In the movie, ‘The Godfather’, which was based on Mario Puzo’s novel of same title, one of the most interesting scenes involved Amerigo Bonasera, a wealthy funeral home director, whose daughter had been brutally assaulted by two men. The case, of course, went to court but at the end of the obviously corrupted judicial process, the culprits were given suspended sentences which allowed them to walk home in freedom. With his daughter’s face disfigured due to the violence inflicted on her, Bonasera sought the help of Don Vito Corleone for retribution. While there is no point rehashing what followed, the story illustrates how people are sometimes pushed to seek jungle justice when the law is rigged against them. In Nigeria, the situation is now compounded by the fact that even the few instances where justice was believed to have been served could cynically be trumped by cheap politics. 

In the exercise of his constitutional power on Prerogative of Mercy, President Bola Tinubu last week granted state pardon to 175 convicted persons—an action that has attracted public outrage. And justifiably so too. About 30 percent of those pardoned were convicted for drug-related offences while others had been jailed for such heinous crimes as murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, human trafficking etc. But perhaps the most controversial person on the list remains Ms Maryam Sanda who had been sentenced to death for killing her husband, in a domestic violence case that gripped the nation at the time and went as far as the Supreme Court where her fate was finally sealed. Or so Nigerians thought.

To the extent that many of the people who received presidential pardon committed crimes that negatively emblematise our country, questions are being asked about the values that drive this administration and the moral compass of the president. But before I continue, let me make one thing clear. The presidential power of pardon exists in one form or another in practically all countries. In the United States from where we borrowed the system of government, the idea was copied from the English prerogative of Kings. But the American founding fathers also had justifications for it. “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an easy access to exceptions in favour of the unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel,” according to Alexander Hamilton during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. This was further amplified by William Howard Taft, the 27^th US President (1909 to 1913) and the 10^th US Chief Justice (1921 to 1930)—the only American to have held both offices. “The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate guilt,” Tuft said. “To afford a remedy, it has always been thought essential in popular governments, as well as in monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the courts power to ameliorate or avoid particular judgments.”

While the foregoing suggests that the idea of presidential pardon was instituted to promote the public good, its exercise has not always followed that ideal. In January this year, for instance, one of President Joe Biden’s last decisions in the White House was to issue blanket (and anticipatory) pardons to his brother, James Biden, James’s wife, Sara Jones Biden; his younger sister, Valerie Biden Owens; Valerie’s husband, John T Owens; and his younger brother, Francis W Biden. A month earlier, he had also issued “a full and unconditional” pardon to his son, Hunter Biden. The decisions were met with public opprobrium by most Americans.

In the context of this intervention, perhaps no pardon was as controversial as the one granted in December 2020 by President Donald Trump (in his first term) to four American security guards (working with a private company) who were convicted for the cold-blooded murder of 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007. “Few gestures could set back the cause of accountability for civilians in war as effectively as a pardon offered by a head of state for political reasons,” the Center for Civilians in Conflict Executive Director, Federico Borello said following the decision that attracted international condemnation. “The pardons are a disservice to all who operate within the bounds of the law in war, and an insult to the survivors and family members of those murdered.”

Coming back home, that is precisely the crux of the matter in the pardon granted Maryam Sanda by President Tinubu. In their reaction on Monday, the family of the late Bilyaminu Bello condemned the presidential pardon as “the worst possible injustice any family could be made to go through.” The statement was signed by Dr Bello Haliru Mohammed—a former University lecturer appointed Comptroller General of the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) By General Ibrahim Babangida during the military era who was a Minister with different portfolios and acting national chairman of then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) under the current dispensation. By the account of those in the know, he was the man who brought up the late Bilyaminu. I am aware of the joint press conference addressed by Bilyaminu’s biological father and Maryam Sanda’s father but given the stories in Abuja, the less said about it the better.

By making the power of pardon virtually unfettered, abuse is inevitable, especially in an environment like ours where every discretionary authority is often used not in promotion of public good but rather to serve private ends. But it is unconscionable that most of the recipients of President Tinubu’s pardon are people who have either abused public trust or committed serious crimes. What the presidential pardon reinforces is that in Nigeria, there is one set of laws for those who are connected (either on account of politics or wealth) and another set for those who are poor hence no lever to pull.

In January 2013, two contrasting verdicts were delivered in separate courts within an interval of five days–one in Abeokuta, Ogun State and the other in Abuja. In Abeokuta, a magistrate court sentenced a 49-year-old man by name Mustapha Adesina to two years in prison for stealing vegetables valued at N5,000. Five days later in Abuja, a former director of the Police Pension Board, John Yusuf, who admitted to stealing N2 billion, was sentenced to two-year imprisonment with an option of N750,000 fine!

As Stephen Prager reminded us in his journal article in the Florida Law Review Forum which advocates the abolition of presidential pardon in the US, “whatever good may come from pardons, they are completely dependent on the whims of the president in charge and who they happen to know.” In March this year, the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) Comptroller-General, Sylvester Nwakuche, told a Senate committee that 3,688 inmates are currently on death row in the country. Some of these people have been there for as long as three decades, including those who may have been wrongly convicted. But who cares about them?  

For sure, President Tinubu had the power to do what he did. But the power to pardon, which is a heavy responsibility, should not become another instrument to pervert the cause of justice or a tool for underhand political deals that devalue our country.

ASUU and the ‘Onosode Agreement’

With the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) embarking on another strike action, I have succeeded in laying my hands on the October 2009 Gamaliel Onosode Committee Report on the agreement between the lecturers and the federal government which has remained the bone of contention till date. It all started on 14th December 2006, when the then Education Minister, Mrs Obiageli (Oby) Ezekwesili inaugurated the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN)/ASUU Re-Negotiation Committee. It was headed by the late Deacon Gamaliel Onosode, who was then pro-chancellor at the University of Ibadan. The ASUU Team was led by their president at the time, Dr. Abdullahi Sule. Unfortunately, many members of both the federal government and ASUU teams are now deceased.

Apart from Onosode, others from the government side were Professors Musa Abdullahi and Greg Iwu, as well as Rev. Father T. E. Uwaifo, Barrister Emeka Nwankpa, Senator Abdalla Wali and Ambassador Muhammed Adamu Jumba. They were all pro-chancellors in our public universities. The only other member outside the university system was Professor Mahmood Yakubu, then the Education Trust Fund (ETF) Executive Secretary. Incidentally, Yakubu—who was until last week the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman—would later be appointed by President Jonathan to head the Committee on Needs Assessment of Nigerian Universities which submitted a comprehensive report in 2012.

Aside their president, there were also Professors Eskor Toyo, Omotayo Olorode, Chukuwka Okonjo, Idowu Awopetu, Ukachukwu Awuzie as well as Dr Festus Iyayi and many others in the ASUU Team. Although the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua inherited the committee from the previous administration, he paid close attention to their efforts such that the late Onosode met with him several times as the negotiations progressed. Some other members of the committee also had access to the president. It was perhaps during one of those informal sessions that the president was told a story which he shared with us.

A few weeks before the committee finally concluded its work, one of the ASUU members reportedly expressed frustrations that they had met for almost three years without reaching any concrete agreement. To this, Rev Father Uwaifo (now of blessed memory) was said to have countered, “I don’t want you to see these sessions like that. It’s like a boy and girl courting and meeting regularly to just talk without anything happening between them. The fact that both were always happy also meant something.” This reportedly elicited a sharp response from a member of ASUU team who asked, “Father, are you confessing here or how do you know that?”

With the roaring laughter that followed, the atmosphere in which the session ended was convivial. But the events since the submission of the report in 2009 have not been a laughing matter. Interested readers should watch out for my take on the agreement reached between the federal government and ASUU in the Onosode Report and what has transpired since then.

Mustapha Onoyiveta @ 60

I have already told the story of how the THISDAY/ARISE Chairman, Prince Nduka Obaigbena and the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua concluded my appointment as presidential spokesman on Friday 1st June 2007 behind my back. What followed was even more dramatic. I got a call from then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, asking me to report in Abuja immediately with my passport because I would be travelling with the president to Germany on 5th June for the 2007 G-8 Summit.

Three days later, I arrived at the Villa with trepidation not knowing how I would be received by people with whom I had no prior relationship. But the moment I walked into the office of the ADC to the president, Mustapha Dennis Onoyiveta (then a Lt. Colonel) and he greeted me warmly in Yoruba, the tension eased. Although an Urhobo man from Delta State, Mustapha speaks fluent Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba and a few other Nigerian languages. By the time I left his office that day, Mustapha and I had become friends. And that relationship has not only endured till today, but it has also extended to our wives and children.

I know I am biased but I genuinely believe that in terms of professionalism and capacity, Mustapha is one of the best military officers this country has ever produced. Those who have read my book, ‘Power, Politics and Death: A front-row account of Nigeria under the late President Yar’Adua’ already have glimpses of the kind of military officer Mustapha was. Unfortunately, he was unjustly retired as a Brigadier General along with 37 other officers in June 2016. But as he clocks 60 this Sunday 19th October, I can only wish Mustapha a most wonderful birthday, long life and good health.

• You can follow me on my X (formerly Twitter) handle, @Olusegunverdict and on www.olusegunadeniyi.com

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

By Queen Okezie

1. Author’s Credibility Problem:
   Ope Banwo, self-styled “Mayor of Fadeyi,” fancies himself a techpreneur and “political commentator.” What he really is is a loudmouthed opportunist trying to please his masters in the Tinubu regime by attacking Omoyele Sowore and the cause of justice for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
   It takes a special kind of moral blindness to defend prolonged illegal detention in 2025 and still claim to be an advocate of democracy.

How can a lawyer of any learning or conscience equate a court-discharged citizen with proven terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Salah Abdeslam?
This is beyond ignorance; it is deliberate malice.

2. False Premise: “Kanu Is Charged with Terrorism”:
   Let us begin where Ope Banwo’s entire argument collapses — Kanu is not charged with terrorism.
   The seven-count charge against him (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015) contains no single count of committing or participating in any terrorist act under the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act (TPAA) 2013.

He is charged only with uttering, broadcasting, and possessing equipment (microphone and laptops) allegedly used for secessionist propagation — none of which constitutes “terrorism” under Nigerian or international law.

Even the Court of Appeal (per Justice Jummai Hanatu Sankey, JCA) held unequivocally in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu v. FRN (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, 13 Oct 2022) that the entire trial was a nullity because he was illegally abducted and extra-ordinarily renditioned from Kenya — a process the Court described as a flagrant violation of international law.

Thus, Ope Banwo’s comparison to Guantánamo or Paris terror suspects is not only ignorant but maliciously deceptive.

3. The Fallacy of “National Security Excuse”:
   Banwo lists the United States, France, and others as if citing examples of tyranny somehow justifies Nigeria’s own.
   But every serious jurist knows that national security cannot legalize illegality.

In Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1296) 199 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution is supreme and any action inconsistent with it is void, even if cloaked in national security language.

By defending prolonged detention despite court orders, Ope Banwo indirectly argues that lawlessness is acceptable if the offender is Igbo.

That is the unspoken racism and hypocrisy behind his piece.

4. Kanu’s “Videos” Are Not Evidence of Crime:
   Banwo parrots government propaganda: “We saw him inspecting armed recruits and calling them soldiers.”

Where? When?
If such “evidence” existed, why has the prosecution — after nine years and five amended charges — failed to tender even one admissible video or firearm?

Every “Biafra Secret Service” clip online is a misattributed montage produced by Nigeria’s propaganda department. The DSS has never tendered a forensic copy, never shown chain of custody, and never produced a single weapon or soldier of that so-called service.

Yet this same Ope Banwo believes “we saw it on YouTube” is evidence of guilt.

This is not law — it’s mob logic.

5. The Supreme Court Never Reversed His Discharge:
   Another deliberate lie that Ope Banwo and other regime apologists keep repeating is that “the Supreme Court overturned Kanu’s release.”

False.

The Supreme Court in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022, 15 Dec 2023) merely held that the manner of rendition, though illegal, does not rob the Federal High Court of jurisdiction — an opinion openly criticized by senior jurists for contradicting binding precedents like Ogbomor v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 223 and Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228.

But even that controversial decision did not nullify the earlier appellate discharge — it only remitted the matter for continuation of trial.
Hence, Kanu remains legally discharged until the lower court takes jurisdiction properly — which it has not.

6. Comparing a Separatist to Terrorists Exposes Deep Moral Rot:
   Ope Banwo calls for “pardon for murderous Fulani herders” while supporting indefinite detention of a man whose only weapon is a microphone. This is moral bankruptcy.

How can you free killers with blood on their hands and jail a man who speaks about self-determination — a right recognized by Article 20(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, domesticated as Cap A9 LFN 2004?

Kanu has never killed, maimed, or ordered violence. Every court that has handled his matter — from Justice Binta Nyako’s own rulings to the Court of Appeal — has admitted that the state has no proof of violent conduct.

So why is Ope Banwo more outraged by the voice of freedom than by the machete of the killer herder that continue to slaughter Yoruba villagers in droves in Kwara and Kogi states?

7. Sowore’s Call Is Not a Distraction — It’s a Moral Imperative:
   Banwo sneers that Sowore’s demand for Kanu’s release is “a wrong battlefield.”
   But history shows that every major democratic turning point began with freeing a conscience prisoner:

Mandela’s release changed South Africa.
Gandhi’s releases birthed India’s freedom.
Martin Luther King’s release galvanized America’s civil rights movement.
Justice for one political prisoner is justice for all. To say “focus on bread prices instead of liberty” is moral illiteracy. Bread may fill the stomach, but justice feeds the soul of a nation.

8. His “Global Examples” Backfire Horribly:
   Ope Banwo lists Guantánamo, Turkey, and India as if those nations are models of justice. Yet every example he cited is globally condemned:

The UN Human Rights Council called Guantánamo “a legal black hole.”
The European Court of Human Rights ordered Turkey to release Demirtaş and called his detention “politically motivated.”
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention faulted India’s Kashmir detentions.
In other words, the “examples” he cites are global scandals, not precedents to emulate.

By citing them, Banwo essentially argues: because others commit injustice, Nigeria too must remain unjust.

That is the logic of a colonized mind.

9. His “Ethnic Irredentist” Label Is Both Racist and Intellectually Bankrupt:
   To call Kanu “an ethnic irredentist” while ignoring Fulani supremacist expansionism, bandit amnesty, and Boko Haram reintegration exposes his ethnic bias.

If the call for self-determination by Igbos is “irredentism,” what then is the Fulani herder invasion of Benue, Plateau, and Southern Kaduna? A picnic?

Kanu’s advocacy — whether one agrees or not — is rooted in constitutional and international law. Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression. Article 20 of the African Charter guarantees the right of peoples to self-determination.

So Ope Banwo’s “ethnic” framing only reveals his hatred of justice clothed in pseudo-patriotism.

10. Final Verdict: Ope Banwo’s Essay Is a Propaganda Trash Pamphlet Masquerading as Commentary:
    This piece is not scholarship; it is a regime brief disguised as analysis. It ignores law, suppresses facts, and glorifies tyranny.

If Banwo were half as concerned about Nigeria’s “unity” as he claims, he would be condemning the extraordinary rendition of a Nigerian citizen, not applauding it.

If he truly believed in justice, he would be calling for the prosecution of those who abducted Kanu in violation of Kenyan sovereignty and Nigerian court orders.

Instead, he calls for silence — for the acceptance of injustice — because the victim is Igbo.

Such hypocrisy is why God forsakes nations: not because they sin, but because they celebrate sin as strategy.

Conclusion:
Ope Banwo’s essay is an embarrassment to the legal profession and a moral disgrace to civic intellect.
No amount of pseudo-comparative reasoning can justify illegal detention, flagrant disobedience of court orders, or ethnic bias masquerading as patriotism.

History will remember those who spoke for the voiceless — not those who justified chains.
And when Nigeria is finally free from the curse of injustice, Ope Banwo’s name will stand as a footnote in the long list of those who sold truth for comfort.

Signed:

Barrister Queen Okezie

Member, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
The writer is an Abuja-based Human Rights Lawyer

#FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow

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

Forty-six years ago, there once existed a small fishing village called Bao’on County with a population of 30,000 people quietly fishing and selling their fishes. It had only one major road, an old street with a few inner roads leading off it. A few shops and restaurants were Bao’on’s only claim to modernity. Today it is called Shenzhen, a generic city that moved in less than two decades from a countryside village to a major industrial and commercial hub on the world map. By 2008, the population had grown to 12 million with migrants from all over the world putting their tents and businesses in different corners.

All it took to establish this uncommon transformation was one leader who knew trees don’t just grow until seeds are planted, that greatness does not happen to men who think it and then sleep all day. Deng Xiaoping had a dream and dared to wake up to bring it to reality. When everyone saw a tranquil cluster of fishing villages, Xiaoping saw a sprawling city of manufacturing giants and skyscrapers rising from the ground. And he made it happen. This once-upon-a-time village is today the city of technology entrepreneurs and start-up hubs. Whatever Deng Xiaoping saw 46 years ago has today surpassed his dream of creating China’s first special economic zone. This is the home of Huawei, Tencent, IBM, ZTE and hundreds of other technology giants.

This beautiful transformation and the years it took, of course, will leave a girl like me gaping and gasping. Why not? I’m older than Shenzhen. Nigeria’s independence is older by more than two decades too!

I have visited China twice and each time I returned with a lot of questions. Why is China so big and beautiful in so many easy ways while my country seems to be forever struggling with the easiest of tasks? Why does China make development look like Candy Crush Soda, my favorite Android game?

How is it that you can drive 18 hours through different cities and not find a pothole? The roads are wide and marked, hedged beautifully by trimmed trees and flowers. In Nigeria, the steel or aluminium barricades on our highways have been stolen and melted to make party cooking pots and cooking spoons. The governors who dared to plant floweres in the towns and cities have to make protective barricades for the poor plants so that we and our roaming goats will not eat or uproot them. Yes, Nigerian goats and cows still struggle with man, bikes and cars in the year of our Lord 2025. Nigeria is among the civilised countries of the world, really?

In China, there seems to be a permanent Premier League where the trophy is for who has the tallest, most beautiful big building where each structure must outdo the other in size and beauty. It is at night that you see the competition. The cities are like Christmas trees at night, all the colours of the rainbow and a bit more glorious.

In Nigeria, bungalows are built on waterways. Duplexes erected without drainages and in the centre of government approved streets and roads are advertised for sale with the most flowery adjectives. Civil servants saddled with the responsibility of urban planning wait for the buildings to get to roofing stage and then come with red ink to write ‘Stop Work’. Before they get back to their offices, the developer paints over or plasters over the red ink and continues work. I hear there is more to it than this simple marking and painting over but what does this tell you? Something is wrong with the builder, something worse is wrong with the civil servant who knows (because he is trained and paid to do better) that flooding and its cousins will eventually show up to disrupt lives. A few days ago, somebody from an urban planning agency showed me an entire ‘estate’ built on a stretch of access road!

I rode on China’s bullet train  from Shanghai to Beijin and it sped through the 1,318 kilometers in four hours, thirty minutes at 330km/hr. Lagos to Maiduguri is 1,227km! Do the math. And the train stations (Shanghai and Beijing) are bigger than our biggest airport.

Why does Nigeria not have trains that can do long distances in comfort? I’m not even asking for a bullet train, just regular trains that work would do. Train stations that are functional, clean and comfortable.

Why does China have leaders and political leaders who through the years could conceive transportation systems that will take care of their growing population? How did they know that the country’s growing size means that traditional train would have to graduate to bullet trains? And our own leaders through the years have moved from what to what, good old train to rickety old train or what? Go on say it, Lagos has modern trains, now. Shame, should Lagos be the only state operating air-conditioned trains? How is ‘one-over-36’ a pass mark?

All these recollections are from seven years ago China. Imagine how many giant leaps that nation has taken since 2018.

Let us come back to the present and our doctors and health sector problems.

There is this man called Nwoke who is well endowed in between his legs in addition to his handsome face and physique. So, women swarm around him like bees around honey and he married many of them. We all thought since his harem is rich and colourful , he would stay at home and service them. But no, he left them hungry, unattended, sometimes halfway to paradise with unfulfilled promises. These women protested individually and as a group but their husband did not do his duties. He must have thought the women had no choice, no alternatives, after all he married them with his money, they are his wives! He soon found out to his pain and chagrin that any land left attended, uncultivated will be considered eventually a no-man’s land. Sturdy, focused and even more endowed men moved into this fallow land and started cultivating it vigorously, effectively, investing serious sweat and energy.

At first, Nwoke’s wives were going for service and returning home. Then they started attending more than one service. Then they attended vigils, seven-day vigils. Nwoke’s rivals were sweet and strong and consistent, so the women started leaving one after the other until only one wife is left in the big compound of Nwoke. He now has to pamper that remaining one because the poor woman is overworked in every sense of the word. She is constantly threatening to leave too.

Nwoke, that is Nigeria. Those neglected wives are Nigerian doctors, overworked and underpaid. Nigeria thought they had no alternatives. Nwoke’s rivals are the U.K, USA and all those other endowed nations who have ‘stolen’ our doctors and are still stealing more even as you read this.

According to a Bloomberg report, the US under the leadership of an energetic, well-endowed Trump has decided that ‘Doctors could be exempted from the new $100,000 fee for high-skilled US H-1B visa applications imposed by the Donald Trump administration. The application fees can be waived if the secretary of Homeland Security determines that the hiring of these workers on an individual basis, or to work for a specific company or industry is “in the national interest”.  That ‘national interest ‘ proclamation  will make room for ‘ poaching’  of professionals. Bloomberg report calls it ‘exemptions, which can include physicians and medical residents.’

Yes, while Nigeria was training doctors in their thousands with petrodollars, smarter nations have well-laid out plans to reap the fruits of my country’s labour because we are planless, full of excuses  and explanations for why many things do not work.

The executive order which was released in September, 2025 according to the Bloomberg report showed  that H-1B visa has served as a gateway for some of Nigeria’s brightest minds to enter the US workforce, acting as a crucial launchpad for building long-term careers in America.

Data from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services also revealed that tech, education, and medicine  topped the list of careers where Nigeria was and is losing its best, brightest and most brilliant professionals to America and indeed other continents. In other words, while Nigeria was pretending that all was well, smarter nations were offering our doctors, nurses, teachers and tech gurus career growth opportunities and better lives.

Bloomberg information further showed that ‘Amazon secured more than 10,000 H-1B visas in the first half of 2025, while Microsoft and Meta Platforms had more than 5,000 approvals each. The programme allows for 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 for applicants with advanced degrees.’

And the most painful part: Nigeria was ranked 11th largest export of talents to the US and the number one in Africa.

Read that again. Nigeria is the 11th exporter of talents to the US and number one in Africa. Go on, let out the adjectives that come to your mind. Exporting talent is good and cool, in sane circumstances but not in this instance. The World Health Organisation recommends one doctor to 600 patients but in Nigeria it is one doctor to 9,038 patients!  Who exports what is not enough at home? America knows that we are a people that sits on its thinking cap, so it decided to insert a clause in its visa policy that would ease our doctors’ right of passage into the American system. Love or hate him all you want, President Trump does not joke with America’s national interest.

What is the adjective for a country where doctors ‘japa’ in droves and nobody seems to be doing anything to encourage them to stay back or bring back those who left? Both can be done if we are serious but then, the same reason behind having a Sugar Development Council when we do not even have a sugar cane plantation is the reason why we are where we are.

Is it impossible to start with mouth-watering incentives to bring at least 100 consultants and Specialists back? Is it impossible to keep the ones still here happy and fulfilled? Is it impossible to get this simple task done even if we can’t build modern trains and good roads?

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