The recent report on the continued detention of Mr. Agu and the court’s directive requiring his legal team to file a written address on the competence of a bail application in the absence of a formal charge is both troubling and symptomatic of a deeper malaise in our justice system.
It begs the question: What manner of judiciary are we running when the defence must struggle to justify a constitutional right as fundamental as bail?
Bail, by every constitutional and legal standard, is not a privilege. It is a right that flows directly from the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The philosophy is simple, until proven guilty, every citizen is deemed innocent, and that presumption cannot coexist with prolonged detention without charge.
The Supreme Court and our criminal jurisprudence have repeatedly affirmed that it is not the duty of the accused to “apply” for bail as if seeking favour. Rather, it is for the prosecution to show cause why the defendant should not be released pending trial. Anything contrary to that principle not only offends the Constitution but also erodes public confidence in the administration of justice.
To detain a citizen for 18 days without a charge, while requiring the defence to make written submissions for bail, is a mockery of due process. It reduces the courts to instruments of technical delay rather than sanctuaries of liberty.
The judiciary must resist every temptation to become comfortable with practices that violate fundamental rights. The duty of the Judex is not only to interpret the law but also to protect the weak from the abuse of state power.
The time has come for a systemic reawakening, where bail is seen not as a concession of mercy but as a constitutional command, and where judicial officers uphold the law with courage and fidelity to the Constitution.
Justice delayed is justice denied; but when liberty is delayed without lawful justification, it becomes injustice institutionalised.
Olajide Abiodun, Notary Public Vice Chairman, NBA Ikorodu Branch & Head, Human Rights Committee. Chairman BOVC.
On this auspicious day, AWLA Abuja celebrates the Girl Child on this International Day of the Girl Child
The African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA) Nigeria Abuja Branch joins voices across the globe in commemorating the International Day of the Girl Child, held annually on October 11.
This year’s theme, “INVEST IN GIRLS’ RIGHTS’ ” The GIRL I AM THE CHANGE I LEAD”Our Leadership, Our Well-being”, reinforces the urgent need to EMPOWER, and continue to protect the girl child through laws, policies, and deliberate action.
At AWLA Abuja, we recognize the immense potential of every girl and reaffirm our commitment to promoting and defending their rights, particularly their right to education, safety, health, and full participation in society.
Despite constitutional protections and international conventions ratified by Nigeria, millions of girls still face significant challenges, including child marriage, sexual and gender-based violence, school dropouts, trafficking, and limited access to justice. These systemic barriers continue to rob our girls of their dignity, security, and future.
As a group of women professionals in legal practice and advocates for justice and equality, AWLA Abuja calls for:
Full implementation and enforcement of child protection laws at the federal and state levels, including the Child Rights Act and Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act.
Increased investment in girls’ education and healthcare, especially in underserved and conflict-affected communities.
Strengthening of legal aid and justice mechanisms to ensure girls have access to redress, protection, and support.
End to harmful traditional practices, including early marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), and other forms of gender-based violence.
Promotion of girls’ leadership and participation in civic, legal, and political spaces.
We believe that an empowered girl child today is a powerful woman tomorrow, a builder of peaceful, just, and prosperous societies.
AWLA Abuja pledges to continue using the law as a tool for social transformation and remains steadfast in our mission to protect, educate, and empower every girl child.
Let us all take action. Invest in the girl child. Secure her rights. Safeguard her future.
Signed, Rukaiya Cynthia Emmanuel, Esq, LLM
Coordinator: African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA), Nigeria Abuja Branch
He’s the most famous magician to ever live, but few realize that Harry Houdini (1874–1926) began life as Ehrich Weiss, a rabbi’s son from Budapest. After moving to America as a young child, he was soon performing in his neighborhood circus as “Ehrich, the Prince of the Air.”
Before long, he was touring circuses and vaudeville circuits around the States as Houdini, a name inspired by the French father of modern magic, Jean-Eugène Robert-Houdin.
The killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not just an assassination—it was the opening act of a new world order. Backed by secret societies and driven by a rising tide of Slavic nationalism, a handful of young men in Sarajevo believed violence was their only path to freedom. Against all odds, their amateurish plan succeeded—and the consequences reshaped the 20th century.
A court in southern France has increased by a year the jail term of the only man who challenged his conviction for raping Gisèle Pelicot.
The 72-year-old retired grandmother was drugged unconscious by her then-husband, Dominique for over a decade and raped by dozens of men he recruited on the internet.
Husamettin Dogan, 44, had argued he was innocent, despite graphic video footage shown in court of him penetrating a motionless Gisèle Pelicot.
But the court of appeal in Nîmes rejected his argument and extended his original nine-year jail term to 10 years. He was convicted of aggravated rape last December, during a trial in which 50 other men were convicted.
Public prosecutor Dominique Sié had asked the court to impose a 12-year term on Dogan, who said he himself had been a victim, “trapped” by Dominique Pelicot. The prosecutor told the court Dogan had been “unwilling to take responsibility” for a “massive act of destruction of a woman” that had denied her humanity.
Although Dogan was held in pre-trial detention ahead of last year’s trial, he has not spent time in jail since.
Police were able to track down the men who raped Gisèle because of the videos that Dominique Pelicot filmed during the rapes.
Of the 51 men handed jail terms, 17 initially lodged appeals only to withdraw them soon after.
Husamettin Dogan – a Turkish-born married father – was the only one who decided to take his appeal to court.
Husamettin Dogan had argued he was also a victim in the case and denied rape
Like many of the other men convicted last December, Dogan’s defence was he could not be guilty of raping Gisèle because he did not realise she had been drugged by her husband against her will.
Proceedings in Nîmes were effectively a retrial but, unlike the initial trial last December, this case was judged by a jury made up of nine members of the public and three professional judges.
Evidence from the first trial was shown again, including videos of the rapes in which an unconscious Gisèle could be heard snoring and having no reaction despite the abuse she was subjected to.
Nevertheless, Dogan again denied any intention to rape her even though he acknowledged she was clearly a victim of her husband.
“I performed a sexual act, I never raped anyone,” he said. “For me, rape means forcing someone, tying them up, I don’t know… I am a victim.”
Gisèle Pelicot told the court this week “I am the only victim”, denying she had ever given her consent.
In an attempt to shift the blame on to Dominique Pelicot, Dogan also said that while at one point he had “suspicions” that something about the situation was not quite right, Pelicot had put him at ease. “This guy is a manipulator,” he said.
Pelicot – who was present in court as a witness – denied he had ever pretended his wife would be anything but unconscious.
All the men he recruited on chatrooms “were told she would be drugged”, Pelicot said, adding he had explicitly told Dogan he was looking for “someone to abuse my sleeping wife without her knowledge”.
Gisèle Pelicot’s decision to open up the original trial to the public and the media attracted worldwide attention on her story – but as soon as the verdicts came in she retreated back to private life.
This week was the first time she had been seen in public since then.
When she took the stand on Wednesday she recalled the unexplained neurological symptoms and memory loss she had suffered for months, without realising they were the side effects of the drugs Pelicot had plied her with.
She again stressed she had no knowledge of what her husband subjected her to.
“The first time I saw [Dogan’s] face was when I saw the videos of him raping me,” she stated. “They are forever etched in my memory.”
“The first time around, this man never accepted to recognise that he had raped me. But I thought that over the course of a year he had gained some introspection,” she said.
Turning to Dogan, she added: “You don’t understand that this was rape. When will you admit that it’s a crime? I am ashamed for you.”
She also addressed the devastation that had engulfed her family since the trial.
Her daughter, Caroline Darian, maintains she too was drugged and abused by her father after photos showing her unconscious were found on Pelicot’s computer.
Ms Darian has since spoken about feeling unsupported by her mother. The two are reportedly no longer in contact and Ms Darian was not in court with Gisèle this week.
“My family is trying to rebuild itself however it can,” Gisèle said. “I hope [Caroline] finds the answers she is looking for. I hope one day we can find each other again.”
She also asked to stop being referred to as an icon. “I am an ordinary woman who dared to open up her trial,” she said. “I have become an icon against my will.”
As in the original trial, Gisèle ended her statement with a thought for other victims of rape – the majority of whom did not have the wealth of evidence that she had to bring her abusers to court.
“I want to say to them to never be ashamed of what was inflicted upon us, because it is not their fault,” she said.
A South African farm worker has described to a court how he was forced by his boss to feed the bodies of two black women to pigs in an attempt to hide evidence after they were shot.
Adrian de Wet, 21, said he was told to throw the bodies inside a pig enclosure, explaining that “when pigs are hungry enough, they’ll eat anything”.
He admitted opening fire on the two women with his boss – farm owner Zachariah Johannes Olivier – before he ordered him to help dispose of their bodies.
Mr Olivier and another man, William Musora, are accused of murder after Maria Makgato, 45, and Lucia Ndlovu, 34, were killed while allegedly looking for food on a farm near Polokwane in South Africa’s northern Limpopo province last year.
Farm supervisor Mr De Wet was also previously accused of murder, but charges were dropped by the prosecution when he turned state witness. He had argued he was under duress when he was forced to throw the bodies into the pig enclosure.
On Thursday, Mr De Wet told Polokwane High Court that he and Mr Olivier, 60, armed themselves with hunting rifles and waited for trespassers to enter the farm on the night of 17 August 2024.
He said after waiting for 30 minutes they heard voices of people talking and walking towards their direction.
They then opened fire and heard a person screaming, before inspecting the area and finding a person lying face down.
After leaving the area and going to sleep, they returned the next morning and found it was the body of a woman.
Mr De Wet said he was asked by Mr Olivier to help him throw the body inside the enclosure where eight to ten big adult pigs were kept.
The following day another body was found about 25 metres from where the first was found.
Mr Olivier, Mr De Wet and Mr Musora, 50, are said to have then thrown the second body inside the pigsty.
On the following Tuesday they returned to it and found that the pigs had bitten off large chunks of flesh on the women.
Pictures presented as exhibits in court show missing buttocks, face, thighs and shoulders.
State prosecutor Advocate George Sekhukhune asked Mr De Wet what the purpose of placing the bodies inside the pigsty was, to which he answered: “We were disposing the evidence because when pigs are hungry enough, they’ll eat anything.”
Mr De Wet also said Mr Olivier chopped up the hunting rifles with an angle grinder and burnt the wooden parts of the gun. They then threw away the cut up weapons including the spent cartridges inside a borehole.
The son of victim Ms Makgato cried repeatedly in court, while Mr Olivier was seen wiping away tears as Mr De Wet gave his evidence.
The case has sparked outrage across South Africa, exacerbating racial tensions between black and white people in the country.
This is especially rife in rural areas of the country, despite the end of the racist system of apartheid 30 years ago.
Most private farmland remains in the hands of the white minority, while most farm workers are black and poorly paid, fuelling resentment among the black population, while many white farmers complain of high crime rates.
Cross-examination by defence lawyers of Mr Olivier and Mr Musora will resume next Wednesday.
A few weeks back, former military ruler and former President, Olusegun Obasanjo, came up with one of his maverick impulses. On Wednesday, September 24, 2025, the veteran of Nigeria’s power practice announced, once more, that he never sought tenure extension at the end of his presidential term in 2007. The latest denial was at a democracy forum of Goodluck Jonathan Foundation in Ghana. _Vanguard_ of Sunday, September 21, 2025 quoted the ex head of state saying: “I’m not a fool. If I wanted a third term, I know how to go about it. And there is no Nigerian dead or alive that would say I called him and told him I wanted a third term.” The declaration is typical Obasanjo’s grandstanding. It refrains from coming to terms with the heart of the matter. On what grounds then, can his dismissal of the subject be founded? The retired general’s posture rather evokes a familiar sense of infallibility; self assurance on fancies that often takes public consciousness for granted.
Barely a year after stepping aside as military dictator, Obasanjo was back in the public consciousness with the release of his war memoir, _My Command_ . The publication of the book in 1980 made it one of the first titles on the civil war literature. But the work drew attention not for it’s pioneering mark but for a reflexive historicity. The account reduced the war narrative to how one man won the civil war for Nigeria. Much of Africa had come under military rule in the decades of the 1970s – 1980s. For these same countries impatient to break with the strictures of regimented society, Obasanjo preached one party system as magic wand of unity and stability. With similar flight of fancy, the Ota farmer advocated the use of juju to bring apartheid to an end in South Africa. It was the same Obasanjo who in the midst of agitation for validation of June 12 1993 election, pronounced that MKO Abiola was not the messiah Nigerians were looking for. Who was the messiah? Olusegun Obasanjo? He never told us. But one thing is clear. Obasanjo is a man whose whims can easily dominate him.
While the former President is entitled to his version of event narratives, his personal views must contend with the weight of public information on such national issues. Government is a collective, a network involving different actors and layers of machineries for it’s operation. Even where their briefs are not openly stated, an analysis of activities of public officials can provide reasonable description of a common purpose. Other arisings, incidental to the originating subject, have a way of lending insights into the larger picture. The combination of these factors takes monopoly of the subject away from anyone so desirous. The principle of separation of powers, with provision for checks and balances between the three arms of government, puts certain issues beyond the authority of the President. Tenure extension is about constitutional amendment, which is a responsibility of the legislature. When all these are taken together, the testimony of the former President is isolated. It is seen to be weak, narrow, shallow, evasive and self serving. The retired general’s position is incompatible with the submission of other players with jurisdiction on the same subject matter. In the face of Obasanjo’s subjective and unreliable account, other competent sources provide objective parameters for situating the attempted tenure extension.
Here’s how the Voice of America reported the power plot that rocked Nigeria in 2006. “Nigeria’s Senate has rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to allow President Olusegun Obasanjo to seek a third term in office. Lawmakers threw out the measure in a voice vote Tuesday, prompting shouts and celebrations from senators opposed to the bill.” For his part, Senate President at the time, Ken Nnamani, confirmed the conspiracy in his book, _Standing Strong: Legislative Reform, Third Term & Other Issues_ . The third citizen wrote: ‘The battle against the third term bid of President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2006 was certainly the most defining task of my tenure as President of the fifth Senate of the Nigerian legislature.’ At the presentation of the book on October 22, 2021, Nnamani reiterated on the antidote. ‘We decided to televise the proceedings. Publicising the proceedings was not supported by those who wanted to smuggle into the Constitution the extension of tenure through undefined and darkened procedure. We overcame intense pressure from the highest level of government.’ Finally, Condoleeza Rice, the then United States Secretary of State observed that Obasanjo confessed to nursing tenure extension ambition. From her memoir, _No Higher Honour_ , _My_ _Years in Washington_ , we read: ‘In 2006, when President Olusegun Obasanjo sidled up to the President (George Bush) and suggested that he might change the Constitution so that he could serve a third term, the President told him not to do it. “You have served your country well. Now, turn over and become a statesman.” A glaring contradiction attends the former soldier’s posture. While he throws a vacuous, general challenge on establishing his involvement in the plot, he at the same time maintains shouting silence on the damning comments by competent authorities.
Robert Greene’s 1999 publication, _48 Laws _of Power_ is considered an important work on the science of acquiring and retaining power. Manipulation assumes a focal point in the study’s analysis of strategies. Quest for power may not in itself be viewed with disapproval. Every age and society boasts heroes who used their vantage position to uphold the common good. Indeed, every man has the potential for both virtue and vice. Nurture, socialisation and ultimately, self – will, make the difference. Personality or self – will can separate two students of power by the rules they bring into it’s pursuit. Quest for power and hunger for power would operate at two different levels. The former tends to be restrained whereas the latter borders on the compulsive. For the typical student of power, power is taken, not given. A serious candidate for power cannot ignore the reality of other contenders for the prized spot. And so, between acquisition and retention, it boils down to a survivalist game. The dedicated, if desperate competitor, is at alert to outfox his rivals and indeed, the society.
There’s a game of cards called ‘suspect.’ The fundamental of the game is to manage to escape indictment.
Any number of cards can be shared between two or more players. You play by placing your card face – down on the table. As you do so, you call out the details of the card you played. It’s up to the other player(s) to challenge the authenticity of the card put out. It’s also up to the second player to drop their copy of the reigning card genuinely or by claim. Where there’s no challenge, that is to say, no suspicion, the party with the turn of play continues dishing out his or her cards. Otherwise, opportunity for the other party to play comes with a successful contest of the opponent’s card claims. An unsuccessful challenge of a card earns the challenger burden of an extra card and loss of turn to play. As it were, a daring player can snatch victory by disposing of his cards through cunning and deception. It’s a game that places premium on psychological deftness. Mind reading, sharp instincts and ability to take advantage of the other’s distraction are crucial elements of the game. The craftier a player, higher the chances of winning. To maintain relevance in the sport is to be dropping your cards consistent with the prevailing card. Since the cards are laid face – down, an A can become K – if you have the guile. How valuable keeping the face expressionless. Shakespeare was right. ‘There’s no art to read the mind’s construction in the face.’
Yet, some other actors, by naivety, simplicity or principle are plain both in intent and expression. Personality makeup varies, making outlook to life to also differ. Accordingly, disposition to the vexed issue of power ambition is not all negative and disappointing. Nelson Mandela made a conscious decision to forgo a constitutional right of second tenure as President. It was not a function of age, as erroneously interpreted by some commentators. Nelson Mandela was 81 years on completion of his mandate in 1999. Relatively strong, alert, riding immense goodwill, Mandela could have pulled off another five year term, and still be standing at 86.
Joe Biden at 82, was resolute on contesting the 2024 United States presidential election before health challenges stopped him. Contrast with Cameroun’s Paul Biya who is running for 8th term of office poll at 92. Not even the fact that physical frailty prevents him from coming out to campaign nor the daughter’s disassociation with his candidacy, has stopped the senile dictator. Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo has ruled Equatorial Guinea for 46 years this year. President of Ireland, Michael Higgins is 84 years. At 81, after 39 years in office in Uganda, Yoweri Museveni is still hungry for power. Contrast this with the legacy of Alao Aka Bashorun. In 1989, Bashorun, 68, was asked by the defunct Financial Post if he would vie for a second term as President of Nigeria Bar Association. His answer was a categorical no, but his reason was profoundly touching. Bashorun said NBA had thousands of bright, resourceful and committed members across age brackets. He pointed out that if he, less endowed than some members, could provide what was seen as meritorious leadership, it stood to reason that there were many others who could give even better service than he had done. The Association would be enriched by tapping into it’s wealth of human capital, not by recycling of leadership. What was the sense in running at the expense of the Association and the country? I fell in love with him after reading the interview.
Nigerians will have to keep to mind the maxim that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The threat of power corruption is ever-present, even in our supposedly democratic setting. Power intoxication was at play in the six-month illegal suspension of Rivers State Governor, Simnalaya Fubara. Perversion of state of emergency provision started from Obasanjo’s presidency with subversion of democracy in Plateau and Ondo states. Nigeria’s experience shows patterns of power addiction. History therefore, teaches that power grab must be constantly guarded against. Yakubu Gowon’s regime was overthrown in 1975 for seeking to perpetuate itself in office. After nine years of rulership, General Gowon was not ready to step down. General Ibrahim Babangida would not voluntarily relinquish power after years of dictatorial rule. It took a determined House of Representatives leadership under Agunwa Anaekwe to block Babangida’s for parliamentary endorsement for continuation in office. By the fifth year of his dictatorship, General Sani Abacha was in the process of decreeing himself civilian President before divine intervention stopped him. Obasanjo’s third-term presidential plot, emboldened by past local attempts and continental examples, was a heroic win by Nigerians against the virus of self succession.
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
I stumbled on a long essay written by @Aminu Sa’ad Beli, Aminu posited with a caption: “ROAD MAP TO SOLVE NIGERIAN ETHNICITY CRISIS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.” This long essay is both passionate and provocative. It raises the fundamental question of whether Nigeria, as presently structured, can ever truly deliver equity, peace, and sustainable development to its diverse peoples.
The author marshals historical and comparative evidence, citing global cases of peaceful separation as well as failed unions, to argue for rethinking Nigeria’s future—whether through genuine restructuring or through an honorable, peaceful dissolution. Several insights emerge from his intervention:
(1) The Burden of the Colonial Inheritance Nigeria, like many African states, is an artificial creation of colonialism. Unlike Ghana, Tanzania, or Burkina Faso—who redefined their identities by rejecting imposed names and re-imagining themselves—Nigeria has clung to a name and structure that reflect little of its internal plurality. The outcome has been a fragile federation in which ethnicity, rather than citizenship, remains the core currency of political mobilization.
(2) Comparative Lessons from Global Separations The examples of Singapore/Malaysia, Czechoslovakia, and even Canada/Quebec show that ethnic and cultural pluralism requires either exceptionally inclusive governance structures (e.g., Switzerland’s canton system) or peaceful negotiated exits when accommodation becomes impossible. Nigeria has attempted neither seriously: federalism has been hollowed out by over-centralization, and dialogue about self-determination is criminalized rather than negotiated.
(3) Ethnic Nationalism vs. State Survival The essay correctly points out that what Nigeria calls “ethnic groups” are, in European historical terms, “nations.” No European nation-state today tolerates perpetual domination by another. Where domination has persisted (e.g., Yugoslavia, USSR), fragmentation followed. This raises a sobering question: can Nigeria’s ethnic nations sustain a truly voluntary union without addressing the question of equity and autonomy.
(4) Economic Mismanagement as a Catalyst The analysis of Nigeria’s cattle industry is instructive. Despite vast land and population, Nigeria is absent from the global top 20 in beef, milk, or cattle exports. Instead of modernization and ranching, the country tolerates violent open grazing conflicts. This reflects a broader truth: unresolved ethnic and structural tensions sap the political will for economic modernization. Development without peace, equity, and legitimacy is almost impossible.
Pathways Forward
While separation is one possible outcome, it need not be the first or only path. Three strategic options present themselves: (1) True Federalism/Regional Autonomy – A Swiss-style arrangement where ethnic nationalities retain significant self-governance, control over resources, and cultural recognition. This could preserve Nigeria while reducing the perception of domination.
(2) Negotiated Restructuring with Renaming – As other African states have done, Nigeria could rebrand and rebuild itself around a new constitutional identity, one that recognizes its nations as co-equals rather than forced dependents.
(3) Peaceful Separation – Where dialogue fails, managed separation—on the model of Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Divorce”—remains preferable to violent implosion. The key is to ensure that if separation comes, it is negotiated, legal, and peaceful.
In conclusion, this essay is a timely reminder that Nigeria’s crisis is not simply about leadership failure but about structural design. No matter how virtuous, good individuals can not permanently fix a system designed to privilege domination and suppress diversity.
The task before Nigeria’s intelligentsia, political class, and civic leaders is to elevate the debate from whether change is necessary to how best to achieve it peacefully and productively. Nigeria must choose between restructuring, re-imagining, or re-partitioning. What it cannot do is continue on the current path of denial and dysfunction.
Richard ODUSANYA A Public Affairs Analyst and Good Governance Advocate
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, criticising the Minister of Works, David Umahi, for what he described as evasiveness over the project’s true cost.
Makinde addressed the issue while speaking at a public event, saying there was “no need for the Minister to be dancing around the cost” of the project. His comments came days after Umahi engaged in a heated on-air exchange with Arise TV journalist Rufai Oseni, who had pressed the minister to disclose the cost per kilometre of the 700-kilometre highway.
During the interview, Umahi appeared visibly agitated by the question, declaring himself “a professor of practice in engineering” and dismissing Oseni’s inquiry as “elementary.” He argued that road costs could not be calculated uniformly because each kilometre presented unique engineering challenges. Watch the video here.
“These are elementary questions,” Umahi said during the live broadcast. “The money is meant for the project, and it will be paid according to the work done. The prices are different — the next kilometre is different from the next kilometre. Keep quiet and stop saying what you don’t know. I’m a professor in this field. You don’t understand anything.”
Oseni, refusing to back down, replied, “Minister, it’s alright. Keep dignifying yourself, and let the world know who you truly are.”
Weighing in on the exchange, Governor Makinde sided with the journalist, insisting that Nigerians have a right to know the average cost of such a massive public project.
“They asked a minister how much the coastal road is, and then you (Umahi) are dancing around and saying that the next kilometre is different from the next kilometre. Then what is the average cost?” Makinde asked.
Makinde then compared the coastal highway to road projects completed under his own administration, saying, “When we did the Oyo to Iseyin road, it was about ₦9.99 billion — almost ₦10 billion — for about 34 or 35 kilometres. That’s an average of ₦238 million per kilometre.
“When we did Iseyin to Ogbomoso, that was 76 kilometres at about ₦43 billion, averaging ₦500 million per kilometre. And that project included two bridges — one over the Ogun River and another at the Ogbomoso end.”
Makinde’s comments have reignited debate over the transparency and cost structure of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, one of Nigeria’s most ambitious infrastructure projects, stretching across nine states with two additional spurs leading northward.
The project, awarded to Hitech Construction Company Limited, was officially flagged off in 2024 by President Bola Tinubu, with the first phase comprising 47.47 kilometres of dual carriageway constructed with concrete pavement.
In a statement issued at the time by Umahi’s media aide, Uchenna Orji, the Minister stressed that all contractors handling federal road projects must deliver within record time, warning that delays would not be tolerated and that the government would not accept cost variations once mobilisation had been paid.
A TikToker has highlighted the tragic story of a mentally and physically challenged teen who was raped and impregnated.
The teen, who can’t walk or talk properly, was seen with a bulging belly, and this caught the attention of the TikToker.
When asked who impregnated her and how, her guardians, who live with the victim in a dilapidated one-room house, could not provide a definite answer. They suspect that she was molested while taking a bath in the backyard of their public compound.
As for the man responsible, the victim, identified simply as Adamma, could not express herself to identify him.
The TikToker questioned what kind of man would do such to a vulnerable person.
She followed up by taking the victim to the hospital for proper medical attention.
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.
