By Jeremy Fregene; With Agency Reports

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader who often derides Nigeria’s politics and institutions, is facing questions over her own credibility after claims she once received an offer to study medicine at Stanford University collapsed under scrutiny.

Badenoch has long repeated that at age 16 she was offered a place, sometimes describing it as “pre-med,” at the prestigious California university, alongside a partial scholarship. But Stanford itself makes no such offers to high school students, as applicants must hold a first degree before admission to medicine, and there is no such thing as a pre-med degree.

According to The Guardian, former admissions officer Jon Reider, responsible at the time for international applications and bursaries, flatly denied Badenoch’s account. “Although 30 years have passed, I would definitely remember if we had admitted a Nigerian student with any financial aid. The answer is that we did not do so,” he said.

Other Ivy League admissions experts echoed that view, saying it was implausible that Stanford would admit any student, let alone grant a scholarship, based on SAT results alone. “I assure you we would not have admitted a student based on test scores alone, nor mailed an invitation to apply overseas on that basis,” Reider added.

Labour has demanded answers, insisting the Conservative leader “come clean” about whether she has been misleading the British public. “Honesty and integrity aren’t optional qualities for anyone who aspires to lead,” a Labour source said.

Confronted on Monday during a visit to Surrey, Badenoch doubled down, insisting she remembered receiving the letters, though she conceded she no longer had the papers. “I was 16, I had done very well in my SATs. But this is 30 years ago. I don’t have the papers,” she told PA Media, accusing The Guardian of hearsay and of ignoring Britain’s “woeful government record.”

The controversy has exposed inconsistencies stretching back to 2017, when Badenoch first claimed she had “got into Stanford pre-med” but turned it down because it was cheaper to study in Britain. As recently as 2024, The Times reported her family could not afford the “partial scholarship” she supposedly received.

But former Stanford officials said such partial offers would never have been made. “There was no point in offering them less because they would not have been able to attend,” Reider said.

While Badenoch continues to lecture Nigerians about truth, governance, and integrity, her own CV is now under question—raising the uncomfortable irony that the story unravelling around her Stanford “admission” is the kind of political fabrication she so often mocks in others.

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

By Chukwudi Ani

Oh, poor Fredrick! Did you write this in your personal capacity or in your capacity as, what did you describe yourself as? Senior Special Assistant on Public Engagement to the President? What a genuine surprise! Congratulations!

It is interesting that there is an Igbo man among the retinue of Mr. President’s media aides. How many Igbos are there? Maybe only you.

It is intriguing that this is the first time one has seen a press statement issued on behalf of the presidency by you or indeed any other Igbo person. Again, I repeat, I’m unable to characterize the capacity in which you wrote due to your repeated use of the first person pronoun, effectively referring to yourself.

However, I have a mixture of pity and disgust towards you. Pity, because I don’t need your confession (you may pretend all you can), to understand that you work in an environment that doesn’t welcome or value you just because of your name and where you come from. It’s not your fault. However, I guess your threshold for endurance is high. More strength to you.

Disgust because you had the presence of mind to defend Abike in the face of the vile and abhorrent post she made against the Igbo race. You are not more discerning than other Nigerians. We follow Abike’s tweets and the insults, vileness, and bigotry that she often transmits. Who is after her in the first place? How many Nigerians consider her as holding an important position in the government? Why should we bend down to lick her boots for doing a job that she is being paid to do with taxpayers’ money? Is she serving Nigeria pro bono?

In any event, you wrote your long epistle within a particular context. While Abike is being called out by well-meaning Nigerians for retweeting/endorsing a tweet that described the entire Igbo race ( the one to which you purportedly belong) as monkeys, children of gorillas and bastards, you permitted or indeed freely offered yourself as a vehicle through which a defence and image laundry would be launched for her. Your defence is a fatal failure, and it is a huge shame.

However, in your long epistle, you made not even a veiled reference to that controversial tweet. Why? Should we take it that you chose a rigmarole because you couldn’t in good conscience (if you possess one) muster any form of defence for that action that has received a worldwide condemnation? That’s understandable, but if that’s the case, you are being dishonest. How do you defend such an obnoxious and reprehensible act, especially coming from a federal public office holder? I don’t have the answer, but you must.

Fredrick, people hate history for a reason. Because it never forgets. History will remember you for being a staunch defender of ethnic bigotry, hate, and racism. Enjoy your tenure and the perks that accompany being within the precincts of power while they last.

Chukwudi Ani, Esq

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

By Tony Omagbemi

​The recent actions of Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Chairman of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NIDCOM), have ignited a firestorm of controversy and brought a critical issue back to the forefront: the normalisation of ethnic bigotry by public officials. By reposting a social media message that used vile, dehumanising language to describe the Igbo people, Dabiri-Erewa did more than just share a post; she appeared to endorse a culture of hatred and division. Her use of laughing emojis alongside the derogatory remarks has been widely seen as a blatant display of contempt, sparking outrage and earning her the moniker “grandmother of bigotry” from many Nigerians.

​This incident is not just about a single social media post. It’s about a pattern of behaviour that many critics argue is part of a larger, troubling trend of tribal favouritism and bias.

Prominent activist Aisha Yesufu condemned the action, stating that Dabiri-Erewa continually “finds a new low” and highlights how the bigotry displayed online has support from leaders.

This perspective is echoed by the Ohanaeze Ndigbo socio-cultural group, which has called for her removal, accusing her of consistently promoting ethnic profiling against the Igbo.

The outrage is not an overreaction; it’s a gut-level response to the casual cruelty of a public servant whose role is to unite, not divide.

The demands for her removal and a formal ethics investigation are a testament to the public’s unwillingness to tolerate such actions from those in power.

​The silence from the Presidency on this matter has been particularly deafening. In a diverse and pluralistic society, leaders are expected to be beacons of unity and tolerance. When they remain silent in the face of blatant bigotry from one of their own, it sends a dangerous message of tacit approval.

As one X user noted, “Any decent person would be appalled by Abike Dabiri-Erewa’s behaviour and react with strong disapproval. But then, what can one expect from her boss whose views she was clearly expressing. Otherwise, why the silence if not approval?”

This lack of response is perceived by many as a failure of leadership, undermining the very principles of national unity and mutual respect that Nigeria desperately needs.

​Ultimately, this controversy is a stark reminder of the urgent need for a national dialogue on ethnic tolerance. The foundation of a strong, prosperous nation is built on respect, empathy, and inclusivity.

When public figures—who should be held to the highest standards—engage in behaviour that promotes division and hate, they corrode the very fabric of society.

It is up to all of us to demand better from our leaders and to actively work towards creating a more just and equitable Nigeria for everyone.

Mrs Dabiri-Erewa’s journey to amplifying the anti-Igbo slant began on Monday when she posted a video of a trafficked girl she identified as Mercy, who was rescued from Libya.

In reaction to Mrs Dabiri-Erewa’s post, an X user, Wale Akere, posting via @akerele_s, lauded the NIDCOM boss for her work while berating Igbos as “monkeys, children of gorillas and bustards.”

“My sister you are doing well allow those monkeys to continue to make unnecessary noises they are born to be ungrateful people. Those animals tagging you they are children of gorilla history told us about them. Kudos to you madam @abikedabiri. @Voiceofigbos see what my sister has done omo ale jatijati,” @akerele_s posted.

In apparent approval of @akerele_s’s toxic post, Mrs Dabiri-Erewa reposted it with memes of laughter, amplifying the message. On Mrs Dabiri-Erewa’s timeline, the post has been viewed by over 15,000 people, gathering more than 53 reposts and over 100 comments.

Of course, following the backlash, Wale S Akerele@akerele_s has pulled down the post and Dabiri-Erewa’s anti-Igbo support reaction.

This is not the first time Dabiri-Erewa, an indigene of Lagos State, former star journalist with the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) and ex-member of the House of Representatives, has been criticised for anti-Igbo slants.

The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission had been drawn out by a group, Igbos in Diaspora, who accused the Commission of bias in handling hate speech incidents, personally expressing their disapproval that Mrs Dabiri-Erewa delayed her response to comments made by Kingsley Ugiagbe, who had threatened to kill Nigerians of Igbo extraction in Austria, compared to the hate speech made by Amaka Sonnberger, who advocated for the poisoning of Yorubas and the people of Benin, in Canada.

Again, in late April 2023, following the rescue of Nigerians trapped in Sudan at the outbreak of the Sudanese civil war, an Igbo group, Coalition of South East Youth Leaders, (COSEYL), demanded that the chairperson of Nigerians In Diaspora Commission be sacked and prosecuted for displaying wickedness and inhumanity against Igbo population who were among those trapped in the war-torn country.

The group, in a statement by its President, Goodluck Ibem said it was “alarmed over the inhuman and wicked treatment meted out to Nigerians of Igbo origin by Dabiri-Erewa wherein she and her team ordered all the Igbos who had entered the rescue bus sent by the Federal government to Sudan to come down while conveying Nigerians who are not of Igbo origin. This is barbaric and wickedness of the highest order against humanity and we condemn it in its entirety.”

They expressed regret that Abike Dabiri-Erewa, who is paid by taxpayers’ money, which Igbos are among, will segregate against the same people contributing to her salaries and allowances, stating that “this evil and unpatriotic act against fellow Nigerians, which she was employed to serve must never go unpunished.”

On Sunday August 3, 2025, Mrs Dabiri-Erewa, in an interview on Arise TV, said 20 of the 21 citizens on death row in Indonesia were from a State in South East Nigeria.

Speaking on the interventions of her agency in the recent protests against Igbos in Ghana, Mrs Dabiri-Erewa responded: “The tribe you mention will ask if it’s because of us. No. Like I said, crime has no federal character.”

Citing her experience in Indonesia as an example, Mrs Dabiri-Erewa said, “We had 21 Nigerians on death row. We went to the Indonesian prison and begged them; they said, ‘No, our law is law.’ Four were executed.”

She added, “You know what? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Out of 21 of them, 20 were from one state in the South-East. The other one is from Edo State. But that does not mean you should generalise that everyone from that state is a criminal.”

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

By Nick Agule

Sir, your assertion that by devaluing the Naira, the Tinubu government has hit a “perfect sweet spot” (because a weak Naira has made Nigerian goods to become cheaper on global markets, thus generating an export surge) only holds water if our exports consistently exceed imports.

But when imports dominate as they currently do, the supposed gains from exports vanish, and the forex reforms (devalued Naira) become yet another burden on ordinary Nigerians through high imported inflation!

Before a weaker Naira can translate into export gains, Nigeria must first confront and resolve its deep structural deficiencies. Without fixing the fundamentals – power, infrastructure, production capacity, and regulatory bottlenecks, all underpinned by the rule of law – currency devaluation only amplifies hardship, not competitiveness.

With just 5kMW for 240 million people, industrialisation is stillborn! No country in history has industrialised on the back of generators or fragmented power solutions. Only robust grid solutions can ignite real industrial growth.

The power crisis can be tackled with 3 decisive moves:

1. Unbundle transmission
2. Fix the DISCOs
3. Put the private sector in the driving seat and let capital efficiency lead (note: the President Jonathan’s so-called privatisation of the power sector was a sham that needs to be fixed).

Yet the most seemingly out-of-depth minister in this government is the one in charge of power. Every time he speaks, it’s about tariffs. But Nigeria’s power problem isn’t pricing or tariffs – it’s output.

When MTN & co entered Nigeria’s telecom sector, tariffs weren’t their concern. The real opportunity they saw was in scale. While NITEL was stuck offering 500k lines, MTN & co envisioned 100 million lines and got to work deploying capex to build the infrastructure. Today, they deliver over 200 million lines at a fraction of NITEL’s old tariffs and still remain highly profitable.

The same principle applies to power. If competent, well-capitalised private operators are allowed to lead, they won’t fixate on tariffs either. The real opportunity lies in expanding supply from the current 5kMW to say 100kMW Nigeria actually needs.

Unfortunately, this is the vision the power minister has failed to grasp. His obsession with tariffs has blinded him to the scale of opportunities possible in output growth.

Because something as basic as power is in deficit, while officials spin export figures, we’re importing nearly everything from any product with iron or steel content (because our steel plants are dead), including vehicles, aircraft, arms, building materials, etc. pharmaceuticals and even gas are on our import list while we are flaring our own gas!

As for the touted food exports, one cargo of wheat imported from Ukraine alone wipes out the entire narrative.

Another huge import not attracting mention is – seats on flights. Right now, as I type, Nigerians are idling away in Addis Ababa, Nairobi, Casablanca, Cairo, Maroc, Istanbul, Doha etc – doing nothing but waiting for connecting flights to Europe, America or Asia. The cost of importing airline seats alone dwarfs whatever exports we’re boasting about.

Until we confront the structural deficits in our economy – power, production, infrastructure, security, law and policy, etc. – export optimism remains daydreams!

Tariffs won’t build factories. Speeches won’t revive steel. And forex tweaks won’t industrialise a nation running on fumes. Nigeria doesn’t need cosmetic reforms. We need courage, competence, and a complete reset and perhaps some prayers!

Nick Agule is a Nigerian citizen passionate about good governance and the deepening of our democracy.

See the DG’s article in the comments of this post: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BCcTR2myn/

Nick Agule
Email: [email protected]
X: @NickAgule
Facebook: Nick Agule, FCA
05.09.2025

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

By Richard Akinnola

Today, Friday, September 5, is the 16th anniversary of the death of Chief Gani Fawehinmi. There is no better way to honour Gani on the anniversary of his passing than to rebut the lies peddled against him by Mr Yakubu Mohammed, a director of Newswatch. First thing that struck me was the question – What would Gani had done in the present circumstance? I answered – He would have written a book to counter Mr Mohammed as he did to his erstwhile friend, Dr Olu Onagoruwa who lied against him in his book after he left as Abacha’s Attorney-General, in a counter book he titled-“The lies and lies of Dr Olu Onagoruwa.”

So, in the present circumstance, this is my tentative response, which may be developed into a book because of some annexures which can’t fit into this space.

Mr Yakubu Mohammed, was one of the co-founders of Newswatch, in which Dele Giwa was the founding Editor-in-Chief.

He recently turned 75 and decided to come out with his memoir. Understandably, there was no way the book could not have touched on the assassination of Dele Giwa on October 19, 1986.

I have read the book, which l bought for N30,000 at Rovingheight, particularly chapter 17 – Assassination of Dele Giwa – and a follow-up interview with The Niche newspaper. Nothing much in the book on this issue but the issue of Glory Okon and his tirade against Gani in his interview with Niche.

In both instances, he exculpated General Ibrahim Babangida from the assassination of his colleague, Dele Giwa. He went up to lacerate Gani Fawehinmi, who staked his life on the matter. I have no problem if, in his opinion, the Babangida junta did not kill his colleague but it is uncharitable to go ahead to seriously lampoon Gani Fawehinmi for accusing Babangida junta of the assassination, someone who put his life on the line in his quest to get justice for Mr Mohammed’s colleague, a trajectory culminating in 38 cases and 214 court appearances, by my records.

On pages 236-237 of the book, instead of naming Gani Fawehinmi directly, he coyly said:”During the Giwa tragedy, some people who might have been rubbed the wrong side by the Babangida administration were ready to swear that nobody else but Babangida could have killed Dele Giwa. Such people, including assorted social critics and human rights activists could not have numbered among his fans and they did not fail to show it.
“Though many patriots who felt genuinely touched by the tragedy made commendable and altruistic efforts to put pressure on the investigating agencies to do their duty, the few who had axe to grind, went too far in my view. In many instances, they invented their own stories and helped to reshape the narratives, resorting in the process to blatant fallacies and unhelpful conjectures.

“The methods they adopted narrowed the investigation to a few options instead of widening the options…designed to produce a pre-determined outcome. It was as a result of this that the board of Newswatch Communications felt the urgent need to put a disclaimer to the angle being pursued by Gani Fawehinmi which was decidedly narrow”.

Some of the things Mr Mohammed said in the Niche interview:
“Gani Fawehinmi was not the Newswatch lawyer. Dele Awokoya, who used to be in his chambers, was our lawyer. I am not disowning him but he was not our lawyer. Gani had passion for big cases and we were attracting big cases, so he was interested. When he came to defend us against Chief Rotimi Williams, we didn’t invite him. But because he had his own grouse against Rotimi Williams, he took over and we thanked him for that. It is true that Dele wrote him a letter after his encounter with the SSS but he was not Newswatch lawyer….

Dele wrote him a letter after his encounter with the SSS. And when Dele spoke to Akilu, he told him he had spoken to his lawyer. Of course, you are free to pick anybody as your lawyer but for Newswatch, it was Dele Awokoya….

“The people Gani accused of Killing Dele went to court, all the way to the Supreme Court…
“My conjecture all along is that Dele’s assassination has nothing to do with Newswatch because if it was Newswatch, first, they should have come to our office and bomb us when we are holding our editorial conference….

“Billy, who brought it to his father, made a statement and someone sitting down there said, “Billy, state that this parcel was from Babangida….”

First, let me address the erroneous claim of Mr Mohammed to the effect that the people Gani accused, fought their matter to the Supreme Court. Let me give the correct trajectory of the case.

After a see-saw of legal fireworks by Gani on the issue of private prosecutor, hia appeal got to the Supreme Court which held that he had the locus standi to privately prosecute the two Security Chief he believed killed Giwa.

On Friday, December 18, 1987, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision of the seven Justices, upheld the appeal of Gani Fawehinmi, that he had the right to privately prosecute the two Security Chiefs of Babangida he accused of being behind the murder of Dele Giwa.

Pursuant to that judgment, Gani Fawehinmi filed an application at the Lagos High court, seeking for an order of Mandamus to compel the State’s DPP to either prosecute the two security chiefs or he be given the fiat to do so.

The matter was assigned to Justice Olusola Thomas, who, on Thursday, January 21, 1988, made the following order:

“I hereby order that Mr J.A. Oduneye, the former Director of Public Prosecutions (now Solicitor-General of Lagos State), do exercise his discretion whether or not to prosecute Col. Halilu Akilu and Lt-Col. A.K. Togun for the murder of late Dele Giwa and, if he declines to prosecute, that he do endorse a certificate to the effect on the information submitted to him by the applicant on Monday, the 3rd November, 1986. This order of the court shall be carried out on or before Monday 25th day of January, 1988”.

Pursuant to this order, Gani Fawehinmi sent a letter to the DPP, accompanied it with the court’s ruling.

Based on this, the Solicitor-General wrote to Gani Fawehinmi that the State was ready to prosecute the suspects (See annexures 1&2).

On the basis of this, the murder information was filed and it came before Justice Eniola Longe, in the case of The State v. Col. Halilu Akilu and Lt. Col. Kunle Togun (Charge no. ID/4c/88).The prosecutor was Mrs Eniola Fadayomi, the Attorney-General of Lagos, while Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, was counsel to the accused persons, who were not in court. Williams raised a preliminary objection to the trial, which was agreed with by the prosecutor. Subsequently, the charges were quashed and the accused persons freed.

Gani Fawehinmi said if he had been granted the fiat to privately prosecute, he would have loved to put Babangida in the witness box. “l have 420 questions for Babangida. Let him stand in the witness box and answer those questions. Then, we will all know who killed Dele Giwa. I think God wants to establish a principle through the death of Dele Giwa. They killed the wrong person and they are targeting the wrong lawyer.”

After the court discharged the duo of Akilu and Togun, they both filed defamation suits against Gani and the court awarded N6million as damages to them for defamation, that is, N3million apiece but Gani challenged the decision at the court of appeal which upturned the decision of the lower court and the court upbraided the high court judge for the award. The decision of the Court of Appeal is reported in Nigeria Weekly Law Reports (1994) 6 N.W.L.R Part 351. So, the matter ended at the Court of Appeal.

Now, to other issues in the interview.

He accused Fawehinmi of falsely accusing Babangida regime for the murder.
Mr Mohammed went on to state that contrary to insinuations, the issue of investigating Gloria Okon, who purportedly died in custody, was never contemplated by the Newswatch.

Mr Mohammed is entitled to his own narrative on the matter. However, l have few posers for him. The Glory Okon angle was never manufactured by anyone in the media. It was part of the information filed in court by Gani Fawehinmi which naturally had to be reported.

Gani Fawehinmi died 16 years ago. Almost 20 years before his death, Mr Mohammed couldn’t summon the courage to confront him that he was lying. It took 16 years after Fawehinmi’s death, for him to come out to say that Fawehinmi lied against the Babangida government.

I don’t have any evidence that Generals Haliru Akilu, Kunle Togun and Babangida killed Dele Giwa but I’m not in any doubt that such an assassination by parcel bomb, with the sophistication associated with coupling such an instrument 39 years ago, could only have been done by a sophisticated security network of a government, particularly considering the fears Dele expressed to Gani two days before the assassination , that his life was in danger. Like Funmi his widow posited then, this was a time when N500 was enough to hire a killer, since Dele was a night crawler. That a hired killer could have just shot him, instead of the tedium of coupling a parcel bomb, which was novel in Nigeria.

While Mallam Mohammed is free to own his truth and defend Babangida, I have the following questions for Mr Mohammed:

1. Why didn’t he confront Gani Fawehinmi when he was alive?
2. Why didn’t he contradict his colleague, Mr Ray Ekpu, when he (Ekpu) petitioned and appeared before the Oputa panel, particularly regarding six questions he said Babangida’s security Chiefs refused to answer?
3. Why didn’t he counter Major Debo Bashorun, a former aide of General Babangida, who came out with a book titled -“Honour for sale: An insider account of the murder of Dele Giwa”, published in 2013 where he accused the Babangida regime of being behind it and how he was almost killed for refusing to be part of the cover up?
4. Why didn’t he counter Late CP Abubakar Tsav, who testified at the Oputa panel as the first investigator assigned to investigate the murder and his preliminary report indicting the Babangida regime?
5. Why didn’t he counter Mr Ray Ekpu’s evidence at the Oputa panel regarding the issue of Gloria Okon?

For ease of reference, let me recount what Mr Ray Ekpu said at Oputa panel.

Ray Ekpu’s posers inter alia before the Oputa panel

“What was the result of the police investigation?

Akilu had told Funmi that he wanted to inform Giwa that he should expect a message from the ADC. Based on this, he got a thorough description of how to get to Giwa’s house. What is the message?

“Dele Giwa was denied the right to life.The seeming helplessness of the police with regard to the security officials concerned with the events in Giwa’s last four days and government’s inexplicable stand in the question of an open judicial inquiry had begun to fuel speculations that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up the assassination.
One is happy that this Commission is here and all the things that have been covered can now be uncovered.

“Up till today, the following questions remain unanswered.-

1. Why was Akilu interested in Giwa’s home address that weekend?
2. Why did Akilu not phone him in the office on weekdays, after all,they were not friends?
3. Does he need a home address in order to tell Giwa that the matter is now settled?
4. Why did he not inform Giwa of the reason for his asking for the home address?
5. Was the gun running allegation a cover so that if Giwa died as he did, it will be said that it was the arms he allegedly imported that exploded in his home and took his life?
6. How did the parcel bomb get to the shores of this country or was it locally manufactured?” THE GLORIA OKON ANGLE

In the course of his cross-examination at the Oputa panel after his evidence, counsel, Dele Awokoya asked Mr. Ray Ekpu:
“Now, there was this Gloria Okon angle to the matter, can you please explain to the Commission that angle?
Ekpu: Yes, there was a lady called Glory Okon, who was arrested in Kano for alleged drug smuggling. This lady was detained in a prison in Kano and after some days, I cannot remember the exact number of days, she was said to have died in detention. There were all kinds of allegations and speculations about whether she actually died while in the detention or she was spirited out of the country. Newswatch was working on a story on Gloria Okon. But at the point that Dele died, the story was an idea which had been put on our register of stories to be investigated. Several of our reporters were to be put on the story. It was at this point that Dele died.”

The Cross-examination of Chief Gani Fawehinmi by Mrs. Nwandu, the Commission’s counsel.

Mrs. Nwandu: Chief Fawehinmi, just a couple of questions for you.

A: Yes, ma.
Q: Your petition speaks volume about your single- minded devotion to the cause of our fallen friend. We commend your investigative effort. Just a few questions for you. You mentioned the name of Gloria Okon during the cause of your testimony in person but you did not elaborate. Could you tell the Commission?

A: Thank you very much indeed. I am happy that the Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch, Ray Ekpu had told the Commission the issue of Gloria Okon was also being worked on by Newswatch at that time. Dele Giwa was not in the country. Dele Giwa was abroad gathering information on Gloria Okon. The meeting of the 9th of October that was held by the Chief Executives of the Newspapers with Haliru Akilu and Togun was to the effect that it was an order that any member of the newspaper that publishes or that has any information on whatever that will affect the wife of the President or the President himself, must be cleared with the security. Now, on Gloria Okon, Gloria Okon was a courier for Mrs. Maryam Babangida.

Q: Courier for what Chief?
A: Courier for drugs, and it was so published in some of the papers. My Lord, what happened was that Gloria Okon was arrested for carrying drugs and when she spoke and squealed and released the name of the wife of President Babangida, she was promptly taken into somewhere else and…

Q: So Chief, to where?
A: And the information was that she was murdered during the regime of Buhari.

Q: Chief, just a moment.
A: The government set up.

Q: Excuse me, I am sorry.
A: The government of Buhari set up an investigation.

Chairman: He is giving you the connection
Chief Fawehinmi: He set a panel and this is very crucial Sir. He set up a panel to look into it. Before the panel could submit its report, on the 27th of August, 1985, Buhari had been toppled and Babangida came to power and the report was submitted to Babangida. And because of this, well, Babangida did not want the press to know the details of this report. And in one of the Exhibits I tendered, it was shown, according to Gloria Okon, that a big man was involved. When the report was given to Babangida, he refused to release it to the public up till today. Babangida has not released it to anybody. Till today that I am talking to you Sir, the investigation that was begun during Buhari’s regime which was concluded after Buhari was toppled and which report was given to Babangida had never seen the light of day. And so they thought that Dele Giwa had gotten all the information… And Mr. Togun said it much on the 27th of October 1986 at the airport, that when they reached an agreement for certain things that should be done, that nobody should blackmail them by trying to publish the same thing. So, what was that something that Togun was referring to at the Airport on October 27th 1986? That something was Gloria Okon.

Q: Chief, the last question now. Before Dele Giwa’s death, you said he was investigating Gloria Okon. Is that correct?
A: He was genuinely out to investigate Gloria Okon, there is no doubt about that.

Q: Yes, Chief.
A: There is no doubt about that but they did not want him to pursue it.

Q: All right Chief, yes, thank you very much. Now, was he able to confide in you, did he tell you the outcome of that investigation before he died?
A: Ray Ekpu has just told you that even they had it on their register. But before they could even finish up, the man had died. Then what else do you want me to say?”

These are not my words. These are extracts from the proceedings of Oputa panel, which recommended that investigations into the murder be re-opened.

Due to public curiosity regarding the Glory Okon angle, as a journalist in the Vanguard, l interviewed Prince Bola Ajibola, the Attorney-General in Babangida’s government regarding the issue of Glory Okon and the purported report on his death. Prince Ajibola said he would call for the report. The story was the lead in SUNDAY VANGUARD of January 18, 1987 with the headline – Glory Okon: Ajibola to call for report. This interview, Ajibola later told me, almost put him in trouble with the government. I won’t go into details of what he told me in confidence. That’s all l knew about the matter.

So, l don’t know if Glory Okon is a fictional character or not.

I would have thought that Mr Mohamed would have aligned himself with the recommendations of the Oputa panel, which recommended that the murder be re-investigated, instead of engaging in his current red herring, lampooning Gani who put his life and resources on the line in his quest for justice for those he believed killed his colleague.

Assuming without conceding that Gani was wrong, what other alternative leads have Mr Mohammed proffered, apart from exculpating Babangida?

Mr Mohammed also lied against Gani in his interview with Niche newspaper that Gani was telling Billy Giwa, son of Dele Giwa, to accuse Babangida of the murder. Apart from the fact that this is a blatant lie because the statement volunteered to Gani by Billy did not accuse Babangida but only related what transpired between his dad and Akilu few days before the assassination and how he received the parcel from the security man before he went to give his father. I would publish the full text of Billy’s statement later. How Mr Mohammed is stridently trying to exculpate Babangida and at the same time, throwing Gani under the bus, is intriguing.

With due respect, it evinces an act of cowardice on the part of Mr Mohammed to come out with this accusation against Gani, 16 years after his death.

In his interview in Niche newspaper, Mr Mohammed went further to uncharitably accuse Gani of being an ethnic chauvinist – all in his attempt to deodorize Babangida and his government. It’s within his prerogative to do a PR job for his friend but he doesn’t have the liberty to blatantly lie that Gani of all people, is an ethnic chauvinist, who allegedly accused him (Mohammed) of supporting Babangida because he (Mohammed) is a northerner. What an odious fallacy!

In case Mr Mohammed doesn’t know, the first case that brought Gani to limelight in 1969 was the case of a Northerner, Bala Abashe, who had alleged that the Secretary to government of Benue-Plateau state, Andrew Obeya allegedly snatched his wife. This earned Gani Fawehinmi his first detention where he was when his first son, Mohammed was born. For Mr Mohammed to start retailing disparaging comments that Gani accused him of supporting Babangida because he was a northerner, is perverse, to say it mildly.

In the third part of his interview with NICHE, Mohammed continued his disparagement of Gani when he falsely claimed that Gani Fawehinmi was never the Newswatch lawyer. I find this lie perversely disingenuous. How can a lawyer hold your brief without you disowning him? He said Dele Awokoya, who used to be in Gani’s Chambers was Newswatch lawyer. Is he aware that Dele Awokoya, a very brilliant lawyer for that, even when he was in Gani’s Chambers as deputy head of Chambers, was handling some cases on behalf of the Chambers, involving Dele Giwa? Mohammed even went further to claim thus: “When he came to defend us against Chief Rotimi Williams, we didn’t invite him but because he had his grouse against Rotimi Williams, he took over the case and we thanked him for that”. Blatant lie! I knew when Dele Giwa approached Gani with the letter that Rotimi Williams initially wrote to Newswatch, demanding an apology or he would go to court for defamation. It was when Dele, as Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch, briefed Gani that Gani wrote a letter on behalf of Newswatch that the magazine stood by its story. I was there the day Dele came to brief Gani. I was at the “Judges Hall of Fame” in the Chambers the day he came to brief Gani. After both of them emerged from Gani’s office, they normally had to pass through the Judges Hall of fame. Gani saw Dele off in his usual courtesy. As he was coming back to his office, Gani sighted me and he was in high spirit as he said to me in Ondo dialect – “Richie, ka wa, ka wa”(meaning, Richie, come, come). That was when he informed me about the brief that Dele came for, regarding the letter Williams wrote to Newswatch, demand a retraction and apology over the story. Subsequently, when Williams sued Newswatch, Gani filed his defence.

I knew about these facts because l was on top of it. How? Because when Dele Giwa briefed Gani, he (Giwa) informed me, that l was likely to be a witness in the matter and the reason is simple.

When The Guardian started in February 1983, one of its House styles was that everyone would be addressed as simply Mr. No honorific prefixes like Dr, Chief, Alhaji. So, when General Muhammadu Buhari junta promulgated Decree 4 and Tunde Thompson, Nduka Irabor and The Guardian were charged before a Tribunal in 1984, l was the judicial reporter that covered the trial. Rotimi Williams was The Guardian counsel. Based on our House style, when l started reporting the matter, in my report, l would write Mr Rotimi Williams but when the newspaper came out, l would see Chief Rotimi Williams. Subsequently, l started writing Chief Rotimi Williams.

At the end of the trial, Newswatch published a piece on “The death of Simply Mr in The Guardian.”It was this story in which Williams was alleged to have given The Guardian a condition that except he was called Chief, he would not defend the newspaper. Chief Wiliams claimed this was defamatory and that was the reason Giwa told me l was likely going to be a witness in the matter.

Subsequently, Gani responded with his own letter on behalf of Newswatch. So, how can Mr Mohammed falsely claim that Gani hijacked the case because he had a score to settle with Williams? That is a blatant lie, an egregious allegation of professional misconduct which is grossly unfair to a dead man who cannot defend himself. Was that the first time Williams and Gani would clash in court? Gani’s issue with Williams wasn’t personal but professional. He had a running battle with those he called the cabal in the legal profession, to wit, Rotimi Williams, Richard Akinjide and Kehinde Sofola. They had been tackling each other in the courtroom, the height of which were the Gani Fawehinmi v. Legal practitioners Disciplinary Committee and Gani Fawehinmi v. NBA matters, where Williams and Sofola represented the NBA.

Let me reiterate and educate Mr Mohammed what transpired. Williams wrote Newswatch through Dele, asking for a retraction and an apology. Dele went to brief Gani, who responded on behalf of Newswatch that the magazine stood by its story. Then, Williams filed a Writ against Newswatch and Gani filed his defence, pleading justification, that Williams had no reputation to claim based on what Justice Charles Abbot said about him in a 1949 case.

In the case, No. M3550, decided on June 6, 1949, in which Williams was accused of stealing his client’s money entrusted to him. It was the sun of 2,700 pounds.
Though Justice Abbot did not convict Williams, he nonetheless upbraided him, where the judge said, inter alia: “…Balogun paid him 100 pounds for professional fees which he never performed and made no offer to return. I will not say more than that the conduct of accused 1 in this regard savours of rapacity wholly unbecoming of a member of the profession to which he belongs.” This was part of Gani’s defence on behalf of Newswatch.

So, if Gani went to this length to defend a client, only for Mr Mohammed to come out 40 years after to throw him under the bus, is most unfortunate.
I wish Mr Mohammed really knew how fastidious Gani was when it came to documentation. So, you mean Gani would just jump on a case where he wasn’t briefed, without requisite documentation? It means you never knew Gani. Mr Mohammed, if you claim Gani had an axe to grind with Babangida, which government did Gani not fight? Was he less brutal to Gowon, Shagari, Abacha, Shonekan or Obasanjo? The only government that he seemed to support was that of General Buhari because of his war on corruption, which led him on collision course with the NBA. Even at that, it wasn’t total.

In 1985, Gani launched a blistering attack on Buhari over his efforts to undermine the judiciary, leading to the forced resignation of Justice Yaya Jinadu of the Lagos High Court. In my law column in Vanguard, l highlighted the travails of Justice Jinadu and when Gani read it, he told me the issue should be developed into a book and that was how his Nigerian Law Publication commissioned me to write a book on the episode. The book, SALUTE TO COURAGE:THE STORY OF JUSTICE YAYA JINADU, published in 1988, was launched at the Nigeria Law school auditorium in February 1989. I had to highlight this to show that there was no government that Gani did not fight. It’s therefore sheer blackmail to state that Gani accused the Babangida government over Dele Giwa because he had an axe to grind with it.

I wonder why Mr Mohammed was silent on the book written in 2013 by Major Debo Bashorun on the murder of Dele Giwa, which is more detailed.

Also, in the Niche interview, Mr Mohammed admitted that though Dele Giwa wrote to Gani over his encounter with the Security Chiefs few days before his murder, he still insisted Gani was not Newswatch lawyer. How can Dele Giwa write a letter to Gani as Editor-in-Chief/Chief Executive on Newswatch letterhead, and you claim that he was just Dele’s personal lawyer and not Newswatch lawyer? Was the letter on Dele’s personal letterhead? That is disingenuously preposterous.

It is grossly uncharitable to accuse Gani of hijacking, as it were, a case he was not briefed, when in actual fact, he dutifully represented various media house pro bono when briefed. I suspect maybe Mr Mohammed was not carried along by Giwa when such decisions were made because among the quartet in Newswatch, he was the only one that seemed “anonymous”. He seemed to walk in the shadows of the trio of Dele Giwa, Ray Ekpu and Dan Agbese. Or Mr Mohammed has forgotten, how same Gani, as Newswatch lawyer, saved Mr Ray Ekpu from going to prison for contempt before the Justice Sampson Uwaifo judicial panel of inquiry, which was set up the Babangida government to look into the cases of those detained by the previous Buhari government.

Mr Ekpu had written in his column, a piece titled “A hollow ritual” in the Newswatch edition of February 3, 1986, wherein he described the panel as a Kangaroo court and was therefore cited for contempt.
Gani Fawehinmi, was counsel to Ray Ekpu, Dare Babarinsa, Soji Omotunde, Joyce Osakwe, Dele Olojede and Nosa Igiebor, who were the accused.
When the warrant for the arrest of the reporters was served on Newswatch, Dele Giwa, as Editor-in-Chief immediately briefed Gani Fawehinmi to defend them.
On the day they appeared, an obviously angry Justice Uwaifo announced that the accused persons would be sent to prison, pending when the tribunal would be able to hear their case.
Gani furiously objected, saying it would be unconstitutional for the judge to send them to prison for an offence that had a maximum penalty of N20 fine.
Said Gani:”My Lord, there is no law in Nigeria that gives you the power to commit these journalists to prison. The power you are relying on is unknown to the Nigerian constitution”.
Eventually, the tribunal released others but fined Ekpu N20. Gani appealed this and it was set aside.

Dear Mr Mohammed, l went into this detail to pooh-pooh your egregious assertion that Gani was never Newswatch lawyer. Is that a fair statement to make against someone who prevented your colleagues from being sent to prison after being briefed by Giwa?

Whatever personal animosity you have against Gani should not degenerate to the level where you serially lied against him.

So, if Gani was not Newswatch lawyer, how come he wrote to formally withdraw as Newswatch lawyer after Giwa’s murder? Can you withdraw from a client if you were not briefed? How come Mohammed didn’t come out to disown Gani then? Why now, 39 years after Giwa’s murder and 16 years after Gani’s death? With due respect sir, it smacks of cowardice.

Also, in 1987, Newswatch was proscribed by the Babangida government by virtue of Newswatch (Proscription and Prohibition from circulation) Decree No. 6 of 1987. Through Gani’s arrangement, he got Dr Olu Onagoruwa to challenge the proscription, while Gani served as his lawyer. Yet, the same man who fought the interest of your magazine is now being thrown under the bus, in a most unkind way. Would one be wrong to surmise that this probably is the hand of Esau and the voice of Jacob?
Mr Mohammed said his conjecture was that Giwa’s murder had nothing to do with Newswatch, otherwise, the perpetrators would have sent the bomb to Newswatch “and bomb us when we are holding our editorial conference.” I didn’t know whether to cry or laugh at this jejune statement. So, the Abacha strike force that shot Alex Ibru, the late publisher of The Guardian, on the street of Lagos, ought to have come to The Guardian to shoot him and his editors at Rutam House to prove that he was targeted because of The Guardian or Sgt Rogers should not have shot Kudirat Abiola at 7up area of Lagos but in Abiola’s house. Bagauda Kalto also should have been bombed inside TheNews premises! I’m really embarrassed reading this from an elderly senior journalist.

Dear Mr Mohammed, please, feel free to defend your friend, Babangida but it is cowardly to throw Gani Fawehinmi under the bus with your egregious accusations, 16 years after his death, thereby spitting on the grave of Dele Giwa, your colleague, 39 years after his murder.

This is the same Babangida, who, on three different occasions, in interviews, stated that the only genuine critic he respected was Gani Fawehinmi.

In the TELL magazine edition of July 24, 1995 at pages 9-20 titled “l am the Evil Genius”, Babangida said:

“If there is one man l respect, it is Gani. It sounds strange.l appreciate you that you have a strong conviction and fight for it consistently. This is the context in which l see Gani. He was a dogged fighter and l respect him for this. In fact, there are three of them l respect like that. They are Gani, late (Professor) Awojobi and Dr Yusuf Bala Usman. None of them says anything without doing his homework first”.

If you say in your interview that your conjecture is that the death of Giwa has nothing to do with Newswatch and you are exculpating the Babangida government that was so accused, is there something Mr Mohammed knows that the public doesn’t know? If he has foreclosed one angle, can he also proffer other angles?

Finally, since Mr Mohammed talked about conspiracy theories, I’m just wondering the reason security agents stopped newspapers from further carrying the advocacy promo on their front pages after Giwa’s murder titled “Who killed Dele Giwa?”

In closing, l adopt the recommendation of the Oputa panel that the murder be re-investigated.

PS: Mr Mohammed may not be aware of this. Since 1986 when Dele Giwa was killed, Gani Fawehinmi put Dele’s mother, Madam Elekhia on a monthly allowance till Gani died on September 5, 2009. That’s for 23 years! Please, Mr Mohammed, even if you don’t like Gani, respect such a person sir for this gesture towards your late colleague’s mother, a gesture you didn’t extend to her.

• Akinnola was a friend and associate of late Chief Gani Fawehinmi

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