Three Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have gone into lockdown after “terroristic threats” were directed at the campus, according to local reports.
Alabama State University, Hampton University and Virginia State University locked down the morning of Thursday, Sept. 11, after unspecified threats were made against all three campuses.
Virginia State shared an “urgent alert” at 8:30 a.m. ET, declaring the campus closed and advising students, faculty, and staff to check their emails. In a statement to local 8News, a school representative said the closure was “due to a potential threat” and that students who are on campus should remain indoors.
SaharaReporters investigation has exposed how a man registered five companies with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) within two days and then used those companies, alongside three others he had earlier registered, to win suspiciously inflated contracts from the Nigeria Police Force.
According to the investigation, five companies — Akulight Technologies Limited, Mag-Tram Systems Limited, Drip-CHS Tech Nigeria Limited, Elapsotic Ventures Limited, and Danlokey Systems Limited — were registered with the CAC between January 3 and 4, 2023.
Danlokey Systems Limited was registered on January 4, 2023. Elapsotic Ventures Limited was registered on January 3, 2023. Drip-CHS Tech Nigeria Limited was registered on January 4, 2023. Mag-Tram Systems Limited was registered on January 3, 2023.
Akulight Technologies Limited was registered on January 3, 2023. All five companies are owned by one man: Oranyedu Chukwudi Samuel.
Danlokey Systems Limited, Drip-CHS Tech Nigeria Limited, and Mag-Tram Systems Limited operate from the same address — Plot D45H, SCC Road, Usafa Plaza, Abuja, FCT. Meanwhile, Akulight Technologies Limited and Elapsotic Ventures Limited both operate from No. 20, Area 1 Shopping Complex, Shop S5H, Ground Floor, Abuja, FCT.
Apart from the five companies registered between January 3 and 4, 2023, he also deployed three others he had registered earlier — Chumchuks Investment Limited, Olycee Ventures Limited, and Waves Fulfillment Limited — to win contracts from the Force.
Investigations show that the five companies registered between January 3 and 4, 2023, subsequently received 366 payments between August 30, 2023, and December 30, 2024. The payments totalled approximately N3.4 billion.
The breakdown shows that Elapsotic Ventures received a total of N820.5 million across 91 payments between August 30, 2023, and December 30, 2024.
Akulight Technologies Limited was paid N590.5 million across 71 payments by the Nigeria Police from August 30, 2023, to December 30, 2024.
Danlokey Systems Limited received N753.1 million in 70 payments between August 30, 2023, and December 30, 2024. Drip-CHS Tech Nigeria Limited received N580.3 million, broken down into 56 payments between August 30, 2023, and December 30, 2024.
Further review shows that Mag-Tram Systems Limited received N693.8 million in 78 payments between August 30, 2023, and December 30, 2024.
In total, the five companies registered with the CAC on January 3 and 4, 2023, by Oranyedu Chukwudi Samuel received payments worth about N3.4 billion — all between August 30, 2023, and December 30, 2024.
Several specific payments and items stand out.
On August 30, 2023, Akulight Technologies received N8.6 million for the supply of canned baked beans as consumables and logistics requirements for personnel deployed to carry out security operations and intelligence gathering in Borno State.
On October 5, 2023, the police paid N8.6 million to Akulight for 25 cartons of canned beef and other consumables. On October 26, 2023, another N8.6 million was paid to Akulight for 20 cartons of canned beef and other consumables.
On December 12, 2023, Akulight was paid N8.6 million for 30 cartons of Hobnobs biscuits, which implies each carton cost N286,666. On December 11, 2023, Akulight received N8.6 million for 20 cartons (50 pieces per carton) of Titus sardines — valuing each carton at N430,000, or N8,600 per tin.
SaharaReporters’ checks show that a standard carton of Titus sardines (50 pieces) costs about N75,500–N87,000 on commercial platforms — far lower than the N430,000 per carton the Nigeria Police paid. One unit of Titus sardine is sold at about N1,990 on Supermart, compared with the N8,600 per tin the police paid to Akulight Technologies.
On December 26, 2023, the police paid N8.6 million to Akulight for 12 cartons of Geisha sardines — N716,666 per carton. On the same day, another N8.6 million was paid for 10 cartons of Geisha, valued at N860,000 per carton. A further N8.6 million was also paid for 14 cartons of Geisha sardines.
On April 4, 2024, the police paid N8.7 million for 30 cartons of Owen Rich biscuits, amounting to N290,866 per carton. The police also made payments such as N8.2 million for cartons of Milo (10 sachets × 24).
Further review shows that, in total, the Nigeria Police Force spent N22.282 million on 85 cartons of Cream Crackers biscuits. The payments were made in three tranches: N8.136 million on August 30, 2023; N7.073 million on October 4, 2023; and N7.073 million on October 26, 2023 — an average cost of N261,717 per carton.
Also, on November 8, 2023, a sum of N7.9 million was paid for 25 cartons of Titus sardines. On December 26, 2023, another N8.6 million was spent as payment for 15 cartons of corn flakes.
One of the many contracts awarded included the supply of 12 cartons of Ovaltine tea at the rate of N8.2 million. The payment was made on April 17, 2024, meaning each carton cost N683,333.
A previous SaharaReporters review of the public payments portal, Govspend, revealed that the Force paid N13.3 million for 24 packs of toilet rolls. According to the records, the money was paid in two tranches between April and July 2023 for Carla Rose toilet rolls.
On April 21, 2023, the police paid N6.558 million to Waves Fulfillment Limited for 12 packs of toilet rolls (Carla Rose, 48 rolls per pack). On July 27, 2023, another payment of N6.8 million was made to the same company for “12 pkts of toilet rolls (Carla Rose 48 each per packet).”
This means that between April 21 and July 27, 2023, the police spent a total of N13.3 million on 24 packets of Carla Rose toilet rolls.
The records also show N6.852 million paid on July 27, 2023, and N7.6 million paid on April 5, 2024, both to Waves Fulfillment Limited.
On November 13, 2024, the police paid N8.023 million to Chumchuks Investment Limited for one carton of powdered Peak Milk
The next day, the same company received another N8.023 million for the same purpose. On October 24, 2024, Olycee Ventures Limited was paid N8.6 million for 10 cartons of powdered Peak Milk.
Elapsotic Ventures Limited received N8.5 million for 11 cartons of powdered Peak Milk. Drip-CHS Tech Nigeria Limited got N8.7 million for 10 cartons of powdered Peak Milk.
On October 26, 2023, N7.9 million was paid to Mag-Tram Systems Limited for the supply of canned beef. On December 12, 2023, N7.5 million was paid to Mag-Tram for 20 cartons of Titus sardine. On December 26, 2023, another payment of N8.7 million was made for 10 cartons of Hobnobs biscuits.
Beyond the clear issues of contract inflation, it remains unclear why police authorities split the contracts into multiple payments to multiple companies — all owned by the same person.
The Nigerian Public Procurement law, in Part IV, 16(d) states that: “All Procurements must be done in a manner which is ‘transparent, timely, equitable for ensuring accountability.’” It was also stated in 16(e) that contracts should be awarded to achieve “value for money and fitness for the purpose.”
SaharaReporters’ findings raise serious questions about procurement oversight, possible conflict of interest, and value-for-money standards in the Force’s contracting processes.
Hon Fatoumatta Njal, an elected female member of parliament in The Gambia and Chairperson of the Gender and Children’s Welfare Committee of the Gambia Parliament, has called on Nigeria’s Senate to reinstate Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Likewise, the Founder, School of Politics, Policy and Governance, Dr Obiageli ‘Oby’ Ezekwesili, has urged the Senate to recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan without delay and cease its scandalous misappropriation of public office powers to break laws and breach Nigeria’s Constitution.
In a letter to the Senate, Njal, a former member of the Ecowas Parliament and current member of the Pan African Parliament wrote that: “As only 3 female out of 53 elected members, I take this opportunity to raise the lone voice of female representatives in the subregion” adding: “Today it Is the distinguished senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan, tomorrow it could be me.”
Stressing, “I believe that after the six months of unlawful suspension, she must be reinstated with Immediate effect,’ Hon. Njal pointed out that: “On 4th July 2025, Hon. Justice B.F.M. Nyako delivered judgment on the high-profile suit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduagha.”
Her letter further reads:
“On the suspension matter, the court held that to suspend a member for a period of 6 months equals to a suspension for 180 days, and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people and that the court found excessive and over reaching noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution.
“The courts further stated that the Senate had the power to, and it believed then that the Senate should have recalled Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, allowing her resume representing the people who sent her there to represent them.
“The Senate, the second arm of Federal Republic, as well as the legislature arm should have been seen to adhere and respect the court’s judgment. However, it blatantly refused to obey. I call the attention of the senate that in law, one must obey orders and then challenge a court order If need arises.
“Irrespective of this principle, the Senate refused the Distinguished Senator admission to the premises on the 22nd July 2025. In the same regard, the Senate, in total disregard of its own Standing Orders, has now extended the unlawful suspension beyond the stipulated six months.
“This is a total affront to the rule of law and disregard to the court’s ruling of the same court the senate is relying on to extend the suspension.
“The 5enate should know that leadership is not about silencing voices, especially those who dare to & speak truth with courage and Integrity.
“The fact that Senator Natasha’s only crime was to speak truth to power is a strong signal of the Senate’s move in silencing dissenting voices.
“Senator Natasha represents not only her constituents but also the hopes of millions of women and youth, not only in Nigera but the world at large. Women and youths who believe in justice, transparency, and equal representation.
“Her continued exclusion from the Senate is not only an affront to her rights but a denial of the democratic principles that binds Nigeria as a nation.
“As the largest country in the Ecowas, Nigeria must take the role of parent nation and set good example at Ecowas level.
“I therefore call on the leadership of Senate of Nigeria to honor the rule of law and the timeline of Senator Natasha’s unlawful suspension.
“The Six months is over and as a woman in leadership, a woman that respects the Nie of law, a Woman that believes in the empowerment, the protection of the rights of women and most importantly, a woman that yearns for more women representation in elective positions, I firmly call on the immediate recall of the Senator as I believe that Justice delayed is justice denied.
“Senator Natasha must be allowed to resume her duties immediately without any further delay. Nigeria needs all its voices at the table, especially those that dare to challenge the status quo and stand for her fundamental human rights. Let us not be silent when injustice speaks the loudest. Let us stand for what is right. I herby submit my demands.”
On her part, Ezekwesili called on Nigerians to unify their voices and take a collective stand against the continuing constitutional assault, which, according to her, has been ongoing for six months.
The two-time minister, in a statement tagged ‘Senate’s Constitutional Overreach in the Case of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’, noted that democracy dies when laws become weapons and lawmakers become serial lawbreakers.
She stated, “Six months have passed since the unconstitutional suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on March 6, 2025. The senator representing the people of Kogi Central Senatorial District was suspended following her allegation of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
“These six months have witnessed an unprecedented assault on constitutional principles, judicial authority, and the very foundations of our democratic institutions. Rather than transparently investigate the allegation against the Senate President, an errant political class has used this opportunity to taunt citizens on how successfully they have captured the Nigerian state, perpetrating unlimited abuse with zero accountability or fear of consequences.”
The Senate justified its latest decision with the claim that “the matter remains sub judice,” and that until the judicial process is concluded, no administrative action could be taken to facilitate her resumption.
“This reasoning is fundamentally flawed,” Ezekwesili argued. “The Senate cannot use pending litigation as justification to prolong an already unconstitutional suspension that has exceeded its own prescribed limits.
“When the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, ruled that the six-month suspension was ‘excessive’ and violated constitutional principles, the court affirmed what legal scholars had warned: the Senate’s action exceeded reasonable legislative discipline.”
Ezekwesili added that the court’s reasoning was unambiguous, as suspending a lawmaker for six months when the National Assembly sits for only 181 days yearly, effectively denies constituents their right to representation for nearly an entire legislative session.
“I had to write this memo despite my considered decision to stop wasting my effort on an evidently unreasonable political class. There is sufficient reason to believe that those in power have chosen self-destruction, and no counsel can stop them.
“Yet I make one more attempt to caution against this latest democratic assault,” she wrote.
The former Vice President of the World Bank charged the Senate to recall Akpoti-Uduaghan without delay and demonstrate that Nigeria’s commitment to justice, constitutional governance and rule of law is substantive, not rhetorical.
End this hubris now.
She cautioned, “Every day without remedy chips away at democracy’s foundation. Every moment court orders are defied by those in power teaches our children that law is optional for the powerful.
“Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s right to resume duties was explicitly affirmed in Justice Nyako’s ruling. She has served out the unconstitutional suspension.
Our collective defence of her immediate return defends every Nigerian’s right against public power abuse.”
Natasha’s six-month suspension is now spent. The matter arising, pending judicial pronouncement, is the validity of the suspension; or the vires of the Senate to suspend the elected Senator and by extension constituents she represents at the Senate.
The Senate cannot plead “sub judice” in order to perpetuate the illegality or unconstitutionality of the suspension. Even after the effluxion or lapse of the suspension; the issue of the legality or legitimacy of the power asserted by the Senate to suspend a member remains a live issue, under the doctrine of “substantive ultra vires”, for determination by the judex.
Agreed, the plea of “sub judice” is a shield, not a sword. It cannot be used to enhance a constitutional or statutory breach. Even in tort, it does not aid the perpetration or continuance of a malfeasance or nuisance.
There has been no fresh resolution of the Senate extending the six-month sentence. And they cannot do that now, having been “estopped pendente lite”.
Does not it appear that “sub judice” pleaded by the Senate administratively is an extension of estoppel of lis pendis?
Chief Justice of Kenya confirms attendance for AFBA’s2025 Annual Conferencein Ghana
The Supreme Court of Kenya has expressed its gratitude over the recent award of judicial excellence conferred on it by the African Bar Association (AFBA).
In a letter signed by the Chief Justice of Kenya, Hon. Justice Martha K. Koome, the court also notified AFBA that it will be represented at the 2025 Annual Conference of the association coming up on 20 October 2025, at the Labadi Beach Hotel in Accra, Ghana.
The letter reads:
RE: AWARD OF JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE TO SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
Greetings from the Office of the Hon. Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya.
On behalf of the Supreme Court of Kenya, I acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter dated 21st August, 2025, inviting the Court to the Opening Ceremony of the forthcoming Annual Conference of the African Bar Association, scheduled to take place on 20th October, 2025, at the Labadi Beach Hotel in Accra, Ghana.
The Supreme Court of Kenya conveys its profound gratitude to the African Bar Association for conferring upon it the Award of Judicial Excellence in recognition of the Court’s exemplary and professional handling of the nine (9) Petitions arising from the 2022 Presidential Elections. This honour is accepted with humility and deep appreciation. It stands as a tribute to the people of Kenya, whose unwavering trust in the Judiciary inspires our work, and to the dedication of all Judges, judicial officers and staff who make justice possible.
The Supreme Court of Kenya affirms that this recognition strengthens its resolve to continue upholding democracy, advancing constitutionalism, and safeguarding the rule of law in Africa.
In this regard, I confirm that the Court will be represented at the Conference by Hon. Justice Isaac Lenaola, Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya, who will also receive the award on behalf of the Court.
We kindly request that you extend to him the full courtesies and assistance during the event. Yours sincerely,
Hon. Justice Martha K. Koome, EGH Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya Copy to: Hon. Justice Isaac Lenaola Supreme Court Judge Supreme Court Building NAIROBI.
Rather than help or seek help for suicide victims, Nigeria brands them as criminals and moves to punish them for attempting to take hm their own lives. Rather than discouraging people in distress or motivating them to seek help, it has heightened the frustration and mental health issues of many.
But it appears the tide is changing with the recent plan to decriminalize suicide.
Meanwhile, as the world marks the 2025 World Suicide Prevention Day, Nigeria is confronted with a suicide crisis that remains largely hidden behind stigma and silence, with an estimated 15,000 deaths annually.
Nigeria is among the few nations where survivors of suicide attempts may face imprisonment under Section 327 of the Criminal Code and Section 231 of the Penal Code.
On Wednesday, the Federal Government reaffirmed its commitment to decriminalising attempted suicide in Nigeria, setting December 2025 as the target date for the reform.
The Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Muhammad Pate, stated this at a press briefing in Abuja, in commemoration of the 2025 World Suicide Prevention Day, themed “Changing the narrative on suicide, creating hope through action.”
According to the World Health Organisation, more than 720,000 people die due to suicide every year. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15–29-year-olds, and 73 per cent of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries.
A Professor of Psychiatry at Obafemi Awolowo University and Consultant Psychiatrist at the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Adesanmi Akinsulore, revealed that Nigeria ranks sixth globally among countries with the highest suicide rates.
Mr Akinsulore explained that while men account for nearly 79 per cent of suicides, women are more likely to struggle with suicidal thoughts. He stressed the urgent need for collaborative action, particularly among young people and students, where the problem is most acute.
The real scale of the problem is believed to be far higher than reported. Fear of prosecution and entrenched social stigma mean many cases go unrecorded.
According to the Lifeline International report, which cited the WHO, for every person who dies by suicide, at least 20 others attempt.
In Nigeria, this translates to more than 300,000 people in suicidal distress each year, many of whom are left without safe avenues to seek help.
The impact is not limited to individuals. For every life lost, at least six others, relatives, friends or colleagues, struggle with the emotional and psychological aftermath.
Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, has said he will not honour an invitation by the United States Consulate in Nigeria to a visa reinterview, which it had scheduled for Thursday, September 11.
Soyinka made this known in an exclusive interview with TheNEWS/PMNEWS on Tuesday, 9 September, while reacting to the recent invitation the American Consulate sent to Nigerians with B1/B2 visas, asking them to go to the American Consulate for what it calls a visa reinterview.
The distinguished writer is one of many Nigerians invited to that interview.
Soyinka, who was taken aback by the invite, which he said he finds strange and, according to him, not a personal issue, had initially thought it was fake and a fraudulent move by scammers bent on duping unsuspecting Nigerians.
“I would like to begin by stressing the fact that, for me, this is not a personal issue. I have no idea how you got to know. By the way, I also have received the letter, which at first I thought was a fake. I thought it was these scammers who sort of prey on those eager to get visas elsewhere, with promise to deliver visas for a certain amount guaranteed. I thought they just picked up my name among others because they knew there was a list of those who have been invited.
“So, at the beginning, I thought it was advance fee fraud because I had never received that kind of letter from that or any other embassy. I thought that maybe AI has been generating generic letters. It was very strange. So, by the time I came to terms with the fact that this letter is genuine, my mind just went to my relationship with individual ambassadors, Consul-Generals and Cultural Attachés. As you know, it’s always been a courteous relationship,” Soyinka noted.
Soyinka also said he has more important things to do than chase visas for places he doesn’t want to go to and where he is not wanted. “So the question of going to such an interview is totally out of consideration,” he maintained.
Soyinka specifically frowned at the date, 9/11, the American Consulate had chosen for the proposed interview, a day which, according to him, is very critical for the United States, saying he is a bit superstitious not just for the United States but for the rest of the world, given what that date signifies. Soyinka affirmed that that day should be regarded as a day of national mourning, for deep, sober reflection, rather than for the perpetuation of ignoble motives such as an invitation for visa reinterview.
“In addition, I happen to be a little bit superstitious of being given a significant date, not just for the United States but the rest of the world. I’m talking about 9/11. This is a day which I have always considered very critical for the United States, especially. To me, 9/11 should be regarded as a day of national mourning, of atonement by the Consulate of the United States.
“They should close down offices on that day, not to keep inviting people to come and have their visas taken away. It should be a day of reflection, of serious, deep thinking in consideration of so many things. I think on that day, United States should shut down completely, universally. If they don’t shut down, at least I would shut down my relationship with them on that day. Because I’m very superstitious. I’m not going anywhere near there on 9/11. I will be airborne somewhere,” Soyinka maintained.
However, Soyinka also said that even though he considers invitations by embassies to be invitations from governments, it depends on which kind of government is sending out such invitations.
He mentioned the United States, for instance, which, according to him, has a “white Idi Amin” at the helm of affairs. Soyinka said he is wary of such an invitation because of his safety.
“Are we looking in the case of the United States, at the white Idi Amin, for instance? If you look very closely at the conduct, the behaviour, the mentality of the present incumbent president, you find out there are Idi Amins of different colours. And if Idi Amin says I should come to his embassy, I would think twice before going because I don’t know what is waiting for me on the other side of the door.
“So I’m afraid, I would have to, as the Americans say, take a rain check of this invitation and certainly I’m not going there on 9/11. No way. Maybe individuals, small, minuscule action like this, here and there, collectively, institutionally and so on may enable the American people embark on this process of deep introspection, which is really to review their position with the rest of the world and how the world looks at them especially at this critical period of world affairs.”
Soyinka went further to say that perhaps what the United States needs at this time is an exorcist.
“So that’s all I want to say on that subject at this time. But there is a lot more to say in the future. We can now sit down objectively, analytically and ask what on earth has happened or is happening to the United States of America; perhaps in various conferences of writers, philosophers and of course psychologists. Because maybe what the United States needs right now is an exorcist. It could be. We never can tell. But I’m a bit superstitious. I’m not going there on 9/11,” Soyinka maintained.
Soyinka, however, said he was happy that the invitation for visa reinterview happened “because it enabled us to examine so many facets of relationships between travellers from one country and another. And the possibility that somebody who’s made a home, made a living, a legitimate living elsewhere, obeys the laws and so on, wakes up someday and gets to the airport and then be told ‘you cannot rejoin your existence in another country.’ It must be a horrible thing.
“People like me are in a privileged position in the sense that we are nomadic anyway. But those who actually built homes there and suddenly to be told you cannot continue living there, I find it horrifying, inhuman and dehumanising.”
The ongoing drama in Nigeria concerning the Senate and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has once again spotlighted the uneasy intersection of law, politics, and institutional power. At its centre stands Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the outspoken lawmaker representing Kogi Central, whose suspension has since become more than an internal disciplinary matter. Yes, it has become a test case for the limits of legislative authority, the sanctity of judicial process, and the huge price of dissent in a chamber often accused of jealously guarding its own with unflinching zeal. How come it now strips one of its own naked in the public domain? What are the issues?
Discipline or Oppression?
What began in March as a disciplinary sanction for alleged insubordination has now spiraled into a serious constitutional standoff. Six months on, the lawmaker had expected to reclaim her seat with the effluxion of her suspension period only to be met with an official communication from the Acting Clerk of the National Assembly reminding her that her fate hangs not in the will of her suffering constituents, nor even in the resolutions of her colleagues, but in the hands of the appellate court to which both parties had submitted their grievances. The letter effectively extends her political exile and underscores the Senate’s insistence that its authority remains unbent, even in the face of legal challenge and public outcry.
She believes the Senate Institution is being deployed for personal aggrandisement by the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio.
However, beneath the procedural veneer lies a deeper contest: a narrative of alleged political victimization; a clash of huge egos at the highest level of the legislature; and a senator’s insistent claim that her punishment is nothing but a retaliation for daring to accuse the Senate President of misconduct.
More so, her suspension, initially framed as punishment for “insubordination,” has evolved far beyond an internal disciplinary quarrel. It has since graduated into the theatre of a broader conflict. It has become one that pits the autonomy of a legislator to act on behalf of her constituents against the authority of the legislative red chamber. By extension, this involves the rights of an elected representative and her constituents against the collective power of the institution that claims to regulate her.
The case is Sub judice, yes, but is that all?
Natasha’s suspension is being challenged in court both in appeals and cross-appeals. This makes it sub judice. The doctrine of sub judice is one of those subtle rules that sits quietly in the background of the law until a controversy erupts, and suddenly it takes centre stage.
Literally meaning “under a judge,” the rule simply insists that when a matter is before a competent court, the parties (and indeed the public) must exercise restraint. No parallel tribunal should decide the same issue. No authority should prejudice the outcome. No commentary should undermine the court’s ability to do justice. It is a rule of deference, born of the recognition that the courtroom must remain the final and undisturbed arena for resolving disputes.
In Nigeria, the courts have applied this doctrine in two principal ways. See Governor of Lagos v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 621First, by discouraging the multiplicity of suits; i.e the tendency to file the same matter in different courts in search of a favourable judgment. The Supreme Court, as far back as in the case of Okorodudu v. Okoromadu (1977) LPELR-2495(SC), frowned upon this abuse, declaring it an affront to judicial integrity.
Second, the doctrine of sub judice has been used to curb prejudicial commentary. In Bello v. Attorney-General of Lagos State (2006) LPELR-7585(CA), the intermediate court stressed that comments capable of influencing or pre-empting a court’s decision could amount to contempt. Thus, the rule is meant to preserve fairness, protect litigants, and uphold the dignity of the bench. It was never meant to overreach or punish a citizen unduly.
Yet, like every principle of law, sub judice can be and appears in the Natasha case to have been stretched beyond its natural contours. And when that happens, it morphs from a shield of justice into a sword of suppression. This is what looms large in the case of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The Senate insists that because her case is pending at the Court of Appeal, she must remain suspended until judgment is delivered, notwithstanding that even its own suspension time of six months has expired. In other words, the pendency of her suit is not treated as a shield and reason for restraint on their part, but as a weapon and justification to extend her punishment. What was designed as a fence to keep justice safe is now being used as a whip to keep a legislator silent and at bay.
The problem with this posture is that it profoundly challenges decency and morality. An example: Imagine a tenant who challenges his landlord’s eviction notice in court. While the matter is being heard, the landlord bolts the house and imperiously declares: “Because this case is in court, you must stay outside; you cannot re-enter until the judge decides.” Though the man has not yet been adjudged guilty of insubordination or trespass, he is already dispossessed, punished, not by law, but by an oppressive process. He is made to suffer the very penalty he is contesting, long before the court can speak. This is precisely the danger when sub judice is invoked not to protect the legal process, but to prolong exclusion.
Where lies the fate of the innocent Kogi constituents?
At the very heart of this controversy lies not simply the fate of one senator, but the voice of an entire constituency, Kogi Central (one-third of Kogi State). Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was not self-appointed to the Red Chamber; she was chosen and voted for by the people of Kogi Central through the instrumentality of the ballot, the most sacred covenant between citizen and state in a democracy. The ballot represents the will of the people. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), (the 1999 Constitution) vests legislative power in the National Assembly (NASS); and that power is exercised through representatives elected by constituencies across the federation. To suspend a senator is, in effect, to suspend the constitutional voice of her people.
But herein lies the paradox: the Senate insists that the matter is sub judice, that until the Court of Appeal rules, Natasha must remain in political limbo. But what of the people whose collective will she embodies? Does litigation strip them of their right to be represented in the national discourse? Can the judicial pendency of one woman’s grievance become the silencing of hundreds of thousands of constituents? If democracy is truly government of the people, by the people, and for the people, (as Abraham Lincoln: once enthused at his Gettysburg speech on November 18, 1863), then the punishment of Natasha is not hers alone. It is the disenfranchisement of a whole Kogi Central, the people who invested their hope in her.
The courts have often reminded us that representation is not ornamental but substantive. In INEC v. Musa(2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72, the Supreme Court underscored that political rights flow directly from the Constitution and cannot be lightly abridged. Likewise, in Amaechi v. INEC(2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227, the court went further, declaring that the electorate’s mandate is paramount, and even political parties must bow before it. If the judiciary itself recognizes that the will of the people is superior to procedural technicalities of political parties, why then should the Senate, an institution that exists only because constituencies exist, act as though it can silence a district with the stroke of a gavel?
The mandate belongs not to Natasha as an individual, but to her people. In the case of THE SPEAKER BAUCHI HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY v.Hon.RIFKATU SAMSON DANNA(2017) 49 WRN 52, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed against the judgement of a Bauchi State High Court in respect of the illegal suspension of Honourable Rifkatu Danna. The intermediate court held that the suspension of the legislator constituted a breach of the right of the Bogoro Constituency to be represented by her in the state House of Assembly. The court equally held that the decision of the House to withhold the salaries and allowances of the legislator was illegal as she was not an employee but an elected member of the Bauchi State of Assembly. By extrapolation, Natasha is not an employee of the Senate, but one of the 109 Senators.
Senator Natasha is nothing but a vessel, a custodian and a courier of their collective voice and will. Her exclusion from plenary sessions, committees, motions and votes translates to the silencing of that constituency in every matter of her State and national importance. Whether the subject is the budget, constitutional amendments, or motions affecting infrastructure, security and welfare, Kogi Central is conspicuously absent; not by choice, but by institutional fiat. This is not discipline; it is disenfranchisement. This is building strong men; not strong institutions.
It must also be remembered that suspension, as a tool of internal discipline, cannot override the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Section 14(2)(a) declares that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” Section 68 further details the circumstances under which a legislator may lose his or her seat, viz: defection, conviction, resignation, or recall by constituents. Nowhere does the Constitution contemplate indefinite suspension as a legitimate means of punishing an erring Legislator. That amounts to complete removal from her seat.
To allow this is to create a new unknown ground for disqualification outside the clear provisions of the supreme law of the land. That, in itself, is unconstitutional. The Senate may argue that internal discipline is necessary to preserve order and decorum. True. But discipline that frontally attacks the Constitution (fons et origo) and silences an entire constituency crosses from order into chaos and usurpation. The Senate institution is not greater than the Constitution that birthed it. A tail cannot wag the dog, its owner. And while Natasha may be one senator, she embodies a district. She is the alter ego of a people, a mandate that cannot be muted under the guise of procedure.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, Natasha v. The Senate is not merely a skirmish over parliamentary decorum; it is more a referendum on the very heart and soul of democratic representation. The Senate may insist on its authority to discipline; but then authority without restraint becomes tyranny. Senator Natasha may appear as one woman locked in combat with a towering institution, yet behind her stands the invisible multitude whose mandate she bears. To gag and muzzle her is to censor them; to suspend her indefinitely is to suspend their sovereignty indefinitely.
The doctrine of sub judice may counsel caution, but it cannot annul the clear provisions of the Constitution. The doctrine may preserve the status quo, but it cannot legitimise disenfranchisement. Between the rights of one senator and the prerogatives of the Senate lies a higher truth: sovereignty belongs to the people, and no institution is licensed to mute their voice.
Thus, the question is not whether Natasha has erred in conduct, but whether an institution sworn to protect democracy can justify punishing an entire constituency in the name of procedure. History’s verdict on such struggles is always the same: the individual may falter, but the people’s will endures forever. It is therefore imperative to state that the institution that forgets its source of legitimacy courts its own decay if not extinction.
In this contest of one against many, an individual versus an institution, the brilliance of democracy shines in the reminder that no chamber, however august, is greater than the people whose breath gives it life. The crucial question: what does the Senate lose by recalling Natasha, whose six-month suspension it imposed has elapsed? The answer to this question unlocks the truth. The answer is NOTHING. It is a matter of conscience – “an open wound; only truth can heal” (Utman Dan Fodio).
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
The African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA) Nigeria warmly congratulates the NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, and the Enugu State Government for the successful hosting of the NBA Annual General Conference 2025 in Enugu.
AWLA Nigeria is proud to have contributed to the richness of this year’s conference through impactful side programs, including:
The Widows Outreach, in collaboration with Healing Hearts Widows Support Foundation, and
The AWLA Nigeria Parley brought together members and stakeholders for dialogue, learning, and connection.
These initiatives reflect our commitment to advancing justice, equity, and service to humanity while complementing the broader vision of the NBA.
We extend our appreciation to all partners, colleagues, and members who supported and participated in ensuring the success of AWLA Nigeria’s programs during the AGC.
Instead of yielding to Mr. Peter Obi’s demand to retract his statements, Barr. Deji of Counsel has flamed the presidential hopeful with more invectives. He is resolved, by his disposition, to prove his claim.
Keenly followed his interview on August 29, 2025, with Channels Television, I have presented some “unsolicited” legal opinion on the now topical issues— just for public consumption.
The excerpts of the Lawyer’s comment on live Television read:
“…Obi invited me after I expressed my views on political issues which favoured him, he asked that I work for him and I said no because I do not work for any politician, I was leaving after my meeting, he handed me an envelope and said it was my transportation for coming, I declined the offer…It is not true that he doesn’t give shishi, he attempted to bribe me, he is not who he says he is”
Relentless in his attrition against the former governor, he claimed in several fora that Mr. Peter Obi is a “rogue” who invested Anambra State’s money in Fidelity Bank, where he had vested interests. He describes such an action as Mr. Obi’s—a “crime of conflict of interests”.
I saw in his tone, perhaps wrongly, vengeance and retribution, rather than “provable” facts offered with an honest desire to establish a defence of justification—in law. I mean such a fact which would at the end of the trial, give him a ride to walk home with the litany of the invective remarks he had made against Mr. Peter Obi without consequences. However, Counsel’s facial expression must be commended. He seemed honest, especially as he sat piously with his leg crossed as a Pentecostal preacher, pontificating before the Channels TV host as an angel who is incapable of hurting a fly.
Counsel may have thought he was speaking from the pulpit, where logic is considered as rebellion. He chose to sermonize, instead of put up a tenable defence, since he would not quietly retract his comments and have us move on with several other issues distracting our attention from President Tinubu’s strange urge for foreign loans. Begrudge me not, if Counsel is reserving his defence for the court process when he is eventually summoned to court.
I have formulated two issues from his Television interview and shall attempt to examine their veracity as defence of justification in a defamation action.
Whether the “offer of an envelope (money) as transportation” or as “thanks for all you do” assuming it is established, can be interpreted to mean bribery, in order to justify the tag given by Barr. Deji to Mr. Obi as a rogue”
Whether the claim if successfully established, that Mr. Obi invested Anambra State’s money in the bank he had a vested interest in, can suffice to justify Barr Deji’s scandalous remarks.
My fair legal opinion :
On Issue 1: Bribery and Corruption is the alleged offence against Mr. Peter Obi by Barr. Deji of Counsel, on this issue.
On this note, I have taken the liberty to again read through the applicable criminal jurisprudence as it concerns bribery and corruption. Sections 115-119 of the Penal Code Act (PCA) describes bribery and corruption as the conduct of a public servant taking gratification in respect of an official Act. The Criminal Code Act(CCA) did not disagree with the definition. See sections 98 -99 of the Criminal Code Act.
The forgoing not withstanding, the Provision of Section 13 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offense Act(CPROA) provides that “Any Person who corruptly gives, confers or procures any property or benefit of any kind to a public officer or any other person commits an offense” This provision, to my mind, does not contradict the the provision of the Criminal Code and the Penal Code earlier cited.
A community reading of the above provisions, suggests that bribery and corruption is an offense that concerns or relates to a public officer (Public servant) . On who a Public Officer is, the summary definition of a Public Servant according to the Public Service Rules 2021, is a person subject to the employment of the government of Nigeria. Thus, a public servant must have been offered money or he must have accepted money or gratification to fetter or influence his official act, for the offence of Bribery and Corruption to have been committed.
This position was affirmed by the Court in Biobaku Vs. Police (1951) 20 NLR 30, where the court described bribery and corruption as “ the receiving and offering of some benefits, rewards or some inducement, to sway or deflect a person employed in public service from the honest discharge of his duties”
Similarly, the case of FRN VS. Farouk Lawan. SC. 881 /2022 offers a clearer view when the Supreme Court rightly upheld the five-year jail terms of Farouk Lawan, a former member of the House of Representatives, for accepting the sum of $500,000 from Femi Otedola in order to absorb Otedola’s company Zenon Petroleum and Gas Limited for wrongdoing in a fuel subsidy corruption probe. These cases point to the facts that Corruption is an offense committed when a public officer receives money or gratification to fetter his discretion.
The foregoing explanation in mind, it is not disputed that Barr. Deji Adeyanju was not and still not a public servant when the alleged meeting where Mr. Obi purportedly offered him money was held—Whether or not the offer of money was made at all or corruptly made (in the contemplation of CPROA ), same must be established not only by viva voce evidence especially as the allegation is one for crime of “bribery and corruption” which requires a proof beyond reasonable doubt just like any other criminal allegation.
On this note, it is my humble view that, it will be legally difficult to clothe a “thank you” offer of gift (if ever made) with the garment of Bribery and corruption, going by the authorities set out above. I am also not sure morality is in any way against such a gift. Therefore, attempting to rely on this head of defence to justify his defamatory remarks would definitely be challenging.
On Issue 2: Barr. Deji seems to have been misled or lured by the imaginary crime or “political allegation” created by political opponents to haunt Mr. Peter Obi’s ambition.
The allegations of “crime of conflict of interest” which according to Barr. Deji, was committed by Mr. Obi when he was the Governor of Anambra state, by investing the state’s money into a bank he had a vested interest in.
I will quickly point that the criminal laws cited above: the PCA, CCA and the CPROA do not reorganize a crime known as conflict of interests. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any legislation passed prior to the said investment in Mr. Peter Obi’s Anambra State that criminalize such an investment and if any, Bar. Deji, who is not affected by the investment, not being an indigene of the state, may lack the requisite locus standi to successfully establish his allegation.
CONCLUSION
Except Counsel’s defense(s) are built on truth which he has not made public, he may need to consider a retraction now. Authorities are in support that an unsubstantiated allegation cannot suffice as a defense to defamation. See the case of MacMacus Vs. Beckham (2022)1WLR 2982, where the Court held that in a Defamatory case, the Defendant has the onus to demonstrate the factual accuracy of the defamatory word, requiring tangible evidence that the essence of the defamation is rooted in truth.
M. O. Idam a legal practitioner, writes from Abuja.
Our site uses cookies. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you direct Law and Society Magazine to store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Statement: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
