streets again, before they can make any such decision. Jones, now 57, will be in his 80s by the time his potential release is up for discussion.
Niall said of the sentence: “I think it will give him a lot of time to hopefully reflect and get better. But it’s very much a conflict of feelings.
“You’ve got that inner child inside you saying ‘that’s my dad’, but then you’ve got this adult, rational person in your head saying ‘this person needs to get some help, this person needs to have justice served onto them’.
Despite what he went through at the hands of his father, Niall is not ready to totally rid himself of him. He says: “I wouldn’t want a close relationship, but I’d like to do restorative justice. I study criminology so I see how it works, not just for the perpetrator but for the victim as well. It has a good success rate.
“I’d love to sit down at a table, as a man now, not a child, and tell him what he has done and how it has affected me. I’d love to have a really detailed conversation of every stage of my life, saying ‘this is how what you’ve done has affected me’.
“To really make it resonate, to really make him want to change or to make other people be put off from reoffending. And even for myself, to get it off my chest.
“I feel like justice has been served, but I feel like I’ve got so much more to say to him, so much more to make him understand. Court only gives a snippet of that person’s life.
“This has been the past 22 years of my life. I’ve got 22 years of grief and anger to offload.”
While he would be forgiven for wanting to move on, Niall is planning on using his ordeal to benefit others in the future. “I’ve gone from engineering and I’ve retrained doing psychology and criminology,” he said. “I’m going to further that ahead to help people.
“Adverse childhood experiences are massive. It can put you on the fence, of whether you make what’s happened to you define you, or whether you beat it. I think it just needs that one person with that lived experience with that guidance.”
A key theme of the work he wants to assist with in future is the societal response to the crimes he was subjected to. He was dismayed to witness the response which the M.E.N.’s reporting of his father’s case received online in some quarters.
Some of the comments were political, while others speculated on topics like race.
He says the heartless, uninformed comments made by some keyboard warriors ‘broke’ him. “The victims just got lost,” Niall said. “It became a political playground, it became a racial playground.
“It doesn’t matter what colour you are, it doesn’t matter what race you are. It doesn’t matter what political party is in power at the time.
“What has happened has happened. The perpetrator can be anybody. Race isn’t a factor. What political party is in power at the time isn’t a factor.
“Out of the hundreds of comments that were made I probably saw a handful of people who said ‘I hope the victims get the help they deserve’.
“People start to use these high profile crimes as a platform to get their agenda across. We need to stick to the subject, because this is why victims don’t speak out.
“They don’t feel like they are listened to. I looked at that and thought ‘why have I done this?’ It hasn’t made anything better, it’s not spreading any awareness.
“I did get into some arguments because it was frustrating. It was like I was being lost all over again as a victim.
“I could have just gone back to my house and sat there quietly. But after seeing the comments it was hurtful. That’s why I wanted to come forward. I want to spread awareness of what’s happened, but also the aftermath, and empower victims to come forward.
“Hopefully with more people coming forward and people like me speaking about it, maybe we might educate people to be a bit more empathetic and focus that energy in the right places like improving services.
“I’m still waiting for victim support services, for counselling. If you want to say something political, tell the government to improve funding so that victims aren’t having to wait.”
Niall says of his father: “He’s in prison. He’s not going anywhere. He’s got all these services, he has got his three meals, he’s warm, he has a bed. Yeah he can’t get out, but he has got everything he needs.
“Us as victims have got to walk the streets. We have got to go and be functional in work, we’ve got to take the kids to school in the morning. We’ve got to try and get on with it, with no support apart from each other. That’s where the focus should be going.”
Jones, from Little Hulton, pleaded guilty to 47 offences, including multiple counts of rape of a child, sexual assault of a child, engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and indecent assault. In relation to Niall, Jones pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent assault and four counts of sexually assaulting a child under 13.
He will serve a minimum period of 25-and-a-half years in prison, before he can be considered for parole.
After the sentencing hearing, Detective Sergeant Katie Halstead, of GMP Salford’s Child Protection Investigation Unit, said: “Jones is no short of a depraved man who preyed on children, with complete disregard for the trauma his abhorrent actions caused.
“The victims and survivors in this case had their childhoods tainted in the most awful way, and at a very young age, they experienced what no one should ever have to. I want to commend their bravery for coming forward to speak with us about their abuse and remaining strong throughout this incredibly difficult process.
“They played a vital role in reaching today’s outcome; ensuring justice is reached and Jones resides in prison, far away from causing harm to the community. We are here to always listen to victims and give them a voice when they are ready. These boys and men will continue to be supported through our partner agency’s specialist support services as long as they need.
“Child protection is GMP’s top priority, and our dedicated teams are working relentlessly to safeguard victims and hold anyone causing harm accountable.”
Jo Palmiero, Senior Crown Prosecutor for CPS North West’s Rape and Serious Sexual Offence Unit, added: “Carl Jones groomed and sexually abused young boys for his own gratification. He plied them with alcohol, money and gifts and exploited the boys in the worst way, with no thought for the lifelong impact his abuse would have on them.
“The impact of sexual abuse on survivors can be deeply profound and I would like to thank the victims for supporting the prosecution and bringing Jones to justice. The Crown Prosecution Service is working hard to improve our services to victims – including recruiting dedicated victim liaison officers in every part of the country – to make the criminal justice process easier to navigate.
“I hope this case will give other survivors of sexual abuse the confidence to come forward. It is never too late to seek justice.”
Members of the Lagos State House of Assembly have described the invasion of the Assembly complex by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police on Monday, as a “rape of democracy, an aberration, and a national embarrassment.”
During a plenary session attended by 36 members, the lawmakers demanded an explanation from the Lagos State Director of DSS regarding the reasons behind the invasion.
They also called on the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, to investigate the incident and provide the public with a comprehensive briefing on the findings. Additionally, the Assembly urged President Bola Tinubu to intervene immediately and prevent the situation from escalating further.
Expressing their outrage, the lawmakers unanimously condemned the invasion, describing it as an abuse of legislative procedure and a threat to democratic governance.
Speaking during the session, Hon. Abiodun Tobun said: “This is not a government ruled by the barrel of a gun. This is an aberration of democracy and a step toward anarchy. What happened today is a total embarrassment and an act of harassment.”
He further affirmed the lawmakers’ loyalty to the Speaker, saying: “Nobody can dictate to us. God chooses and removes leaders. We are solidly behind your leadership, Mr. Speaker—nobody can remove you.”
The lawmakers suggested that powerful and influential individuals or groups might be behind the incident, calling for a thorough investigation to uncover those responsible.
The House remained united in its stance, insisting on protecting the independence of the legislature and ensuring that such actions do not undermine democratic processes in the state.
Meanwhile, the State Assembly passed a vote of confidence in Speaker Mojisola Meranda, dispelling speculation about her possible resignation.
During Monday’s plenary session, Oladipo Ajomale, representing Oshodi-Isolo Constituency 2, moved the motion affirming the assembly’s trust in Meranda’s leadership. This comes amid heightened security presence at the assembly complex in Ikeja, as rumours swirled about her potential exit.
Despite the tense atmosphere, with a deployment of police and task force personnel surrounding the premises early Monday morning, Meranda received a warm welcome upon arriving at the assembly complex, greeted by cheers and applause from lawmakers and staff.
“Madam speaker… madam speaker,” they chanted as she walked in with a confident smile, acknowledging the support while flanked by her security detail.
Meranda was elected as the first female speaker of the Lagos legislature on January 13, 2025, following the impeachment of Mudashiru Obasa. Her appointment led to the dissolution of all principal positions and committees within the house.
However, Obasa, upon returning to Nigeria, challenged the legitimacy of his removal, insisting due process was not followed and maintaining that he remained the rightful speaker.
With the assembly’s latest show of support for Meranda, the unfolding power struggle within the Lagos legislature remains a developing story.
Our site uses cookies. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you direct Law and Society Magazine to store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Statement: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
