Home Blog Page 2

Terror in Delta Kingdom: Herdsmen butcher man in wife’s presence, abduct 14-yr-old daughter

“They came suddenly into our farm, shouting in the Hausa language. My husband raised his hands and begged them. They commanded him to kneel. I was crying; I begged them not to kill my husband, but they laughed and shot him in the chest.

“Then, they turned to me and ordered that I should stop crying or I would join him. They cut me and left me to bleed,” Mrs. Abigail Eboseta, a 38-year-old farmer and mother of five, said with her voice trembling.

According to her: “They took my daughter away; she is 14 years old.” Mrs. Eboseta’s plight is among the many sad traumas that have bedeviled the indigenes of many communities in Idjerhe Kingdom, Ethiope West Local Government Area in Delta State, in recent times, by invading killer-herdsmen who have taken over their farmlands and forests.

She lives with her remaining children in a half-collapsed building in  Adejei community, surviving on borrowed food.

Her youngest son still asks, “Mommy, when will Daddy return from the farm?”

The fear in Idjerhe Kingdom is that the hijackers have forcefully taken the 14-year-old girl as a wife or to satisfy their sexual urge in the forest where they hibernate. Another young girl was similarly snatched in the same manner in the kingdom.

The Ovie (traditional ruler) of Idjerhe Kingdom, Ethiope West Local Government Area, Delta State, HM Obukohwo Monday Arthur Whiskey, the Udurhie 1, is reportedly having sleepless nights over the menace of killer herdsmen.

He had met with representatives of villages under his domain, youths, religious leaders, and others to find a solution to the mounting threat.

An alarmed chairman of the Niger- Delta Youth Council of Nigeria (NDYCN), Delta State chapter, Freedom Omoniyi Freedom, has asked the Commissioner of Police in Delta State, Olufemi Abaniwonda, to temporarily shift his office from Asaba, the state capital, to the local government area to tackle the abductors making life unbearable for the people.

Tears, blood, and fear in Idjerhe kingdom

Tension has enveloped the 44 satellite communities in Idjerhe Kingdom. The soil is wet, not from the rains expected of this planting season, but from tears, blood, and fear.

In the community’s green fields, once referred to as food basket, where laughter once echoed and cassava sprouted in neat rows, silence and sorrow are the only reminders.

Beneath the rustling leaves and the morning mist, there lurks a darkness that has shattered homes, dispersed farmers, and engraved fear into the soul of a people.

This is no longer just about insecurity. It is about survival. It is about children watching their mothers being dragged into the bush. It is about men weeping over the freshly dug graves of their wives. It is about mothers hiding in plantain groves, praying their babies won’t cry and give them away.

For the people of Irodo and Adeje communities in Jesse Town, the land that once gave life has now become a battleground—a place where farmers go and never return.

They held me hostage for 3 days and collected N5m ransom — Maureen, housewife

On Wednesday, May 14, they laid aside their hoes and cutlasses and took to the streets, not in rage, but in heart-rending desperation. One protester, Maureen, who hails from Irhodo community, was taken hostage and held captive for three nights in the forest.

“I was going to the farm when I ran into the kidnappers, who abducted me and took me deep into the forest, where they kept me for three days.

“It was on the third day that they called my husband on the phone and ordered him to pay N20 million ransom for my release. I   begged that we have no such money because we are poor farmers.

They refused, saying they could only reduce it to N15 million. I continued to beg them, and they asked me how much we would pay. I said N2 million; they refused. But they later said my husband should pay N5 million.

“My husband went to borrow money and sell his land to raise N5 million, which they collected before releasing me. Now, we are hungry, we do not go to the farm, and have no food. We are also unable to pay back the money we borrowed.

“I still hear them in my dreams. I still feel their hands on my body. My husband is still paying back the money he borrowed to free me. We have nothing left. The government should come to our rescue; the kidnappings have become too many,” she said.

Police arrested 3 youths who took a corpse to their station

A villager said angry youths took the remains of a native killed by suspected Fulani herdsmen in the forest to the police station to draw attention to their plight. But the Police arrested three of our youths and took them to Asaba.

“We call on the Commissioner of Police to release the youths because they did not commit any offence; they were only drawing attention to our plight with their action,” he said.

They kidnapped my daughter, Blessing — Mrs.  Edijala

Mrs. Grace Edijala did not eat for days after her teenage daughter, Blessing, was abducted while fetching firewood on the edge of their farmland.

“We thought it was just a delay. But evening came, then morning, then three days. On the fourth day, they called,” she said, clutching a wrapper to her chest. “They said if I talk to the Police, I will receive her head in a bag.”

Her voice broke completely as she whispered: “I have not heard anything since. My daughter is still in the bush. They said they would make her their wife.”

On my farm, I sustained this wound — Erumedafe, farmer

William Eruemedafe, his arm still bandaged from machete wounds, added: “This scar is what I brought back from my farmland. And still, nobody is safe. Even yesterday, someone else was taken.”

I am afraid to go to the  farm — Bright, cassava farmer

Ashe Bright, a once-thriving cassava farmer, sitting by his empty barn, said: “I wake up in the morning and stare at my tools. I do not use them anymore. If I go to the bush, I may never come back.”

Ethiope West turns den of kidnapping and theft — Omoniyi, NDYCN, Delta chapter chair

Omoniyi, in a statement titled: Insecurity: Relocate to Ethiope West now and help out, said: “I use this medium to call on the Commissioner of Police, Delta State, to relocate to Ethiope West Local Government Area with his full arsenal to help us quell this evil vice that is causing sleepless nights for our people.

“We need proactive actions in this situation, as it is getting out of hand. We want an Ethiope West devoid of rancour or strife. We want our farmers to go to their farms without fear and make a living, as Ethiope West is a food basket in Nigeria.

“We do not want our youths dying like chickens in the name of cultism, and theft shouldn’t linger in our communities.

“Ethiope West Local Government Area, which used to be a hub of peace, has now become a den of kidnapping and theft as farmers, residents, and even churches, are feeling the brunt of insecurity.

“Not a day passes by that we do not hear reports of kidnapping, theft, cultism, and other vices threatening peace in Oghara, Mosogar, and Idjerhe, the three kingdoms in Ethiope West Local Government Area.

“Our farmers can no longer go to their farms as herdsmen and kidnappers are on the rampage, kidnapping these very low-income earners who work tirelessly to get their daily bread, only to be kidnapped and asked to pay millions of naira that they do not have.

“Churches are now a new target as equipment worth millions is being carted away from churches by hoodlums, as we have seen reports flying daily. “Cultism is also a plague that has taken the lives of many young men with great prospects in Ethiope West, and it does not seem like it will end anytime soon.

We are tired of burying our own — Edomidaghan, ICDU president-general

On Saturday, the Idjerhe Clan Development Union (ICDU) convened an emotional press briefing at its secretariat in Jesse Town. It was not just a statement—it was a cry.

Chief Shelly Edomidaghan, ICDU president general, fought back emotion as he said, “Our people are tired of burying their own. Tired of abandoning farms. We are a peaceful kingdom. We don’t deserve this horror.”

He warned that the food supply to neighboring states like Edo, Bayelsa, and Rivers States may collapse, adding, “If Jesse falls, the food basket falls, and a hungry people is a dangerous people.”

Community leaders condemn the attacks and mass arrests

Hon. Solomon Ugbebor, the secretary general of the ICDU, condemned the mass arrests of local youths.

  “Yes, investigate, but do not victimize. Our boys are scared, angry, and tired. If this continues, peace will not hold,” he said.

  Chief Fidelix Agbakoko, the first vice president-general, added, “This cannot go on; the government must act now. Our people are not animals to be hunted in their land.”

  Hon. Simon Okoro, former ICDU secretary, emphasized, “Without our farms, Jesse has no economy; we are farmers. That is who we are, and we are currently being pushed into early graves, poverty, and silence.

  Children whisper to each other.

  Teachers in hinterland communities reported a decline in attendance, and children who are afraid.

  “When they hear motorbikes, our students hide under desks,” stated the head teacher, Mrs. Edokpolor.    Some people have stopped talking. As though raising their voices would attract kidnappers, they whisper.

A town on the verge of collapse

  Market women now pay three times the usual price to purchase produce from a distance.  “We once used baskets to transport cassava. We have debts now,” says trader Mama Rita.

“The devil now walks in the open here,” said local parishioner Reverend John Atawodi, adding, “No one is stopping him, either.”

The final scream

The last placard said, “We don’t want revenge,” and it was held by an elderly man who was barefoot and hardly able to stand. “We are trying to live.”

A thin line lies between hope and collapse in Irodo and other Idjerhe communities.  

If the Delta State government does not take action, it may find nothing but abandoned farms, empty homes, and people who scream but are not heard.

We are losing our people –  Ibori-Suenu raises the alarm in Abuja  

Far away at the federal chambers in Abuja, the voice of Idjerhe (Jesse) rose again—this time through Hon. Erhiatake Ibori-Suenu, Member representing the Ethiope Federal Constituency.

  In a motion of urgent public importance, she told the House of Representatives that what is happening in Jesse is not just rural unrest, but a humanitarian crisis.

  “The House must act. The Nigerian Police, the military, and security forces must move in,” she said. “We are losing our people. We are losing our food. And we are losing hope.”

  The motion, which was referred for legislative action, called on the Inspector General of Police to deploy tactical teams, the military to increase surveillance, and NEMA to begin relief intervention for affected families.

Vanguard News

𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 without legitimacy is a contradiction in terms (A Respectful rejoinder to Solad Ibas’ “I’m Laying Foundation For Good Governance In Rivers” Declaration)

By Sylvester Udemezue

MEMORY VERSE:
“Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”
~Hon Justice Chukwudifu Oputa

BACKGROUND:

In an interview, published by the Punch Newspapers on 20 May 2025, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.), the Sole Administrator of Rivers State, emphasized his commitment to laying a solid foundation for good governance in the state. Appointed following the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara amid a declared state of emergency, Ibas outlined his administration’s focus on restoring order, ensuring accountability, and implementing reforms aimed at long-term stability and development. He acknowledged the challenges inherent in his role but expressed determination to prioritize institutional integrity and public trust over short-term political gains. Ibas called for patience and cooperation from the citizens, assuring them that his administration’s efforts are geared toward creating a more transparent and effective governance structure in Rivers State.

MY COMMENT:

  1. Mother of All Ironies: With the greatest respect, it is both troubling and ironic that Mr. Ibas, whose emergence as the so-called “Sole Administrator” of Rivers State stems from the unconstitutional suspension of a democratically elected governor, would now purport to be laying the foundation for “good governance.” This assertion, though politically convenient, is fundamentally flawed in both logic and law. One cannot purport to build good governance upon a foundation that is itself built on illegality, unconstitutionality, and usurpation. Governance without legitimacy is not just defective; it is a complete contradiction in terms.
  2. The Rule of Law Is The Only True Foundation of Good Governance: Globally and constitutionally, the rule of law is universally acknowledged as the foundation of good governance. It is the condition that enables justice, fairness, transparency, and accountability in public administration. Without it, what we have is not governance, but a charade; a power grab masquerading as public service. As A.V. Dicey famously stated, the rule of law entails: (i) Supremacy of the law over arbitrary power; (ii). Equality of all persons before the law; (iii). Government authority derived from established legal frameworks. These principles are entrenched in Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
  3. Good Governance Does Not Emerge from Unconstitutionality and Illegality: Dear Mr. Ibas, good governance is not rhetoric. It is not found in press releases or hastily convened briefings and interviews. It is earned through legitimacy, constitutional compliance, and popular consent. Any claim to leadership that originates outside these boundaries is inherently void of moral and legal authority. The Supreme Court in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, reminded us thus: “The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law… the rule of law presupposes that the State is subject to the law.” Similarly, in Fawehinmi v. Inspector-General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606, the court emphasized that “In a democracy, power is derived from the people and must be exercised in accordance with the law.” This is reaffirmed by Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution which provides: “Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government derives all its powers and authority.” Where then is your legitimacy, sir?
  4. The Danger of Building on the Rubble of Lawlessness: You cannot break the law in the morning and claim to rebuild society in the afternoon. Power obtained outside the framework of the Constitution is not power; it is plunder in borrowed robes. True leadership begins with the lawful process. Anything else is a betrayal of democratic values and a dangerous precedent. This is why the call by several legal scholars, including in “Prelude To ‘Road To a State of Emergency in Rivers State…'” by Sylvester Udemezue (TheNigeriaLawyer, 2 April 2025), must be taken seriously. We are witnessing an erosion of constitutional order, and history will not look kindly on those who facilitated it under the guise of reform.
  5. Good Governance Requires Legal and Institutional Order: Good governance is rooted in: (i) Accountability; (ii). Transparency; (iii). Participation; (iv). Equity and inclusiveness; (v). The Rule of law, among others. I discussed the elements of good governance in a scholarly paper: see: Sylvester C. Udemezue, “Role of Company Employees in Promoting Corporate Governance: A Comparative Analysis of the Approaches in Nigeria and the United Kingdom” (2020) 3(1), Redeemer’s University Law Journal (RUNLJ) 191-210. ISSN: 2636-6462. (Online links: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3907553 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3907553). These essentials of good governance cannot be faked or manufactured. Truth is, when the rule of law is absent, (i) public officials become unaccountable;(ii) citizens’ rights are trampled; (iii). corruption thrives; (iv). institutions crumble. On the other hand, where the rule of law is upheld, (i). power is exercised responsibly; (ii). elections are meaningful; (iii). reforms are credible; (iv). development is sustainable. As Kofi Annan rightly said, “The rule of law is not a slogan but a basic condition for democratic governance.” And as Justice Chukwudifu Oputa famously warned: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”

In conclusion, it’s respectfully submitted that in the absence of legitimacy, governance doesn’t exist. Thus, until we restore fidelity to constitutional principles and uphold the sovereignty of the people expressed through elections, all talk of laying foundations for good governance in Rivers State remains hollow, self-serving, and a direct affront to the Nigerian Constitution. The starting point of any legitimate governance is legality. Anything short of this is a usurpation, not administration.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM).
[email protected].
(20 May 2025)

Adodo’s alarm over Governor Aiyedatiwa’s alleged disrespect for the constitution and the imperative of legal impregnability as a necessary condition for effective governance in Nigeria

By Sylvester Udemezue

  1. The Fifth Alteration (No. 23) Act, 2023 to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 introduced a notable reform to Section 192. A new Section 192(6) now provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the nomination of any person to the office of a Commissioner for confirmation by the House of Assembly shall be done within sixty days after the date the Governor has taken the oath of office: Provided that the Governor may appoint a Commissioner at any other time during his tenure, and such appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the House of Assembly.”
  2. A similar provision, designed to ensure timely formation of the Federal Executive Council and enhance effective governance, is seen in Section 147 (7), which provides: _”Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the nomination of any person to the office of a Minister for confirmation by the Senate shall be done within sixty days after the date the President has taken the oath of office: Provided that the President may appoint a Minister at any other time during his tenure, and such appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Senate.”
  3. Although these amendments, as beautiful as they appear, were ostensibly designed to promote the timely constitution of Federal and State Executive Councils, and thereby enhance good governance by imposing clear deadlines for the nomination of ministers and commissioners, it is unfortunate that they provide no sanctions for non-compliance. Besides, the provisions are neither self-enforcing, self-executing, nor legally impregnable. As a result, the provisions are easy manipulate, and there are virtually no real consequences for a breach, except perhaps the theoretical option of impeachment by the legislature. Sadly, in a country like Nigeria, where the legislative arm at all levels often functions more as an appendage of the executive than as an independent check, it is almost laughable to expect the legislature to pursue such accountability measures. Consequently, there is no genuine compulsion on the President or any Governor to comply with these provisions.
  4. In a recent article titled “Inchoate Constitution Of The Ondo State Executive Council More Than Sixty Days After Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa’s Inauguration: Implications For Constitutional Compliance And Inclusive Governance”, published on 19 May 2025, my learned friend and respected public-interest advocate, Vincent Adodo, Esq., raises concern over the Governor’s failure to fully constitute the Ondo State Executive Council more than 60 days after assuming office, contrary to the constitutional requirement. According to Learned Adodo, only two commissioners have been appointed, leaving the majority of ministries without leadership. He argues that this delay undermines the inclusive governance envisaged under Sections 192(2) and 14(4) of the Constitution, both of which emphasize equitable representation and broad-based participation in governance. He therefore calls for urgent compliance through the nomination of commissioners from all nine federal constituencies in the state.
  5. With utmost respect to the learned author, I offer a cautionary reflection; while the Governor’s inaction is politically and morally troubling, the legal consequences may not be as far-reaching as presumed. In reality, provisions such as Sections 192(6) and 147(3) of the Constitution, though seemingly progressive, are ultimately pregnable, they allow for manipulation and lack the force needed to ensure compliance. These provisions reflect a wider pattern of poorly conceived and weakly enforced legal reforms, symptomatic of a system where institutions are fragile and individuals often exercise authority above the law.
  6. In a polity such as ours, where the rule of law is frequently subordinated to political expediency, any legal reform that permits discretionary delay or uneven enforcement is, in practical terms, ineffective. A law that cannot compel obedience or ensure accountability is, for all intents and purposes, useless.
  7. Our lived experience has consistently shown that the average Nigerian, when intent on evading the law, will exploit every loophole and discretionary window. Thus, the focus should shift from making more laws to making better laws, laws that are stiff, self-enforcing, and legally impregnable. For any law to be truly effective, it must be constructed in a way that compels automatic compliance and eliminates opportunities for delay or abuse.
  8. In a country where adherence to legal norms is often the exception rather than the rule, we need laws that reflect the difficult terrain they are meant to regulate. We must stop assuming that citizens and officials will naturally act in good faith. Instead, we must design laws that leave no room for manipulation. Cosmetic amendments like Section 192(6), without mechanisms for immediate enforcement or sanctions, fail to meet this standard.
  9. Indeed, the most effective guard against fraud and executive inertia is the elimination of discretion in enforcement. Our laws must foreclose the possibility of subjective interpretation or selective application by any stakeholder, especially those with vested interests in the system. Where discretion exists, abuse follows. Where enforcement is negotiable, compliance becomes optional.
  10. The hard truth, the REALITY, is that our Legislature has not yet demonstrated the will to drive real, transformative reform. Instead, it continues to offer superficial or even mischievous distractions, such as the constitutionally dubious proposal to impose compulsory voting, while ignoring the deeper structural problems that plague our governance system. In a forthcoming paper, I intend to further interrogate the concept of legal impregnability as a necessary condition for achieving meaningful effectiveness in governance, law enforcement, and public accountability. For those who have requested an example of an impregnable system change or legal reform, I have attempted to provide one in my paper titled “How Nigeria’s National Assembly Can Make the Electoral Act/System Impregnable on Electronic Transmission to Prevent Fraud During Election Result Collation.” [See: Udemezue, Sylvester, “How Nigeria’s National Assembly Can Make the Electoral Act/System Impregnable on Electronic Transmission to Prevent Fraud During Election Result Collation” (August 13, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4929155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4929155].
    Respectfully,
    §¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
    Sylvester Udemezue (udems)
    Legal Practitioner, Law Teacher, and Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (A Public Interest Law Advocacy Group)
    08021365545 | 08109024556
    [email protected]
    19 May 2025

US Supreme Court gives clear passage for Trump to deport 350,000 Venezuelans

The United States Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a major immigration win as he seeks to speed up mass deportations amid a scathing back-and-forth between the president and the high court.

The order will allow Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to strip away ‘temporary protected status’ (TPS) from 350,000 Venezuelan migrants.

Thousands of Venezuelan migrants have been living in the United States under the TPS program, which helps citizens of countries stricken by war or natural disaster get temporary work.

Their temporary protected status was extended under the Biden administration amid chaos under the Nicolás Maduro regime, but it was terminated by Kristi Noem.

In February, Noem ordered the TPS status extended to Venezuelans to be removed arguing that their presence in the U.S. is ‘contrary to the national interest.’

However, a judge in California blocked Noem’s action calling it ‘predicated on negative stereotypes’ and unconstitutional. 

Liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by Joe Biden, was the only justice against the order giving Trump the green light to deport the migrants. 

Trump has pledged to deport record numbers of illegal migrants in the United States sparking months of back-and-forth legal drama making its way all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Trump was slapped down by the Supreme Court in another case on Friday blocking his use of the 18th Century Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants held in detention in Texas

Trump blasted that ruling on his Truth Social site over the weekend, calling it ‘a bad and dangerous day for America’ in his latest clash with the federal courts. 

He said the decision ‘will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public.’

Even as he fumed at the majority, he heaped praise on conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas ‘for attempting to protect our Country.’ 

Trump and his top lieutenants have raged at lower court judges for slapping injunctions on administration policies with rulings that sometimes apply nationwide.

The TPS program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophe, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work permits. The designation can be renewed by the U.S. homeland security secretary.

The government under Biden twice designated Venezuela for TPS, in 2021 and 2023. 

In January, days before Trump returned to office, the Biden administration announced an extension of the programs to 2026.

Noem, a Trump appointee, rescinded the extension and moved to end the TPS designation for a subset of Venezuelans who benefited from the 2023 designation. 

The Department of Homeland Security said about 348,202 Venezuelans were registered under that 2023 designation.

Noem is accused of violating a federal law that governs the actions of agencies. 

The judge in California that struck down her move also said the revocation of the TPS status appeared to have been predicated on ‘negative stereotypes’ by insinuating the Venezuelan migrants were criminals.

‘Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan TPS population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes,’ Judge Chen wrote in a recent order. 

He added that Venezuelan TPS holders were more likely to hold bachelor’s degrees than American citizens and less likely to commit crimes than the general U.S. population.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18 declined the administration’s request to pause the judge’s order.

Justice Department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing said Chen had ‘wrested control of the nation’s immigration policy’ away from the government’s executive branch, headed by Trump.

‘The court’s order contravenes fundamental Executive Branch prerogatives and indefinitely delays sensitive policy decisions in an area of immigration policy that Congress recognized must be flexible, fast-paced, and discretionary,’ they wrote.

The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that granting the administration’s request ‘would strip work authorization from nearly 350,000 people living in the U.S., expose them to deportation to an unsafe country and cost billions in economic losses nationwide.’

The State Department currently warns against travel to Venezuela ‘due to the high risk of wrongful detentions, terrorism, kidnapping, the arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, poor health infrastructure.’

The Trump administration in April also terminated TPS for thousands of Afghans and Cameroonians in the United States. Those actions are not part of the current case.

Daily Mail

Okonjo-Iweala v Fawehinmi: Demystifying Locus Standi (2)

Supreme Court’s Distinction Without a Difference

Whereas in one breath, the Supreme Court held that a citizen is free to challenge a violation of the Constitution, it stated nonetheless that when it comes to specific actions of the executive, the plaintiff has to show how he is specifically affected above and beyond other members of the society. The Court took back with one hand what it had granted with the other. Logically, foundation should be the prime consideration, which in this case, is the Constitution. How can a citizen be entitled to challenge the violation of the foundation and then at the same time be powerless to upturn and pull down the superstructure erected upon the said faulty foundation? You can challenge the violation of the law but you are barred from contesting actions taken pursuant to such violation! It just does not add up, to create two standards of locus standi, in the same action.

In this case, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, contended that payments made to certain Ministers are in gross violation of the Constitution and other extant statutes and thus sought a reversal of such payments in full compliance with the Constitution. The Supreme Court met Gani halfway in agreeing with him that he had the locus standi to challenge any violation of the Constitution but it went further to deny him locus standi to contest the specific act of payments to Ministers, being executive actions taken pursuant to existing laws. Let us hear the Court.

On Locus standi of Nigerian citizen to institute action for protection of Constitution:

“The law has moved beyond the restrictive application of the rules of locus standi to a more flexible and purposeful dispensation in which a Nigeria citizen should have access to court for the protection of the Nigerian Constitution from any attack or violation. If an Act made by the National Assembly or any Law made by the State legislature is unconstitutionally assaulted or is in itself unconstitutional, every Nigerian should have access to court to vindicate the rule of law and arrest any breach of the law and the Constitution. But when the claim is directed towards an executive action over any subject matter, the plaintiff’s locus standi will inure if he shows direct and personal effect of the action complained of on his right as a Nigerian.

To be unconstitutional means to be in conflict with the letters and intent of the Nigerian Constitution. Since the Constitution is the grundnorm, any assault on it can be challenged in court by any citizen of Nigeria. But when it comes to issues of steps or decisions of the Executive such as payments of salaries, one needs to show sufficiently his interest or right that is in danger. A challenge of the Constitution which is the general law governing all Nigerians is quite different from a challenge of a specific law governing a special class of people. The specific law may take its life from the general law, such as the Constitution. In such a situation, the plaintiff needs to show his interest and how it is affected or infringed upon. In the instant case, the plaintiff being a lawyer and a senior advocate did not confer on him the duty or obligation of challenging the decision to pay any type of salary to the appellant by the Government that hired her. It could not confer any standing on him to prosecute the claim.”

Per ADAH, J.S.C. at page 41, paras. B-E:

“The position of the lower court that the claim of the plaintiff had constitutional flavour does not sync with the questions and the reliefs raised in the originating summons. The plaintiff was not challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances) Act No. 6 of 2002 made pursuant to section 153 (1) (n) and Part 1 N, item 32 (d) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of Nigeria 1999. What the originating summons was out to do, is to challenge the alleged breach of that law by the respondents. This therefore, does not place this action within the purview of the charge to every citizen to defend the Constitution of Nigeria. The contention of the plaintiff is that the respondents paid more money as salaries to the 3rd and 4th defendants and that the money paid out was unlawful. This duty can only be carried out by one who is injured by the said act of the respondents.”

In the affidavit in support of his originating summons, Gani stated that he was a taxpayer, a politician, a publisher, statesman, philanthropist, employer of labour, an activist of repute and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria who took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Which other Nigerian will be better placed than Gani to take up this action in court? The money being paid to the affected Ministers was from the common pool to which Gani and other Nigerians paid their taxes and the Constitution that was said to have been violated through the said payments is what Gani swore to defend and uphold. How else can a litigant show sufficient interest to challenge the wrongful use of his tax than the evidence of payment of the tax itself?

How else will a citizen defend and uphold the Constitution other than through an action in court to interprete and declare the provisions of the said Constitution? With all due respect to My Lords, the reasoning does not flow. From the government’s account, it has been reported that citizens like Gani who pay their taxes faithfully are in the minority. Similarly, there are less than 1000 Senior Advocates of Nigeria amongst the many advocates called to the Nigerian Bar. In essence, Gani eminently qualifies to challenge executive actions that tend to misuse his tax or render the Constitution that he swore to uphold a mockery.

Per UMAR, J.S.C.:

“From the facts of the case, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN originated the action. His originating processes indicated he is a Nigerian; he was the Chairman of National Conscience Party. He was a former presidential Candidate. He was a taxpayer. A Senior Advocate of Nigeria etc. The question is: will the above be sufficient to grant him the locus standi to bring this action? These and other questions are bound to agitate the mind of any objective enquirer and it’s for this reason that the court has to exercise some caution before giving a stamp of legality to this type of interest lest one flings open the door to busy-bodies who might want to exploit the slightest opportunity to embarrass innocent citizens of this country. From the record of proceedings I read, the fact he is a taxpayer without facts of being such is fatal to his claim.”

The real questions indeed are these: can a Senior Advocate of Nigeria be a busybody? Can a man who has defended democracy, the rule of law and the Constitution be said to be a flippant litigant with a frivolous suit? The Supreme Court stated that the defendants never contested the facts stated in Gani’s affidavit as to his status, which means the facts of his tax records were not in dispute. In so many cases before this one, the apex Court held that where a defendant challenges the locus standi of a plaintiff preliminarily, he is deemed to have admitted the facts stated in the claim, upon the strength of which the defendant wants the plaintiff’s case to succeed or fail.

The Court of Appeal had described Gani as the Conscience of the Nation, given his track record in public interest litigation and it ordered the affected Ministers to refund all the money paid to them in violation of the law. I honestly believe that this is what the Supreme Court was running away from in spilling some poison upon the judicial meal that was well prepared for litigants on locus standi. The Court would still have achieved that objective without throwing legal spanners in the successes recorded in public interest litigations which are meant to hold leaders accountable to the people.

In the sister case of President, FRN v Fawehinmi, which arose from the same facts, the Supreme Court held that the case itself could not survive Gani, being a personal action and it struck out the originating summons on that ground alone, which gave the affected Ministers a soft landing. The more troubling issue is whether any Nigerian, who offers or agrees to serve his fatherland should be treated differently from other Ministers of the Federation, notwithstanding his status or location. The Constitution itself prohibits any discriminatory action in section 42, to the extent that no Minister should be selected for preferential favours of payment in foreign currencies over and above other Ministers.

A more disturbing aspect of the case is the stand of the Supreme Court on what constitutes public interest litigation.

On Meaning of “public interest litigation”:

“The term “public interest litigation” refers to an action or a suit instituted to protect or promote the interests of the general public, instead of pursuing a personal or private interest. In respect of public interest litigation, the court can be liberal on the issue or question of the claimant’s/plaintiff’s locus standi. In the instant case, there was no deposition to suggest that the action was public interest litigation. The depositions in the affidavit in support of the 1st respondent’s lawsuit at the trial court tilted to the protection of only his personal interests as the Chairman of the National Conscience Party, former presidential candidate and as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria who swore to an oath before the Chief Justice of Nigeria and other Justices of the Supreme Court present on the occasion of the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on him.”

In previous cases that Gani had pursued, such as Fawehinmi v Akilu, Fawehinmi v NBA, Fawehinmi v Abacha, etc, the same Court had recognized these cases as touching public interest and indeed applied the doctrine of neighbourhood to uphold Gani’s locus in some of the cases. Reading through the facts of this case, I could not see any personal benefit to Gani if the Supreme Court had upheld the laudable declarations of the Court of Appeal. Perhaps this was another policy decision meant to save public officers.

The ghomid in the tears of JAMB

By Suyi Ayodele

Dear Ajanlekoko Oriojobi Samuel (real name withheld), Reg Number: 2125512372451F. 2025 UTME Result: Underaged and Under-Performed.”

With the above terse message from the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB), the fates of thousands of Nigerians who sat for the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) were sealed.

Those thousands of candidates will never see their results. Their parents or guardians, who paid the registration fees and took the candidates—children in their teens—to the various examination centres, will never know the performances of their children’s or wards.

Incidentally, those candidates did not commit any examination malpractice. They were not guilty of any crime known or unknown. Their crime was to be children of the Nigerian society that looks backwards, where other climes are forward marching!

The only crime those affected “underaged’ candidates committed was to be endowed with brains that the awkward system we run here frowns at. Their counterparts in other sane countries of the world are celebrated. But here, we are still in the Stone Age to accept that there are geniuses!

So, when Professor Is-haq Oloyede, the JAMB Registrar, came crying over the mass failure recorded for over 400,000 candidates who wrote this year’s UTME because of the glitch which affected JAMB servers, Nigerians must know that there were more issues than the computer malfunctioning Oloyede cried about. The tears of the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ilorin were nothing but Ekún Egbére.

When two rival wives fight and one cries when the matter comes up for adjudication, my Yoruba elders have a way to qualify that. They devise a saying: Arojó sunkún obìrin, ilé níi tú (A woman who cries while stating her case tends to destroy the home) to explain the intention of such an act. The tears by the woman playing the victim are considered manipulative.

Elders who sit in judgment don’t usually pay attention to the crying woman in any dispute. They could see through her deceptive tears and her true intention — simply to gain undue sympathy. In my culture, a woman is allowed to cry as much as she wants and then asked to restate her case. More often than not, the crying woman turns out to be the guilty party.

There is a more graphic and semiotic way to qualify such crocodile tears. The Yoruba concept of “Ekún Egbére” is the apt way to describe manipulative tears by the one trying to play the victim.

Ekún Egbére means the tears of the goblin (or bush baby). Egbére in Yoruba mythology refers to a short spiritual being who goes about with a small mat, crying. The myth around the goblin, Egbére, says it cries out, looking for sympathy for its unusually small stature among the legion of ghomids created by Obatala.

It tells whoever cares to listen that the creator is unfair to it by making it the smallest of the ghomids, whereas it has more potential than any others ever created. Those other ghomids Egbére accuses of conspiracy against it. It says they conspired to dampen its potential and good work! How true?

What Egbére, however, does not tell its listeners and would-be sympathisers is the fact that its small stature has nothing to do with any heavenly factory faults. The fault is due to the goblin’s own making of rubbing the wrong lotion on its own body while it had just come out of Obatala’s furnace without waiting for the god of creativity to apply the normal lotion.

So, Egbére goes about crying, giving a false narrative to gain the people’s sympathy as the victim of Obatala’s creative abnormality! It does that without stating how it goes against the general principle of discretion and the heavenly discipline of patience and respect for public opinion.

As it is with Egbére, the crying spirit, so is it with Professor Oloyede, the Registrar of JAMB, whose conduct of the last UTME leaves the nation gasping for breath at the rate of mass failure recorded in the five states of the South-East geopolitical zone and Lagos, the Centre of Excellence!

Expectedly, heaven has been let loose on Oloyede, especially from our fellow Nigerians from the East. The noise from that region over what many considered to be a deliberate attempt to deny candidates of Igbo extraction admission into our universities, is enough to sink this federation. Most unfortunate is that the intelligentsia from the South-East joined the fray of ethnic profiling of the computer errors that occurred!

As much as I find most of the comments from the South-East over the JAMB glitch case alarming, I think the reaction speaks more to some fundamental issues about our nationhood. It is most unfortunate that 65 years after independence and an avoidable civil war where we lost over two million patriots, Nigeria is still as divided as the period we were struggling for independence. Most saddening is that no administration after the 1967-1970 civil war has brought to the fore our differences more than the current government, which began in 2015 with the administration of General Muhammadu Buhari!

It is, therefore, natural for the South-East to easily conclude that the recent JAMB misfortune was targeted at the region. The bitter argument here, which many of us are not ready to accept, is that the Igbo race has not been treated fairly by the Nigerian nation. The only unfortunate argument by the Igbo is to think that the Yoruba are their sole enemy!

And I say this without any apology, until the Ndigbo consciously realise that they suffer the same fate as other ethnic groups, they will remain largely marginalised. Until they shed the toga of Yoruba-hate-us and adopt the holistic idea that most ethnic groups in Nigeria have one thing or the other against the Ndigbo, nothing will change for them.

Should that be the case too, the Ndigbo must also look inward and ask self-directed questions as to why the race is detested by virtually all other ethnic nationalities. They must do self-retrospection to determine what in the attitude of an average Igbo man would make others dislike him.

While doing that, the Nigerian nation must also take deliberate steps to integrate the Ndigbo into our nationhood. The attitude of ‘no-Igbo-man-can-be-president’ doesn’t augur well for our unity. If the Ndigbo are not good enough to lead Nigeria, can we deliberately allow them to own their own space, their nation, where they will have no one to contend with?

This is why it is difficult to rationalise that the glitch which affected JAMB servers affected all five states in the South-East and Lagos! For people who already feel unwanted, it will be difficult for anyone to convince them to look at the issue from the angle of science and technology.

I want to put my shirt on it that if the errors had occurred only in the South-West states, no matter the sophistication of the people there, there would have been no outcry of ethnic attack on the prospects of the candidates from that region. That is due to the pseudo-federalism we practice. The North-East, North-West, North-Central and South-South would have felt the same way. The only difference, probably, would have been the magnitude of the outcry.

While JAMB has our sympathy for the unfortunate incident, I think there are some other fundamental issues we need to address here. I strongly believe that whatever happened in JAMB or with JAMB or to JAMB can be traced to just one problem: restructuring deficiency!

A lot of Nigerians have said that it is wrong to have just one body conducting examinations for both federal, state and private universities in a country that claims to run federalism! The recent claims by JAMB that it remitted over N6 billion to the coffers of the Federal Government makes the body more of a profit-making venture than a serious examination set up.

If we celebrate JAMB for making enough profit like a business venture, for the Federal Government, what about the state-funded universities? What part of that ‘profit’ goes to the private universities? Should JAMB be talking about how much money it rakes in or how effective it is in the conduct of the examinations it was established to conduct?

Take the case of the underage candidates we mentioned above. Why would JAMB withhold the results of candidates it termed “underaged” after collecting the registration fee from them? Where is that done, except in a country where roguery is the order of the day?

If the National Assembly had been alive to its responsibilities, would JAMB have had the audacity to withhold candidates’ results based on being “underaged” without any act of parliament allowing that? If a candidate purchased a form, submitted the form, was accredited and allowed to write an exam, why would the examination body send the message: “UTME Result: Underaged and Under-Performed” without showing the actual scores of the candidates?

Oloyede is a brilliant scholar, no doubt. He did well, so they say, when he was the VC of the University of Ilorin. But I find it difficult to believe that it did not occur to the erudite professor that some parents actually asked their children to write the examination as a mock exercise to prepare those children for when they will be of age, according to the backwards-thinking policy of age limit for admission into our universities?

Agreed cyber attack or glitch is not peculiar to Nigeria. Our major concern is how, when it happened to us, it wore a three-piece suit of ethnic colouration and age discrimination! That is the peculiarity of the Nigerian version of the global phenomenon. In Nigeria, what affects other nations comes in different shapes, shades and dimensions for us. Nigeria must always “happen” to any universal issue that finds its way to our shores!

If truly we want a restructured country with full-fledged federalism, JAMB has no business conducting examinations, for instance, for Ekiti State University or Afe Babalola University. It has no business determining the questions Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, or Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, should set for its intended undergraduates. What do we even gain from the centralised examination when a candidate with a grade of 250 marks from any of the South-West states will be denied admission to study Medicine, and his counterpart from Zamfara State who scored 180 marks will be given a laboratory coat as a medical student?

The lawlessness of JAMB at fixing the age limit for its examination against a subsisting judgment of a competent jurisdiction apes the lawlessness of the government of the day. Nigeria, no doubt, needs an effective and efficient examination body. What the nation does not need now is a weeping Chief Executive of its examination body. Ekún Egbére won’t solve our self-inflicted problem; proper restructuring will do. Maybe we should just start with JAMB.

2027 Polls: Suspended Rivers Gov Fubara might be poised to join APC after Tinubu deal and political intimidation

In a major political twist that could reshape the 2027 electoral landscape, exclusive information obtained by SaharaReporters reveals that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has finally coerced Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, into joining the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), following months of intense political pressure, institutional intimidation, and strategic coercion.

This development, sources say, is the culmination of a calculated campaign by the APC-led Federal Government to weaken opposition strongholds across the country ahead of the next general elections.

According to sources, the objective is to consolidate power, neutralise political threats, and ensure that President Tinubu coasts to victory in 2027 with minimal resistance.

Multiple sources familiar with the situation describe the pressure mounted on Governor Fubara as “unprecedented and deeply troubling” in Nigeria’s democratic history.

The Federal Government, allegedly using every state apparatus—from the judiciary and security agencies to the National Assembly—launched a coordinated offensive aimed at undermining Fubara’s authority and isolating him politically, until he had no viable option but to capitulate.

At the centre of this political storm is Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, Fubara’s political godfather-turned-adversary.

With federal backing, Wike spearheaded a relentless campaign to bring Fubara to his knees. From orchestrated legislative threats to judicial manoeuvers and threats of impeachment, Wike was said to be acting with the full blessing of the Presidency.

“The President wanted Rivers State under control by any means necessary,” one source disclosed. “The fear of 2027 is real. Their internal assessments showed that public discontent was growing over hardship, insecurity, and economic mismanagement. The only way out was to break the opposition and enforce loyalty, state by state.”

This explains why, according to political observers, the Presidency turned a deaf ear to the outcry from prominent Nigerians and civil society groups who condemned the sustained political siege on Governor Fubara.

Sources say the turning point came during the controversial “2025 London Peace Accord,” a high-level secret negotiation between Fubara and Tinubu.

“It was during this meeting that Governor Fubara agreed to join the APC in exchange for political survival,” one of the sources said.

In April, during a working visit to London, President Bola Tinubu met with suspended Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

The meeting, confirmed by The Africa Report, has not been officially acknowledged by the Presidency.

According to officials, it marked the first face-to-face encounter between Tinubu and Fubara since the President declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and removed Governor Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, from office.

As part of the terms, the embattled Governor would be reinstated—albeit under strict conditions—with control of Rivers State’s resources now shared or closely monitored by the ruling party’s power brokers. The same Wike who publicly derided and sought Fubara’s removal is now singing a different tune, recently describing the Governor as “his son” and denying ever fighting him.

In a recent interview with BBC Pidgin, Wike denied fighting with the suspended Rivers State governor, saying, “Fubara is my son, why will I fight with him?

“I’m only fighting against people who want to steal what they did not work for.

“When you don’t defeat them, they will think you….. Defeat them to the final stage.

“Now, they are ashamed because they are being defeated. They are the ones pushing Fubara.”

According to the publication, Wike noted that he had told Fubara during a visit that he was ready for peace — if Fubara was ready as well.

“I told him that you have yam in your hand and the knife, you are the one that knows how you want peace. If you want sincere peace, you take, if you want dubious peace, you also take.”

This abrupt political U-turn has left many Nigerians disillusioned.

“Fubara has been beaten into submission, and Rivers State has been turned into a pawn in the power game of Abuja,” one of the sources said.

“No governor has ever suffered such humiliation as Governor Fubara suffered in the history of Nigerian politics.”

The source lamented how Fubara, a governor, was “humiliated, tormented, and politically crushed” to force him into the ruling party.

No governor has been subjected to such abuse of power in Nigeria’s history,” the source said.

How Tinubu Declared Emergency Rule in Rivers State

On March 18, 2025, President Tinubu invoked Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing a breakdown of law and order and the failure of constitutional mechanisms to resolve the escalating political crisis in the state.

The declaration followed months of intense political turmoil between Fubara and his estranged political godfather, Wike.

The conflict, which began shortly after Fubara assumed office in May 2023, led to repeated attempts by a faction of the state House of Assembly to impeach the governor, violent protests, destruction of government property, and a governance vacuum in the state executive council.

Citing the state government’s inability to maintain public order and coordinate essential governance functions, President Tinubu also secured a controversial National Assembly approval for the emergency declaration as required by the Constitution.

He stated that the crisis in Rivers had become a national security concern with implications for democratic stability.

Following the proclamation, Governor Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, were suspended from office, along with key state officials, and the state’s executive and legislative functions were dissolved.

The President then appointed a sole administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, believed to be loyal to the Presidency, to take charge of governance in the state during the emergency period.

The move was widely condemned by opposition parties, civil society groups, and constitutional scholars, who argued that the declaration was politically motivated and violated democratic norms.

Critics accused the Tinubu administration of using federal power to suppress dissent and consolidate control over opposition strongholds ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Despite public outcry, the state of emergency remained in effect, and federal security forces took over key government institutions in Port Harcourt, further deepening fears of a creeping authoritarianism under the guise of constitutional emergency powers.

Originally published by Sahara Reporters

Diddy trial: I’d give back $20m settlement to undo freak-offs —Cassie Ventura tells court

Cassie Ventura has tearfully told a court she would give back a $20m (£15m) legal settlement from Sean “Diddy” Combs if it meant she would never have taken part in his “humiliating” drug-fuelled sex parties.

She rejected defence suggestions that her accusations were financially motivated as she wrapped up four days of testimony in the New York criminal trial of her ex-boyfriend.

Ms Ventura, the government’s star witness, faced questioning from both legal teams about her decade-long relationship with Mr Combs, and their “freak off” sex sessions.

Mr Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. He could face life in prison.

Ms Ventura’s testimony revealed graphic details about her sex life with the rapper and the physical violence she allegedly endured from him.

The rap mogul’s lawyers have been trying to depict Ms Ventura, 38, as an eager participant in the sexual lifestyle.

She testified this week that she was coerced into the sessions, which involved male escorts, because Mr Combs had threatened her with violence.

On Friday she addressed a $20m pay-out he gave her after she filed a lawsuit against him in November 2023.

The settlement, which came just one day after the filing of the legal action, was public knowledge, but the number was previously unknown.

Mr Combs’ lawyer, Anna Estevao, seemed to imply that Ms Ventura was strapped for cash before filing her lawsuit. The singer had just moved to her parents’ house with her husband and children.

Ms Ventura rejected this suggestion, later sharing that she would exchange the money for a life free of the “freak offs”, which she said caused her physical injuries, would sometimes go on for days, and stifled her career as a singer.

“I would have agency and autonomy,” she said.

Reuters A courtroom sketch of Cassie Ventura, in a white blazer and striped jacket, crying on the stand in court. To her left is Judge Arun Sumbramanian, in black robes and glasses.
A courtroom sketch of Cassie Ventura

Mr Combs’ legal team also showed the jury dozens of messages between the couple from each stage of their relationship, arguing their dynamic was toxic at times, but not criminal.

Minutes before Ms Ventura was set to leave the stand on Friday, the defence questioned her about another legal settlement she won.

Ms Ventura told the court she was expecting to receive about $10m from InterContinental Hotels, connected to her claims against Mr Combs.

The settlement relates to an incident at the InterContinental in Los Angeles in 2016, in which security footage showed Mr Combs hitting, kicking and dragging her in a hallway.

That clip was played at length in court this week, and is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the trial.

On Friday in court, Ms Ventura went through her texts after that beating. In one message she told Mr Combs: “I’m not a rag doll. I’m somebody’s child.”

She and Mr Combs were expressing love for each other days later in other texts.

The defence cross-examination continued on all day Thursday and Friday.

The prosecution squeezed in two more witnesses before court adjourned for the weekend.

One was Dawn Richard, a singer in the group Danity Kane – formed on Diddy’s MTV show Making the Band. Last year she filed a lawsuit accusing him of physical abuse and withholding her earnings.

Ms Richard testified that she saw Mr Combs assault Ms Ventura at his Los Angeles mansion in 2009.

“She fell down,” Ms Richard told the court. “She was in the foetal position.”

After the incident, she said Mr Combs took her aside and told her what she saw was “passion” and that where he is from, “people go missing” if they talk.

US Homeland Security special agent Yasin Binda took the stand as well, telling the court about the cash, drugs and baby oil that were seized from the rapper’s hotel room when he was arrested in New York.

More testimony is expected from the witnesses called by prosecutors next week.

The Manhattan court has been a media circus since the beginning of the trial, with spectators gathering in droves and camping out overnight to get a glimpse of the music mogul, his family, and the celebrities testifying.

Sakshi Venkatraman, BBC News

NNPC’s Ojúl’arí ọ̀rẹ́ ò dé ‘nú

By Lasisi Olagunju

In Yoruba, there is a proverb: “Ojú l’arí, ọ̀rẹ́ ò dé ‘nú” — literally it means ‘we only see the face; friendship does not go deep inside.’ That is the name the Group Managing Director of the NNPCL, Mr Bayo Ojulari, bears. The name calls attention to why appearance and essence sometimes wear different colours. It teaches a lesson in how names, faces and accents may be mere masks — not mirrors.

In Nigeria, the powers of power always wear tribal costumes. Every big position is a sacred grove, only the initiates have its access cards. Kinship confers initiation rights at the grove; free cakes are the benefits. For this and other familial reasons, about a month ago when Ojulari was made the boss of Nigeria’s national oil company, Yoruba people, home and abroad, danced round the world. They thought the NNPC had become their grove.

There is a town called Oke Ode in Ifelodun Local Government Area of Kwara State. Chiefs and youths of that community competed for space in newspapers, on radio and TV with press releases thanking President Bola Tinubu and their own stars for the appointment of Ojulari. They said he was their son in whom they were very well pleased. The chiefs, in particular, added, for effect, that he was “able and capable of bringing the necessary turn-around in NNPC for the benefit of Nigeria and the entire citizenry.”

But the man by himself gave a definition of himself last week. He spoke extensively to BBC Hausa in flawless Hausa language, clearly and purposively choosing and declaring where he belongs. Newspapers did English translations of what he said: “I was surprised when people said I was not from the North. I am a child of the North, and I come from Ilorin. I was brought up in Kaduna State. I started learning Yoruba when I was 15 years old. When I left Kaduna, I went to Zaria to study, so I am a northerner,” he said — and added: “I need the support of the North to do this work well and bring development to the North and the whole of Nigeria…”

What Ojulari said is a culture jolt to Western Nigerians, and I saw it in more than one critical Yoruba circle. It is a reminder that the face is not necessarily the soul. It is also a warning that a name may and may not mirror allegiance or belonging.

Three things I noted in what the man said: That he is from the North is true and the truth; Kwara is geographically north. It appears settled forever, no matter what I may think or feel. That the man is from Ilorin will be declared false by Ilorin, and held to be very untrue by the people of Oke Ode, his father’s hometown. The city he claims, Ilorin, is in Kwara-Central senatorial district; the town that claims him, Oke Ode, is an Igbomina town that sits deep in the savanna of Kwara South. Much more fundamental is this: “I need the support of the North to do this work well and bring development to the North and the whole of Nigeria.” Now, read the last clause of that sentence again. Did you see that ‘the north’ comes first before ‘Nigeria’? So, between the two which one is really his country?

In the pantheon of the gods, some deities are more worthy than others. The North is that deity who stands by you with everything it has. When you have northern Nigeria on your side, you can sleep completely and totally. No ant will dare walk your skin; rodents won’t disturb your rest. Ojulari knew this as a proven fact. He, therefore, desperately wanted the North behind him. And, with that interview, the boss man has owned the North; the North is expected to accept and own him.

I discussed that interview with a big man from the North – a Fulani businessman. I told him that the oil man did not need that ethnic part of the interview. I expected the NNPC boss to know that these are very treacherous, testy, delicate times in Nigeria. Identity in Nigeria is not a buffet; you can’t claim Yoruba before appointment and do cultural code-switching after the swearing in. What define leaders here are the name, language, tribe, religion and geography they wear. And, each of those items has an opposite; the affirmation of one quickly alienates the other.

I believe Ojulari could claim his northernness without posting a disclaimer of his ethnic, linguistic and communal roots. His interview has stomped his feet on the eyes of that part of the earth which calls him son. The language and tone of the interview suggest his mother tongue is a footnote; an afterthought that came after 15 years. His hometown, Oke Ode, did not even feature at all in his story as told by him. I hope his Yoruba is strong enough for him to understand that rain beats one into the same house more than once. He can still make quiet amends.

A lesson: Butterfly gazed at her reflection in a clear pond and said, “These wings are too grand for an insect—I must be a bird! I am a bird!”

Butterfly convinced herself and stopped associating with insects; she opted for the assembly of birds.

In his majesty, the eagle arrived the next meeting of birds. He spotted butterfly and queried her:

“Why are you here?”

Beautiful butterfly replied: “I have wings like you. I fly. This is where I truly belong. I am a bird.”

The eagle smiled, patted butterfly on the back and gently told her: “You are truly beautiful, but you are not of our tribe. You flutter, we glide and soar. The world may keep praising your beauty but you should never let achievement, praise and adulation make you forget who you truly are.”

So, the Hausa-speaking Yorubaman who started learning Yoruba at the age of 15 should listen to the elders when they warn his butterfly never to think itself bird. Achebe’s Ikemefuna called Okonkwo father. We all know how fatal the boy’s run for cover turned out in his ‘father’s’ arms. May be I should kuku read out that part of the story: “As the man who had cleared his throat drew up and raised his matchet, Okonkwo looked away. He heard the blow. The pot fell and broke in the sand. He heard Ikemefuna cry, ‘My father, they have killed me!’, as he ran towards him. Dazed with fear, Okonkwo drew his matchet and cut him down…”

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

Good governance isn’t rocket science 

By Oseloka H. Obaze

Nigerians rarely take pride in their incumbent leaders. They have good reasons not. As a sixty-five years old nation, Nigeria has never been blessed with a leader, who Nigerians freely elected and loved for his charisma, ideology, vision or disruptive thinking; or for being an unrepentant patriot who imbues a deep sense of patriotism. Nigerians never had a Nelson Mandela, Jerry Rawlings, Julius Nyerere, or Thomas Sankara. We covet being like Singapore, but have never produced a Lee Kuan Yew. The fault is not in the nation’s God endowed destiny, but in those who choose third-rate leaders and their acolytes, who follow such bad leaders blindly.

Our national bane remains bad leadership. We continue to pay for it. Still there’s plentiful evidence that Nigerians are resigned to electing compromise candidates to public offices. In return, they have infinitely paid the high price of such poor leadership. Thus, Nigeria’s perverse politics and associated comeuppance is not so much the fault of the leaders as it is of the followers. Because Nigerians never elect seminal leaders, inefficient governance becomes the norm, as they opt for sectionally preferred leaders, who though they meet the compromise criteria, are hobbled by partisan clientelism.

Nigerian leaders become heroes only after they die. Being leadership heroes and legends in their lifetime is a rarity and that reality is toxic to good governance. These facts impact on our national development and good governance credentials.  Also, our poor governance statecraft has domestic and international implications. Domestically, our youths are being radicalized nationwide. Traveling abroad with a Nigerian passport tells the pathetic story.

As a nation, Nigeria has carved a niche of providing new indices of underdevelopment.  Recently, as the Economist magazine was disclosing that “Nigeria has more people without electricity than any other country” and that “fixing that will be fiendishly difficult,” Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, National Chairman of the ruling All Progressives Alliance (APC), brazenly avowed that there was nothing wrong with Nigeria being a one-party state, since China a one-party state was developmentally well off.  Well, what percentage of the people in China has electricity?  100%. Conversely, our non-salutary story is that the presidency is going off the national electricity grid and resorting to solar power. Was the announcement supposed to be a confidence-building measure? What electricity fate awaits Nigerians? Such dubious and contentious comparison coming from a prominent political leader overlooked a notable corollary: in China corrupt politicians and public officials are executed. Same should be true for Nigeria in order for Ganduje’s comparison to be valid. 

The consequences of Nigeria’s poor governance are sorely felt, when bad leaders make frivolous and tactless comments aimed at blanking out or justifying prevailing ineptitudes. The political opposition has enough arsenals to rubbish the APC government as being apathetic and incompetent. Take for instance our budgetary accounting. There is nothing more emblematic of fuzzy math and corruption, than when we don’t know the barrels of oil we produce daily or quarterly; or how much oil is stolen. On both counts, the figures emanating from the CBN, the Ministry of Finance and NNPC are frequently at variance. Concerning our national deficit, at the close of 2024, the Ministry of Finance had it pegged at N6.6 trillion; the World Bank at N10.5 trillion and the CBN at N14.7 trillion. DMO figures were astronomically higher. The only commonsensical deduction is that as a nation, we are badly leveraged and criminally indebted. Still, we continue borrowing for non-regenerative ventures.

The bucket list of what constitutes good governance is short.  Benchmarks of good governance are also few and easily achievable to provide an elongated value chain of dividends of democracy. Regrettably, as Nigerians, we play politics for the sake of politics, not for the sake of good governance or entrenching true democracy.  Our leadership elite do not play politics as the grounding norm for good governance.  They play politics to belong, to be in the corridors of power and to cash in. 

Good governance is not rocket science.  It will never be. But like democracy, good governance is hard work fostered by discipline. Good governance demands strict respect for the rule of law. So we have to work hard at it in order to fix our politics.  In a presidential system like ours, the separation of powers is imperative. As such, we must resolve to entrust our national interest chores to those with the capacity and commitment to serve.  We must also grasp that the enablers of good governance consists of the leaders, the people and the national institutions.  These are the pivotal operatives. Each has a critical, consistent and resolute role to play. Weak leaders, weak institutions and weak people cannot produce a robust government, society or sustainable development.  To wit, they cannot produce a vibrant democracy. Yet, working together they can be adaptive and transformative. They can orchestrate an orderly and productive society.  

Nigerians are not blind to their leadership challenges. Oddly enough, they are also not averse to holding on doggedly to “blind hope,” which according to the tragedian Aeschylus translates to “we are living and partly living.”  The manifestation of “blind hope” is now a national curse. To paraphrase a public policy interlocutor, “blind hope is a curse to every human, and every nation.” Most Nigerians are living dead or walking dead; thanks to our political rut and rot. Food and physical insecurity are rife. Healthcare delivery is a disaster. To paraphrase Pope Leo XIV, most Nigerians are “fed up with scandals, misused powers,” so much so “they no longer believe, no longer hope, and no longer pray because they think God has left.”  Indeed, most Nigerians believe God already left Nigeria to her own proclivities and detriment; considering the Pandemonium’s Paradise that Nigeria has become.

When Obu Udeozo avers in a poem in his seminal 2021 anthology titled, GODSelected Poems, that “…Ministers, governors, and senators of earthly pleasure, harvest copious dividends of unforgiving flames..;” he unfurls the insidiousness of statecraft that our present leaders serve, invest or bequeath on their constituents. Nigerian leaders rank high in the realm, where rhetoric, “prejudiced and loud communication” of failed policies and governance modalities drown out free speech and the aspirations of the “gathering of the voices of the weak who that have no voice.”  Nigerian leaders contrive poverty, hunger, insecurity and death as choice dividends of a presumed democracy. We now also attribute evident maladministration in INEC elections results and JAMB results to “glitches,” despite the respective institutional commitment to “free, fair, and credible electoral process,” and “service and integrity.”

Nigeria ambled into the status of a lawless nation long ago; not because there are no laws, but because there are no consequences for those who break the law regardless of their status.  The alarming adjunct is that our law enforcement institutions -judiciary, police, state security and paramilitary agencies- are all weak. We can now even add the military to that cadre. In its proper context, our unlawful inclinations and becoming a nation of scofflaws can be explained by the epigram in Khalil Gibran’s book, The Prophet, wherein a question was asked: “But what of our laws master? And he answered: You delight in laying down laws. Yet you delight more in breaking them.”  

We have other fault lines. Canvassing for full adherence to the rule of law and due process in a democracy does not consist of rhetoric, sound bites and propaganda. Good governance advocacy must speak to commitment and core values of democracy, complete with the checks and balances and total respect for constitutional dictates. These are anchored by the state’s unfettered service delivery and equal protection for every citizen. Sadly, our leaders gloss over these values. Nepotism has reached a new high. Preferential and discriminatory policies now induce cancel culture.

As we approach the 2027 general elections, we have entered a season of anomy. Defectors and defections are the norm.  Non-subliminal APC Presidential Campaign billboards now glut the nation. President Bola Tinubu’s second term campaign is visibly on. All these violate the extant Electoral Law.  But what does it matter? Financial profligacy is also on the rise. What galls the most is that the present leadership has appropriated the rights of approbation and reprobation. That is not a benchmark of good governance.  Years back, when Nigerians were perceptibly bedeviled by severe austerity due to poor governance, Nigerians protested under the rubric of “Occupy Nigeria.” Now that the economic and security conditions have worsened, all forms of protestation, which ought to be routine, has been muted.  Courage is on high demand. Yet courage has a deserted Nigerians as repression and reprisals manifest. The disunited political opposition seems cowed. Their complacency abets APC’s impunity.  

Some suggest that it’s no longer worth writing; protesting or speaking up o the ills of Nigeria as those in power neither read nor listen. I disagree. We must continue to harp on key national interest issues and challenges. We must also continue to offer possible, probable and plausible solutions. We must continue underlining that good governance is not rocket science. As such, those who can’t lead should get the hell out of the way in the national interest. Let those who can do the job lead for the common good and in the national interest. 

——

Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.

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