Introduction

When I was admitted to the Department of Political Science in 1980 as a freshman, straight from secondary school, Professor Humphrey Nwosu was one of the lecturers we encountered. He was the head of the sub-department of Public Administration, which owned the Local Government building that housed the Department of Political Science.

Though he was an energetic and ebullient man, he wasn’t exactly very popular with us for two main reasons: One, is that he normally fixed his lectures at 7 a.m. in the morning, and he never failed to show up for classes. He would in fact often be in the class before that 7 a.m., which led to some of us gossiping behind his back about a man who preferred to come jumping up and down in the class at a time in the morning that he should be keeping his wife company. The second reason Nwosu wasn’t quite popular with us was that Nigerian Universities in the 1980s and early 1990s was very ideologically driven, essentially between the Marxists (also called the ‘radical scholars’) and those who were variously called ‘bourgeois scholars’ or derided as the “educated representatives of the propertied class.”

Unfortunately, Nwosu was among those we called “bourgeois scholars.” We were told that the bourgeois scholars were not able to to appreciate the “dialectics of class struggle”, that their works were very “ahistorical”, with a “tendency to be arbitrary in their choice of analytical categories”, and that they failed to appreciate that the nature of the “productive force” and “social relations of production” were the motif forces of history. Though we knew that Nwosu made a First Class honours degree, however because we saw him as a “bourgeois scholar”, we ridiculed that accomplishment as being merely a First Class Honours in ‘Elements of Government’, not the sort of proper political science that the ‘radical scholars’ were teaching us. Mr Nwosu, on his own, blamed the ‘radical scholars’, the “Nnoli boys”, of exposing students to only one side of a complex reality. Though we regarded Nwosu as a ‘bourgeois scholar,’ we still respected him for the sheer force of his presence, or charisma if you like – unlike most of the other lecturers we regarded as ‘bourgeois scholars.’

I recall an incident with one of the ‘bourgeois scholars.’ He was teaching us something about “colonialism,” which was at that time the favourite whipping boy of the radical scholars, who made it compulsory that we should read and master such works as Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Okwudiba Nnoli’s Ethnic Politics in Nigeria, and Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. In fact, from Nnoli’s book we learnt that ethnicity in Nigeria started in the colonial urban centres and was fuelled by the colonial policy of ‘divide and rule.’ Rodney’s book squarely blamed colonialism for Africa’s underdevelopment, while Fanon’s book provided a psychoanalysis of the dehumanising effects of colonisation upon the individual and the nation.

When Nwosu left office in 1993 after the annulment of June 12 presidential election, he returned to teaching at the Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where he formally retired in 1999. Nwosu has published several books and peer-reviewed articles in both local and international journals. His books include Political Authority and Nigerian Civil Service (1977); Problems of Nigerian Administration (edited, 1985)…

With our understanding of colonialism from these three books and similar ones, I think we were tolerating the ‘bourgeois scholar’, until he wrote on the black board: “The benefits of colonialism.” We felt we have heard enough. One of us from the back of the class shouted, “Whaaat?!” In anger, the entire class walked out on him, believing that he did not know enough to teach us, or was teaching us the wrong stuff, despite the fact that we were just in our first year, or ‘class One’ as someone of us liked to call it in those days.

Though we regarded Nwosu as a “bourgeois scholar”, we also respected him as an effective administrator. In fact, behind the backs of the radical scholars, we mocked their relative lack of administrative capacity, compared to Nwosu. Professor Nnoli, the leader of the radical scholars, was the head of Department of Political Science in our first year in the department.

Humphrey Nwosu: a Brief Biography

Humphrey Nwosu was an astute and charismatic public administrator, academic, technocrat, and political scientist. He studied Political Science at the University of California at Berkeley, where he earned Master’s and doctoral degrees (Magna Cum Laude) in 1973 and 1976 respectively. He subsequently returned to teach at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where he rose to become a full-time tenured professor. In 1986, he was appointed by the Anambra State Government to serve as Commissioner of Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters and later Commissioner of Agriculture. He was appointed Chairman of the Nigeria Electoral Commission in 1989, to replace Professor Eme Awa, his former lecturer and mentor, who had fallen out of favour with the Babangida government.

When Mr Humphrey Nwosu left office in 1993 after the annulment of June 12 presidential election, he returned to teaching at the Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where he formally retired in 1999. Nwosu has published several books and peer-reviewed articles in both local and international journals. His books include Political Authority and Nigerian Civil Service (1977); Problems of Nigerian Administration (edited, 1985); A Book of Reading; Introduction to Politics; Moral Education in Nigeria; Conduct of Free and Fair Election in Nigeria: Speeches, Comments and Reflections (1991) and Laying the Foundation for Nigeria’s Democracy: My Account of June 12, 1993 Presidential Election and its Annulment (2008). Mr Humphrey Nwosu, breathed his last on Thursday, 24 October, in the United States of America, at the age of 83

What Does It Mean to Be a Reformer at the Crossroads?

A reformer is a change agent who is deliberate and intentional about improving the way things work. As an expression, the imagery often invoked is that of an intersection of two roads in which a person has to make a decision on which of the roads to take. Essentially, it means being at a stage when one has to take a critical or an important decision.

Humphrey Nwosu’s challenge was not just in helping to manage a transition to a full civilian rule, but also to facilitate the process of de-militarisation – that is the military handing over power to civilian authorities and accepting subordination to a civilian authority. This means that unlike the electoral bodies since 1999, which dealt only with the political class and its mode of competition for power, Nwosu had to deal with two humongous groups – the political class and the military establishment…

The above raises two important questions: Which reforms are we talking about in relations to Mr Nwosu? And at which crossroads?

Though it is obvious that Nwosu, given the number of public positions he had held, would have been at several crossroads, for most Nigerians, he is known for his role as the chairman of the National Election Commissions from 1989 to 1993. So which crossroads are we talking about?

Mr Nwosu’s Crossroads

Mr Humphrey Nwosu’s challenge was not just in helping to manage a transition to a full civilian rule, but also to facilitate the process of de-militarisation – that is the military handing over power to civilian authorities and accepting subordination to a civilian authority. This means that unlike the electoral bodies since 1999, which dealt only with the political class and its mode of competition for power, Nwosu had to deal with two humongous groups – the political class and the military establishment, including a faction of that establishment which did not want to lose its privileges by accepting a handover to a civilian political class.

The job of being the country’s chief electoral umpire is often called a poisoned chalice, in which rarely any umpire would come out of it with his reputation intact (Professor Jega, who organised the 2015 election, was mostly lucky that Jonathan conceded defeat). If just dealing with the political class makes the job of the chief electoral umpire to be a poisoned chalice, you can then imagine what it means to be an electoral umpire for both the political class and a politicised military.

De-militarisation would often raise the question of de-politicisation. How do you professionalise soldiers who had become used to political power and its appurtenances and to being superordinate to civilian authorities? As Elaigwu (2015:232) argued, “the demilitarization of the polity without adequate de-politicisation of the military is an invitation to chaos; yet paradoxically, that process of de-politicisation of the military involves the politicization of the military”.

Essentially, Babangida’s transition programme, in which at a point the country was running a diarchy, meant that the military as an establishment had become more politically conscious and was factionalised between those who wanted a handover to a civilian government and those who resented such. In fact, Babangida, in his recent autobiography, admitted that much when he declared that “there were fears, even at that early stage of the transition programme, that some members of the top hierarchy of the military were reluctant to relinquish power” (Babangida, 2025: 258).

Jideofor Adibe is a professor of Political Science and International Relations at Nasarawa State University and founder of Adonis & Abbey Publishers. He can be reached at: 0705 807 8841 (WhatsApp and Text messages only).

This was originally presented at a Colloquium on the Life and Times of Professor Humphrey Nwosu at Abuja on 25 March.

By Ikechukwu Amaechi

My March 13, 2025 column titled, “Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension: The joke is on Akpabio, Senate,” elicited diverse comments. I would have been surprised if it didn’t. The roforofo between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is no longer just a case of “two fighting” but a national debacle that has exposed Nigeria to international ridicule. Two of the comments were particularly instructive.

First, a female colleague who obviously has sympathy for the Senate President, asked rhetorically: “How is the joke on Akpabio? What are the facts on ground to warrant your conclusion? If you believed that Akpabio would promise Natasha ‘quality time’ in his house in any part of Akwa Ibom State, then you could believe anything.”

The second comment came from a serving Senator, who I know is not particularly a fan of Akpabio. Suffice it to say that he is one of the few federal lawmakers that I respect.

He wrote: “Ike, I know that Akpabio is on the crosshairs of everyone given the damning performance of the Tinubu government and the obvious missteps of the Senate President in handling this matter. However, she (Natasha) is not an innocent in this matter and has been manipulating public opinion. Some of us who are well aware of other issues not in the public domain regarding them (who were family friends and enjoyed fraternities) are understandably reluctant to engage in pillorying Akpabio. There is much more to all this.”

I agree that only Akpabio and Natasha know the full story, but I have no doubt that Akpabio made sexual advances to Natasha and she has evidence to back up her claim, which explains why the Senate President has made every effort to forestall a transparent investigation as demanded by well-meaning Nigerians. The most effective way to shut Natasha up is to allow for an open investigation but that will be too much of a risk for Akpabio to take. Unfortunately for him, resorting to the rather puerile theatrics of kissing his wife publicly at the drop of a hat, good optics as the gesture may be, cannot be a proof of innocence or even marital fidelity.

While such public show of affection may, indeed, be an indication that Akpabio loves his wife, Unoma, to bits, it cannot be a proof that he didn’t make passes at Natasha. Moreover, nothing says that men who have affairs with other women love their wives less and Nigerians are not interested in knowing how crazily in love he is with his delectable wife.

What those defending Akpabio seem not to realize is the fact that the issue at stake is not whether Akpabio made passes at Natasha, a woman of extravagant beauty. After all, as former Minister of Works, Senator Adeseye Ogunlewe, recently said, her beauty poses a problem for her because men will find it difficult to ignore her presence. Perhaps, Akpabio is one of those men to whom, according to Senator Ogunlewe, Natasha’s beauty has become a problem; men to who “it is a natural thing to look at beautiful women” and who are not expected to close their eyes when a beautiful woman is passing.

So, there is nothing wrong if Akpabio appreciates Natasha’s stunning beauty even though it will be morally wrong if the appreciation goes beyond the bounds of decency, more so when the woman in question is the wife of his bosom friend. But it becomes a national scandal, in fact a crime if the Senate President decides to demean and persecute her because his amorous advances were rebuffed which is exactly the allegation Natasha is making.

So, those who say that she is guilty of breaking Senate rules and deserves to be punished miss the point. Senator Natasha’s position is that her being called a club girl at plenary, relocation of her seat, though a prerogative of the Senate President, and removal as chairperson of the Local Content committee are all acts of victimization which would not have happened if she acceded to Akpabio’s request to “make him happy.” And her open rebellion, which Akpabio now used as an excuse to suspend her for six months was her own way of protesting against the perceived injustice.

Whenever I reflect on the Akpabio-Natasha debacle, what comes to my mind is the allegory of the tortoise that willfully refused entreaties from concerned friends who desperately tried to dissuade him from a disaster prone journey. Asked when he would return, his “not until I am disgraced” retort was foreboding. His friends, aghast, must have wondered what would spur him on such nihilistic mission.

Akpabio seems to have embarked on that tortoise-like journey from which he is unprepared to turn back until he is thoroughly disgraced. The sad thing is that he seems poised to throw mud not only at the Senate but the country in the process. Warriors, as the saying goes, pick their battles, a concept, which is a core principle in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” which emphasizes the importance of knowing when to fight and when not to.

The former governor of Akwa Ibom State should have known that this battle with Natasha is needless. If he was a man given to choosing his battles wisely, he should have known that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is the wrong person to pick a fight with because she is a ruthless fighter herself. Unlike Akpabio who was propelled to the Senate by the criminal Nigerian system even when he didn’t contest the primaries, Natasha conversely battled the system to a standstill to be at the Senate. She fought and overwhelmed a vicious ruling party and brutal political actors in Kogi State who don’t take prisoners and came out triumphant.

The fact that she is representing her senatorial district of birth – Kogi Central – rather than Delta State where she is married, on the platform of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the first elected female senator in Kogi State, should have told Akpabio something about the woman. Her parting “this injustice will not be sustained,” shot before she was escorted out of the Senate chambers on the day she was suspended, should have told Akpabio that he was dealing with a determined woman.

The fact that unlike her male colleagues – Femi Okurounmu (1999), Joseph Waku (2000), Arthur Nzeribe (2002), Isah Mohammed (2004), Ali Ndume (2017), Ovie Omo-Agege (2018) and Abdul Ningi (2024) – who went home sulking after their suspension, Natasha was not only defiant but escalated the matter internationally by presenting her case at a UN forum, speaking at the Women in Parliament session during the recently concluded Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting at the United Nations should have told Akpabio to tread carefully. Rather than being eclipsed, Natasha has become an international celebrity, granting interviews to the likes of BBC and Sky News, while her traducers have become international pariahs.

Having failed in all their machinations, Akpabio and his enablers plotted what they thought was a sucker punch – initiating her recall and submitting a petition to the INEC headquarters in Abuja. But Natasha, always a step ahead of the political Lilliputians, struck back, knowing as the U.S. Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who broke the record Tuesday for the longest speech on the Senate floor in U.S. history, noted that “the power of the people is greater than the people in power.”

Her adversaries knew that a successful homecoming for her will put a lie to their claim of having the numbers to recall her from the Senate. And because she must be stopped from coming home to disprove them, the state government, on Monday, conjured a fake security report which it used as an excuse to ban rallies and public gatherings. On Tuesday, the Commissioner of Police in Kogi, Miller Dantawaye, ordered that the proposed Natasha rally be stopped. To amplify the conspiracy, the chairman of Okehi local government, Amoka Eneji, declared an emergency curfew. Then, expecting that she would come on a convoy from Abuja, all the major roads in her senatorial district were barricaded with roadblocks mounted on every stretch. But the indefatigable political warrior outsmarted them, once again, and flew in a helicopter to the warm embrace of her constituents.

What happened in Okehi on Tuesday was exactly what her political detractors didn’t want the world to see – thousands of supporters defying government intimidation and trekking many kilometres in the absence of transportation to welcome their senator home. The crowd was massive and purely organic. The love was real and a grateful Natasha crowed on Wednesday: “It is now very clear to the whole world how popular I am in my constituency.”

I dare say that Natasha will win this battle. From what happened on Tuesday, it is now clear to even her detractors that she bonds with her constituents in a way that 99.9 per cent of Nigerian politicians can’t. That is a huge political capital. Akpabio will be the ultimate loser. He should better grow up.

The first law of holes is an adage which says, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Simply put, it is a metaphor which warns that when in an untenable position, it is best to stop making the situation worse. Right now, Akpabio is in an untenable position in this Natasha saga. The wise thing to do is to pull back and de-escalate. But blinded by hubris and a warped sense of invincibility, he continues to dig.

In his 1961 book, The Theatre of the Absurd, Martin Julius Esslin, a Hungarian-born British journalist and professor of drama, lamented what he called absurdism – the inevitable devaluation of ideals, purity, and purpose. Esslin couldn’t have had the 10th Nigerian Senate in mind when he wrote his famed book 64 years ago. But nothing captures the state of affairs in the Akpabio-led red chamber of the National Assembly more profoundly than Esslin’s “Theatre of the Absurd.”

That the 10th Senate has become a theatre of the absurd is an understatement. What is worse, the situation is getting more bizarre by the day, a situation which the theatre critic further labelled “the absurdity of the absurd.” Truth be told, Akpabio has done terrible damage to the law making arm of government by his unreasonableness. It is high time he stopped being silly.

By Sylvester Udemezue

A major reason I have hardly said anything since the state of emergency was declared on Rivers State on 18 March 2025, is because I feel time has come for one to take these discussions to the next level. Stay tuned for my book, “Road To State Of Emergency In The State of Rivers: Actors, Factors And Lessons”, coming soon. Meanwhile, below is a summary of my initial legal opinion on the ugly brouhaha:

1. Considering the state of affairs (as they appeared) as of 18 March 2025, the overall interest of indigenes and residents of Rivers State who had already been enveloped by fear and trepidation, the duty of Mr President Tinubu to maintain order and security in Rivers State, and the purpose and purport of the provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution, it appears to me that the State of Emergency declared on Rivers State on 18/03/2025, was constitutionally justifiable; all the ingredients to reasonably justify a State of Emergency (SoE) in line with the provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution appeared present as of 18/March/2025. In my opinion, the President did not need to wait until there was actual breakdown of law and order in Rivers State. I respectfully submit that imminent danger of total breakdown of law and order as we saw, based on the actions of the principal actors, had provided the needed constitutional justification. Hence, I agree with the following statement by the Hon Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN: “…when do you think he (President Tinubu) should have come in? Is it when everything has been destroyed? I don’t think so…If the President had waited a day longer, only God knows what would have followed….. The law envisages that you intervene when there is imminent danger to the security of lives and property. People were killing themselves. Those who live there are living in fear”.
2. Was the tension in Rivers State (after the Supreme Court judgment) leading to the SoE a manufactured, artificial tension, a mere smokescreen intentionally created or exaggerated to manipulate the scenario towards achieving a specific outcome or goal or to create an atmosphere that justified the imposition of a SoE? Put differently, was it all a situation where some people had created confusions in order to conceal their true intentions or actions? In my opinion, it appears that most of the ingredients that could be said to have necessitated the declaration of a SoE in Rivers State were premeditated – as in carefully, slyly, and deliberately created with a view to ensuring there were sufficient factors to justify what later followed. As an example, after the Supreme Court Judgment of 28 February 2025, the group of 27 legislators had immediately begun making impractical demands on Governor Fubara, issuing unreasonable, unparliamentary ultimatums and engaging in actions calculated to practically frustrate Governor Fubara’s demonstrated genuine efforts to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court. The House had locked the Governor out of the Assembly complex, and seeing that the Governor was nevertheless genuinely undeterred in his resolve to present the 2025 budget to the House, the House suddenly adjourned sine die even after due receipt of Governor Fubara’s third letter indicating the Governor’s decision to appear before the House to represent the budget on 19 March 2025. Then suddenly thereafter appeared a Notice of Impeachment realing out a number of impeachment grounds, all calculated to create the level of impasse and tension that could be said to be necessary to justify the imposition of a SoE on Rivers State. The next thing was news of alleged attacks on oil pipelines in Port Harcourt which the Federal Government then saw as the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Unfortunately, who the attackers are and who the sponsors are, have yet to be announced even after two “suspects” have reportedly been arrested in connection with the alleged “attacks”. The Federal Government has said that it’s either Fubara teleguided the attack or didn’t distance himself therefrom and didn’t alert the FG of the alleged attacks. Unfortunately, in making these claims, FG forgot that the State of Emergency was declared on the same day as news of the alleged attacks. Meanwhile, one may ask whether the suspects reportedly arrested over the incident have not been interrogated? What is in their statement? Did they say Fubara was behind them? Why not the Police make their statements public to clear all doubts?
3. Are Reported Explosions Mere False Narratives? Were the explosion stories mere underhanded or deceptive schemes intentionally created to manipulate public opinion or perception? A news report on 18/03/2025 had it that “An explosion has rocked Nigeria’s major crude oil pipeline, the Trans-Niger Pipeline at Bodo, Gokana Local Government Area of Rivers State. The explosion reportedly occurred Monday night, triggering a fire along a critical section of the pipeline that exports crude oil to the Bonny Terminal. It is currently unknown whether the incident was an act of sabotage….” (see Nairametrics; 18 March 2025). A later report on the same 18 March 2025 claimed that the Rivers State Police Command had arrested two persons over the Trans-Niger Pipeline Explosion In Rivers State. Explaining that the arrested persons had been taken in for questioning, the spokesperson of the Rivers State Police Command, Grace Iringe-Iroko, said on 18 March 2025: “The Rivers State Police Command has commenced a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the fire. In connection with this, two individuals have been taken in for questioning as part of efforts to uncover any potential act of sabotage.” (See: “Police Arrest Two Over Trans-Niger Pipeline Explosion In Rivers”; ChannelsTV; 18 February 2025). However, insisting that there was no blast or explosion on their facility, and affirming that the pipeline had been tested and it passed the integrity test, the spokesperson of Renaissance Africa Energy Holdings, owners of the Trans Niger Pipeline in Bodo Community, Gokana Local Government Area of Rivers State said, “The pipeline is back in operation. First of all, we had no blasts or explosions in our facilities. We had an unauthorised entry from the operations. Then we sent a team there. The team saw that the site had been accessed. We got a call, and a team went out and saw that there were attempts at excavation and arson. But of course, the fire had burnt out. They did an inspection, and there was an adjacent pipeline. They tested that and it passed the integrity test. I think the operations went through that adjacent pipeline. Operations are ongoing as we speak.” (See: “Operations resume at Trans Niger Pipeline in Rivers”; Punch; 20 March 2025).
4. If we should accept the suggestion that the SoE was declared partly because pipelines were reportedly “blown up”, then right-thinking bystanders might begin to ask, how many SoE were declared when, during Yar’ardua’s administration, hundreds of pipelines were being blown up DAILY, human beings kidnapped and killed while other government facilities were being destroyed by militants in the Niger Delta, then agitating for either resource control or a Niger Delta state? Thereafter, under Buhari’s watch, Niger Delta (ND) militants (under the umbrella of the “Niger Delta Avengers”) had revived their agitation and immediately started blowing up pipelines in the ND, whose effect reduced Nigeria’s oil production from 2.5 million barrels per day to about 400,000 barrels. Nigerian economy had as a result slid into a recession, forcing VP Osinbajo to relocate to the ND in an effort to bring back peace. How many SoE’s were declared then? Even as we write, many LGA’s in parts of the Northeast, Northwest and Nortcentral are not only being terrorized by Boko Haram, Bandits and other terrorists, but are under active control of some of these terrorists, with Nigerian military personnel engaged in relentless campaigns to rid the areas of terrorists. How many SoE’s have been declared?
5. Is Governor Fubara’s Temporary Removal Unlawful? In my opinion, with due respect, the suspension of elected officials in Rivers State is unlawful, unconstitutional and reasonably unjustifiable. Besides, such a suspension was absolutely unnecessary in the present circumstances. The declaration of a SoE can coexist peacefully, seamlessly and effectively with all elected and democractic institutions and officials in Rivers State functioning. Further, with due respect, it’s a lame argument for anyone to argue that Governor Fubara hasn’t really been removed from office. With due respect. suspension amounts to a “temporary removal”, and is therefore a form of removal. I thus agree with the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, that “When you are suspended, your occupancy of that office for that moment is terminated. You cannot perform your duties – it is, in essence, a removal. It may be short-lived, but it remains a removal. For anyone to argue otherwise is to stand logic on its head.”
6. Is Governor Fubara To Blame For The “Crisis” In Rivers State, Leading To A SoE? I respectfully disagree with any opinion that Gov Sim Fubara, by his words or actions or otherwise, had instigated any violence or terrorism or otherwise preached or promised or supported violence or terrorism or other destruction (if any) of public facilities in any part of Rivers State. Blaming him in this wise amounts to giving a man a bad name in order to justify injustice against him. I have seen some people saying Governor Fubara had earlier at a public event promised the youths that at the appropriate time, he (Fubara) would give them instructions or tell them what to do. This, some people say, is evidence of instigation of violence. I disagree. Questions Arising: (1) What was the context in which the Governor made the alleged statement? (2) What is the appropriate interpretation to be given to the expression “instruction” or “I will tell you what to do”? (3) Isn’t it hasty, unfounded, and accordingly unjust, unfair for anyone to jump into the conclusion that the instruction the Governor had in mind was to instigate violence? In my opinion, the suggestion in some quarters, that Governor Fubara was behind alleged “attacks” (if any) on oil facilities on 18/03/2025, is hollow; no reasonable or rational or legally supportable evidence to sustain that allegation. Besides, why didn’t FG contact the Governor after the alleged “explosions”, to hear from him? Why the hasty conclusion that Fubara was the instigator? For the avoidance of doubts, I am not saying there were or there weren’t explosions or that Fubara was or wasn’t the instigator. What I am saying is that up to this moment, there has been no iota of credible evidence linking the Governor to the alleged attack or attacks. I thus disagree with suggestions, that the Governor had “teleguided” militants to blow up oil pipelines. I disagree also with the suggestion that “The governor failed to make a request to the president to intervene in saving the oil installations”. The State of Emergency was declared on the same date the explosions allegedly occurred. How could it be validly argued that the Governor had already failed to alert the FG? By the way, assuming the governor was culpable, which aspect of our law authorizes an elected President to remove or suspend an elected Governor under any circumstances whatsoever? Couldn’t threat of insecurity or actual insecurity in Rivers State be taken care of without suspending the Governor? Has the Governor been suspended in all the State currently under heavy and worsening insecurity – Boko Haram, Bandits, ISWAP, etc?
7. Suspending Fubara And Leaving Wike Unfair? This is not to suggest that any legal justification exists for the suspension of the Governor and other elected officials, but since Mr President in his wisdom chose to suspend Governor Fubara, Mr President should have equally suspended Nyesome Wike who is obviously the principal actor and Fubara’s main rival in the entire imbroglio. With due respect, suspension of Gov Fubara for six months without suspending Wike as the FCT Minister for the same period of six months is unfair, unjustifiable, inequitable and could be viewed as capable of placing Wike as a judge in his own case, which is a violation of an aspect of natural justice. Nyesome Wike is a principal party in the Rivers State imbroglio. Now, during the next six months, Wike will continue to sit as a principal member of the Federal Executive Council that has the responsibility to direct and supervise the affairs of the Sole Administrator in Rivers State. Does this not give Wike an undue advantage and also making him a judge in his own case?
8. Did Governor Fubara Disrespect President Tinubu’s Deal? I answer no! In my opinion, Governor Fubara and his camp had obeyed the Peace Deal brokered by President Tinubu in December 2023 to end the friction in Rivers State. The other side had evidently frustrated the deal, making the deal look (I’m not saying it’s) in the eyes of reasonable bystanders as a mere ploy designed to hoodwink Governor Fubara into taking steps that would ultimately confer on the other side an undue advantage in court, as we later saw in Governor Fubara’s withdrawal of the Counter Affidavit containing his own story/case and defence. That singular action was capitalized on by the other party to get favourable judgments against Fubara, up to the highest court.
9. Besides, after the Supreme Court judgment of 28 February 2025, it was the other side (not Governor Fubara) that frustrated all efforts to ease the tension and bring back peace in Rivers State. In response to the unparliamentary ultimatum issued by the House to Governor Fubara on presentation of the 2025 budget, Governor Fubara had written the House inviting them to a parley whereat was to be discussed issues including budget presentation, to promote reconciliation. The House, of course teleguided by their boss, turned down the invitation. Governor Fubara then wrote to inform them he was coming on a certain date to present the budget. The letter was duly served, but upon his arrival at the House for the proposed budget presentation, Governor Fubara was deliberately locked out by the House. Governor Fubara went back and wrote and served on the House, yet another letter informing the House that he would come again on 19 March 2025 for the budget presentation. The House responded with an indefinite adjournment followed by a 19-ground impeachment notice served on the Governor. The next thing were reported “attacks” on oil facilities in the morning of 18 March 2025 followed on the same day by the imposition of a SoE on the State accompanied by the temporary removal of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, and members of the House in place of whom a Sole Administrator was appointed to oversee the affairs of the State for an initial period of six months.
10. Did Governor Fubara commit any impeachable offence(s)? The grounds of impeachment contained in the Impeachment Notice issued by the House to the Governor are in my opinion legally baseless, unfounded. Besides, the Impeachment Notice in my opinion was part of the scheme to create tension and thereby set the tone for what later happened on 18 March 2025. I am not saying Governor Fubara is infallible. I have identified one or two mistakes on his part, to be discussed in full in the main work.
11. With due respect, looking at the manner of the Supreme Court judgment on Rivers State, and generally the manner the judiciary handled the Rivers State imbroglio, it may appear difficult and indeed would take long for the Nigerian judiciary to regain its pride of place as “the temple of justice, the last hope of the common man, a bastion of hope for the sustenance of true democracy, rule of law and due administration of justice, the impartial arbiter”. Besides, it is doubtful if “public belief and confidence in the disposition and ability of the courts to dispense justice with utmost impartiality, notwithstanding whose ox is gored and ensure that in all cases, justice is not only done, but is seen clearly to be done” is still in tact. I once wrote that “Judicial and other officers involved in the administration of justice must therefore engage and be seen to engage only in conduct and pronouncements that inspire, promote and sustain- rather than retard- public confidence and respect”. The question however is whether the Nigerian judiciary takes this suggestion seriously. Moreover, it appears that Hon Justice Oputa’s assurance in the case of Military Governor of Lagos State v Odumewgu-Ojukwu, that “the law is no respecter of persons, powers and principalities” is no longer tenable or viable in Nigeria. Furthermore, the belief that in Nigeria, there are no powerful institutions but only powerful persons appears to be real after all. Lastly, it’s now clearer that lawyers and the judiciary are the major stumbling blocks to achieving progress, prosperity, and civilization for Nigerians. To put it aptly, lawyers and the Nigerian judiciary have constituted themselves a grave threat to effective operation of democracy and constitutionalism in Nigeria.
12. Please stay tuned for the major work, wherein no stone is left untouched about the factors and actors, takeaways and lessons on the road to the state of emergency in the state of Rivers State. The primary research methodology is sociolegal with a multidimensional blend of several research objectives, techniques and approaches, including the Descriptive, Explanatory, Evaluative, Observatory, Analytical, Critical, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Predictive or Prognostic.
    Respectfully,
    §¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
    Sylvester Udemezue (udems).
    Legal Practitioner; Law Teacher; Public-Interest Law Advocate; Public Counselor; Rule of Law and Good Governance Promoter; Public Speaker; Legal Affairs Commentator; and the Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM) [A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group]
    08021365545
    [email protected]
    (02 April 2025)

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

In the write-up, I will do a brief summary of the crucial role and importance of the leadership of the national oil company of any country to take steps to translate the revenue it generates into positive impact upon the citizens of the said country.

The comparison is between two countries that are the highest crude oil producing countries in Africa and the middle East namely Nigeria and Saudi Arabia as at the year 2008.

“In 2008, Nigeria was indeed the largest crude oil producer in Africa, with an average daily production of 1.94 million barrels, according to the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE).”

“Yes, in 2008, Saudi Arabia was indeed the highest crude oil producer in the Gulf region, with a production capacity estimated at around 11 million barrels per day.”

However, in terms of the positive impact upon greater percentage of citizens of Nigeria and Saudi Arabia attributable to these high revenues from crude oil production, it is a tale of different strokes for different folks.

Let me illustrate this from a real life example of two PhD candidates from both countries who were at the University of London at the same time period.

In the year 2008, I witnessed first-hand the positive impact of crude oil revenues upon the lives of citizens of Saudi Arabia.

It was in April 2008 that I resumed as a PhD law student at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

I was a beneficiary of a fully funded government scholarship. I had a letter from the government scholarship board which I submitted to the authorities of the University of London.

At the hostel of the University of London at Russell Square, London (which was in front of Paddington Train Station), I met a fellow PhD candidate who was also a PhD law student at Queen Mary, University of London.

He too was a beneficiary of the government of Saudi Arabia’s fully funded scholarship.

But that is as far as the comparisons went!!!

Dr. Faisal Al-Fadhel, the PhD student from Saudi Arabia completed his PhD study within the prescribed period of three years!!!

However, even though I had completed writing of my own PhD thesis even before the prescribed period, the University of London could not allow me to graduate because the government of Nigeria had not paid my tuition fees!!!

Even though Dr. Faisal Al-Fadhel and myself were schoolmates, he led a more comfortable life than myself in the United Kingdom, thanks to prompt and regular payment of his scholarship bursary funds!!!

To his credit he bought me a brand new SONY, laptop computer to use in writing my PhD thesis and for editing his own thesis.

Eventually, with funds from his government scholarship, He even had the funds to bring over his wife from Saudi Arabia and they moved out of the hostel to reside in the Russell Square area of London where rent is steep.

He graduated before myself and returned home to Saudi Arabia to take up a high paying job as a lawyer and Director in one of the government agencies in Saudi Arabia.

He was able to invite me in a fully funded visit to Saudi Arabia as a resource person for a training workshop on legal drafting for some government of Saudi Arabia lawyers!!!

The foregoing shows how the proper management by the national oil company of Saudi Arabia has ensured that its citizens are able to enjoy the proceeds of crude oil revenues!!!

During my PhD study, I used litigation arising from the Nigerian oil and gas industry as a case study of the negative consequences of poor legal drafting of Nigeria’s oil and gas legislation.

I was able to identify over 500 lawsuits involving the Nigerian national oil company (NNPC) and the legislation that established it (NNPC Act, 1977) which gulped over $500,000,000 from Nigeria’s economy from 1960 to 2008. However, the same cannot be said of the national oil company of Saudi Arabia and its relevant oil (Aramco) and gas legislation!!!

In conclusion, it is for the foregoing reasons that we salute President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) for his recent changes in the appointment of the leadership of Nigeria’s national oil company.

These recent appointments are made with the understanding that the NNPC if well managed can deliver the much needed revenue for turn-around of Nigeria’s economy for the better. Which in turn would improve the quality of lives of its citizens.

Below is the news report of the said recent changes of the leadership of the NNPC by PBAT as follows:

“President Bola Tinubu has sacked the board of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) including its Group Chief Executive Officer, Mele Kyari and board chairman Pius Akinyelure.

The decision, effective April 2, 2025, was announced in a statement by presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga.

President Tinubu cited the need for enhanced operational efficiency, restored investor confidence, and a more commercially viable NNPC as the driving forces behind the decision.

Invoking his powers under Section 59(2) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, he reconstituted the board with new leadership aimed at repositioning NNPC Limited for greater productivity and alignment with global best practices.

Kyari was first appointed NNPC chief by former President Muhammadu Buhari but was reappointed in 2023 by President Tinubu.

As part of the overhaul, Bayo Ojulari takes over from Kyari as the new group CEO, while Ahmadu Musa Kida has been appointed as NNPC’s new non-executive chairman, replacing Pius Akinyelure. Also, Adedapo Segun has been confirmed as the company’s chief financial officer (CFO).

In line with the PIA, the president also appointed six non-executive directors from each geopolitical zone.

They include Bello Rabiu representing the north-west, Yusuf Usman from the north-east, and Babs Omotowa, a former managing director of the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG), for the north-central.

Others are Austin Avuru for the south-south, David Ige for the south-west, and Henry Obih for the south-east.

Meanwhile, Lydia Shehu Jafiya, the permanent secretary of the federal ministry of finance, and Aminu Said Ahmed of the ministry of petroleum resources will represent their respective ministries on the new board.

“This restructuring is aimed at repositioning NNPC Limited for greater productivity and efficiency in line with global best practices. We are taking bold steps to transform the company into a more commercially driven and transparent entity,” the statement reads.

The changes take effect immediately, and the new board has been handed a strategic action plan, which includes a “review of NNPC-operated and Joint Venture Assets to ensure alignment with value maximisation objectives”.