Home Blog Page 227

AI Blunder: First Australian lawyer sanctioned for citing fake cases in court

An Australian lawyer has been sanctioned for the first time for submitting fake AI-generated cases to court.

The Victoria-based lawyer – known only as ‘Mr Dayal’ – has been stripped of his ability to practise as a principal lawyer and can no longer operate his own law practice, after submitting documents to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia last year containing AI-generated false citations.

He admitted he did not verify the contents.

It’s the first time an Australian lawyer has been sanctioned for the use of AI.

Generative AI tools are increasingly common in the legal sector, but their propensity to “hallucinate” information is proving to be problematic, with several recent examples of false or inaccurate citations being presented in cases.

Several other lawyers have been referred to state regulators for potential punishment over such cases.

Bogus AI cases

In October last year, a judge referred the Victorian lawyer to the Victorian Legal Services Board after discovering he had used AI to generate a number of citations that were entirely made up.

The lawyer was representing a husband in a dispute between a married couple and provided a list of prior cases that had been requested by the judge.

But when the judge checked this list, they were unable to find the cases in question, with the lawyer admitting he had prepared the list using AI-based legal software and had not verified them before submitting the document.

The lawyer gave the court an “unconditional apology” and said he would “take the lessons learned to heart”, admitting he did not fully understand how the AI tool worked.

But the judge decided to refer the case to the regulator due to the increasing usage of generative AI in the legal sector.

The Victorian Legal Services Board this week confirmed that the lawyer had his practising certificate varied in mid-August as a result of an investigation into his AI usage.

This means he is no longer able to practise as a principal lawyer, is not authorised to handle trust money, cannot operate his own law practice,e and can only practise as an employee solicitor.

He will also undertake supervised legal practice for two years, and report to the regulator quarterly over this time.

“The board’s regulatory action in this matter demonstrates our commitment to ensuring legal practitioners who choose to use AI in their legal practice do so in a responsible way that is consistent with their obligations,” a spokesperson for the Victorian Legal Services Board said in a statement.

“We strongly advise legal practitioners to refer to our statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice, and if they intend on using AI in the course of legal practice, consider undertaking continuing professional development to improve their knowledge.”

A growing problem

Just last month, a Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator after submitting fake AI-generated cases to court.

The lawyer tendered documents citing four cases that either did not exist or were referenced inaccurately and admitted to having an “overconfidence in relying on AI tools and failed to adequately verify the generated results”.

The judge overseeing the case said that the attraction of AI for lawyers was currently a “dangerous mirage”.

Earlier in August, a Victorian defence lawyer acting for a child accused of murder referenced non-existent case citations and inaccurate quotes from a speech in parliament and later admitted this was due to the use of AI.

And in July a Melbourne law firm was busted using AI to cite fake cases, and was ordered to pay costs in the case.

Legal authorities in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia have warned that lawyers “cannot safely enter” confidential or commercially-sensitive information into generative AI tools, which should only be used for “lower-risk and easier to verify tasks”.

Credit: ACS

Judge rules Trump administration unlawfully blocked $2 billion from Harvard

A federal judge on Wednesday gave Harvard University a landmark victory in its fight against the Trump administration, siding with the Ivy League school in its effort to restore more than $2 billion in federal funding for research frozen by the White House.

The decision from US District Judge Allison Burroughs rejects the administration’s argument that it was targeting the university due to antisemitism on the school’s campus.

“A review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities,” wrote Burroughs, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

“Their actions have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes,” Burroughs added.

The decision is a major victory for Harvard, the only university targeted by the Trump administration to take on the White House directly in court. The administration has argued it is cracking down on antisemitism on campus, but Harvard has become the epicenter of a broader fight over academic freedom, federal spending and campus oversight.

While Wednesday’s ruling is a major win for the school, the Trump administration is almost certain to escalate its fight against the elite academic institution, prompting longer-term questions about the school’s financial future. Already, the White House said it plans to appeal.

“This activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” White House spokesperson Liz Huston told CNN on Wednesday. “To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years.”

In a statement to the Harvard community on Wednesday evening, Harvard President Alan Garber said the ruling “validates our arguments in defense of the University’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education,” but acknowledged some uncertainty ahead.

“Even as we acknowledge the important principles affirmed in today’s ruling, we will continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments, and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission,” Garber said.

Burroughs pointed to some of the research projects impacted by the administration’s cuts, including efforts to create a predictive model to help emergency room physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs determine whether suicidal veterans should be hospitalized, research on Lou Gehrig’s Disease, the development of a chip to measure NASA astronauts’ radiation exposure on an upcoming excursion to the moon and support for a government program on emerging biological threats.

“There is no obvious link between the affected projects and antisemitism,” the judge said.

When the funding was frozen, Burroughs added, there was no investigation into whether any particular research labs, she said, “were engaging in antisemitic behavior, were employing Jews, were run by Jewish scientists, or were investigating issues or diseases particularly pertinent to Jews, … meaning the funding freezes could and likely will harm the very people Defendants professed to be protecting.”

She also took aim at numerous Trump social media posts. His concerns about Harvard, she said, “were untethered from antisemitism,” quoting many of them directly.

In her ruling, Burroughs wiped away a “Freeze Order” the administration issued in April that would have held up more than $2 billion multi-year grants to the university and barred the government from withholding any additional federal funds “to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of its First Amendment rights, or on any purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the terms of Title VI.

Burroughs made clear in her opinion that she viewed combating antisemitism as an important goal. Harvard, she wrote, “was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did.”

“The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting antisemitism was defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment,” she wrote.

Settlement talks over the summer

Officials from Harvard and the White House this summer have been in discussion toward a high-dollar deal to restore all federal funding and eliminate ongoing lawsuits – including a separate lawsuit with the Trump administration over the university’s ability to enroll international students. Burroughs ruled in Harvard’s favor in that case, though the decision didn’t preclude the administration from undertaking a formal review process that could eventually result in the university being unable to host foreign students and scholars.

Read Also: It’s Not a ‘Mutual-Defense Compact.’ But a New Ad From 18 Universities Aims to Send a Message

Last week, Trump publicly called for Harvard to pay “nothing less than $500 million,” telling his Education Secretary Linda McMahon, “They’ve been very bad. Don’t negotiate.”

Other schools targeted by the administration this year, many of which are experiencing acute financial pressure, have taken less confrontational approaches than Harvard.

In a deal reached in July, Columbia University agreed to pay the US Treasury a $200 million settlement to restore all federal funding. The school also agreed that an independent monitor will oversee implementation. Days later, Brown University reached a deal in which it would pay Rhode Island workforce development organizations $50 million.

The White House remains in negotiation with Cornell University and Northwestern University, and in early August, CNN learned that the Trump administration is seeking a $1 billion deal with the University of California, Los Angeles. The school’s leadership said at the time that sum would devastate the university.

The Trump administration has also been seeking new and creative ways to pressure Harvard, including by targeting the school’s patents.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting last week, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pointed to those efforts as a way Trump’s team works together across agencies.

“I mean, we just have a blast, you know? Because Linda’s hitting Harvard, and she says, ‘What can we do?’ Now we send them a patent letter and hit them again. So we’re having fun together,” Lutnick said.

CNN

The lacuna in presidential and gubernatorial qualifications

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Legislative Angels

I’m beginning to think that even if angels draft the Nigerian Constitution and all the laws in the country, Politicians and their Counsel will still go to court for interpretations, no matter how clear and unambiguous the angelic provisions are, because of their own selfish interests. And, even if all Judicial Officers were angels too, all losers in litigation would still twist and question court judgements, not only Politicians, but even Senior Lawyers too, when decisions do not appear to favour them or their clients. 

For the record, when I examine/analyse judgements, court processes or documents, I need not conduct interviews with anyone, whether or not they are Counsel in the cases, as it is the contents of the documents that are relevant; and it is more than trite that, unless it can be proven that documents were made under duress, such as a confessional statement of an accused person given as a result of torture, the case and documents speak clearly for themselves – “Res Ipsa Loquitur”. A judgement is always preceded with the facts of the case, while a ruling is always preceded with the reason for the interim/interlocutory application; arguments and the rationale for decisions, are also stated. It is unhelpful to challenge court decisions, not based on law, but on the manipulation of law and facts, baseless personal sentiments, speculation and twisted hypotheses, as people, including Lawyers, appear to do regularly these days; this simply creates suspicion in the legal process where there shouldn’t be, and brings it into disrepute unnecessarily. 

Room for Confusion 

Be that as it may, unfortunately, the room for challenge and chaos is sometimes aided by the unclear provisions of the law. For example, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) has left enough room for confusion and manipulation. 

Last week, I watched Channels TV’s Politics Today, and a couple of times, part of the conversation was whether former President Goodluck Jonathan, GCFR is eligible to run for President again and be elected, having completed late President Umaru Yar’Adua, GCFR’s term upon his death (see Section 146(1) of the Constitution), and was subsequently elected as President in the 2011 election, thereby serving a total of 5 years and 23 days so far, meaning that if he is elected again and wins, he will serve a total of 9 years and 23 days, over 1 year more than the 8 years provided for 2 terms of office – see Sections 135(2) & 180(2) of the Constitution for President and Governor respectively. 

Comparing Apples to Oranges 

The issue of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa who completed Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, CON, SAN’s (Aketi) tenure upon his death in December 2023, and his subsequent election in 2024, was also mentioned on the Channels TV’s said programme. Comparing Governor Aiyedatiwa and President Jonathan in a sense, is like comparing apples to oranges, because even though they are both fruits, they are different. 

Sections 137(3) & 182(3) of the Constitution which are two of the provisions relevant to this discourse, came into effect by virtue of the Fourth Alteration No. 16 to the Constitution of 2017. These provisions state that a person who was sworn in to complete the term of the President or Governor respectively, can only be subsequently elected into that position for one term. The difference is that, while the Fourth Alteration came into effect about six years before Deputy Governor Aiyedatiwa assumed Aketi’s position as Governor in 2023, it took effect about seven years after Vice President Jonathan took over as President in 2010. The issue of retrospectivity, isn’t applicable to Governor Aiyedatiwa, as it is to President Jonathan. 

Retrospective/Retroactive Laws: Aiyedatiwa vs Jonathan 

On the face of it, it appears clear as a bell, that by virtue of Section 182(3) of the Constitution, Governor Aiyedatiwa is ineligible to run for the office of Governor again. But, is that really the case? 

A retrospective/retroactive law “attaches new consequences for the future, to an event that took place before the statute was enacted”, or one that operates backward. In Adesanoye & Ors v Adewole & Anor (2000) LPELR-142(SC) per Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo, JSC, the Supreme Court named three types of retrospective statutes including “statutes that attach prejudicial consequences to a prior event” – such as what Section 137(3) of the Constitution appears to do to President Jonathan. The Apex Court went on to hold that a retrospective law isn’t necessarily unconstitutional, but, it should be stated in clear terms that a law is retrospective. This principle was well laid down in Afolabi & Ors v Governor of Oyo State & Ors (1985) LPELR-196(SC) per Kayode Eso, JSC where the Supreme Court held thus: “…. retrospective legislation that it is – “contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.”…. retrospectivity….deems (and deems is used advisedly) a thing to be what it is not. It is a make belief. It is false. It is repugnant to law….It is a fundamental rule of English law (I make bold to say – also of our law) that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation, unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication”. Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act 2004 (IA) provides that where the date a statute comes into force isn’t stated, it will take effect either the day it was made or enacted. Section 137(3) doesn’t state that it is retrospective, so, would it be fair to maintain that it is applicable to President Jonathan? I think not; it is even stated beside the provision, that it is inserted by the Fourth Alteration of Section 137 No. 16 of 2017. So, it is safe to conclude that it came into force in 2017. 

Having retrospective/retroactive laws, brings back memories of the military days. But, take for instance, the famous Decree No. 57 of 1977 on (Foreign) Exchange Control (Anti-Sabotage), it stated clearly in Section 1(1) that the Decree applied to actions carried out, even though before the commencement of the Decree in 1977, but not before July 29, 1975. A retrospective decree promulgated in 1977, with a commencement date of July 29, 1975.

Contradiction between Constitutional Provisions: Jonathan and Aiyedatiwa 

The second part of the argument, concerns President Jonathan and Governor Aiyedatiwa. That because they both completed their Principals’ terms and were subsequently elected to their positions as President and Governor respectively, they are ineligible to be elected to those positions a second time. 

Sections 137(1)(b) & 182 (1)(b) of the Constitution, disqualify only a person who has been elected twice into the office of President or Governor respectively. Neither of the two parties have been elected twice; President Jonathan was elected only once in 2011, and Governor Aiyedatiwa has only been elected once in 2024. According to Sections 137(1)(b) & 182(1)(b) of the Constitution, they still have one more bite of the cherry. This position was upheld by the 2013 decision of the FCT High Court in Cyriacus Njoku & Ors v PDP & Ors per Oniyangi J. where the court held that President Jonathan was only serving his first term (2011-2015) and he was free to seek re-election under the sponsorship of the PDP or any other party in the 2015 election (second term). The court recognised President Jonathan’s right to be elected twice, and this right would obviously be applicable to Governor Aiyedatiwa as well. 

It is trite that, unless one provision in the Constitution is made subject to another, they both have equal standing. The bindingness of the Constitution on all in Nigeria; and, the supremacy of its provisions over all other laws is clear, but it doesn’t appear to apply within the Constitution – see Section 1(1) & (3) thereof. It therefore appears that, Sections 137(1)(b) & 182(1)(b) contradict 137(3) & 182(3) of the Constitution. While the former allows President Jonathan and Governor Aiyedatiwa to be elected twice, regardless of whether they completed anybody’s term, the latter does not. 

If the intention of the Legislature was to ensure that no one serves in such executive positions for more than eight years in total, or that a person who completes the term of another can only be elected once so that such person doesn’t end up serving for more than 8 years, Sections 137(3) & 182(3) should have inserted a proviso such as “Irrespective or Regardless of Section 137(1)(b) above”, and in the case of Governor, “Section 182(1)(b) above”, so that it is stated without contradiction that such persons who complete the terms of their Principals, are only eligible to be elected once. 

Completing someone’s term, cannot be equated with election – it isn’t the same thing. Deputies are selected by their Principals to join their tickets; they don’t participate in the Primaries, like other aspirants who seek to run for office. They are selected/nominated by their Principals, after the Primaries have been won – see Sections 142(1) & 187(1) of the Constitution.

Conclusion 

As things stand now, it is obvious that Sections 137(3) & 182(3) of the Constitution require amendment. Unless the Supreme Court reverses the Njoku decision, President Jonathan and Governor Aiyedatiwa can argue that, on the strength of Sections 137(1)(b), 182(1)(b) of the Constitution and the Njoku decision, they are eligible to be elected one more time, while those against them will simply rely on Sections 137(3) & 182(3) thereof, to maintain that they are ineligible. 

In a society like ours, that has a penchant for challenging many things,  many times for nonsensical and selfish reasons, where even angelic interventions will most likely be challenged too (I believe that President Obasanjo was once quoted to have said that, even if angels conducted Nigeria’s elections, they would still be challenged), the Legislature must go the extra mile to ensure that the laws enacted have all the elements of good laws – that they are clear, unambiguous, free from contradiction, fair, reasonable, not repugnant or draconian and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. 

A pertinent question to ask however is, is it worth sacrificing one’s dignity to answer a desperate call to attempt to salvage what may very well be for now, a sinking ship, when one was wrongly and previously overlooked for others when it could have mattered? Those who may have been treated unfairly a few years ago, are suddenly being declared to be ‘the best thing after sliced bread’, now that there is a crisis and possibly, no viable or strong enough options within their party. 

Onikepo Braithwaite could be reached via [email protected]

Court orders British Airways to pay Nigerian passenger ₦50m for lost luggage

Justice Ibrahim Kala of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has ordered British Airways to pay N50 million in damages to a Nigerian passenger, Mr. Stephen Osho, for breach of contract of carriage and unfair treatment.

Delivering judgment, Justice Kala held that Osho successfully proved that the airline violated its obligations under the international contract of carriage when it failed to provide the service for which he had fully paid.

The court found that the passenger suffered undue hardship, inconvenience, and financial loss as a result of British Airways’ conduct.

In its defence, British Airways argued that Osho was responsible for his own predicament and urged the court not to award compensation.
Counsel for the airline further contended that, if any costs were granted, they should not exceed N60,000.

The court dismissed the argument as untenable in light of the facts before it.

Consequently, Justice Kala awarded N50 million in general damages against British Airways in favour of Osho.

The court further awarded N3 million as costs of the action, citing the expenses incurred, the protracted duration of the case, legal representation, summons fees, and the declining value of the naira.

The court based its decision on the Montreal Convention, 1999, as domesticated under the Nigerian Civil Aviation Act, which regulates claims arising from international air carriage.

While the Convention prohibits punitive or exemplary damages, it permits compensatory relief where passengers prove actual losses.

Epstein files show off a naked Ghislaine Maxwell and photos of powerful figures in resurfaced videos

Epstein committed suicide while in federal custody awaiting a trial for sex trafficking, according to authorities. Many have speculated that files relating to Epstein's crimes may shine light on the mysterious financier's personal life

Jeffrey Epstein decorated his Palm Beach lair with images of him with powerful people and naked women, including Ghislaine Maxwell, resurfaced videos show.

Police footage released on Tuesday by the House Oversight Committee gave a look inside the late pedophile’s Florida mansion in 2005, when police investigated the financier for sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.

Epstein kept framed photographs of women, many of them naked, all over the home, including in the bathrooms, hallways, offices and gym. 

The pedophile showed off over a dozen images of his ex-girlfriend Maxwell in the home, with one showing her naked on a beach.

Click here to continue reading.

Dangote denies ownership of truck in Enugu fatal crash

Dangote Industries Limited has denied ownership of the truck involved in a fatal accident in Enugu on Wednesday.

Law & Society had earlier reported that the crash, involved a Howo truck loaded with cement and a Toyota Corolla.

The truck, bearing the inscription of Visco Investment Global Limited, was travelling from Aba to Abuja when the accident occurred.

Reports online had suggested the truck belonged to the Dangote Group due to its brand signature, a claim the company has now dismissed.

In a statement signed by its management on Wednesday, Dangote Group said the vehicle was operated by a third party.

It added that tighter measures would be taken to protect its brand identity.

“We are engaging with the appropriate agencies to find out why the truck was carrying our logo when it is not part of our fleet.

“Going forward, we will apply more scrutiny to the unauthorised use of our brand identity, especially the misuse of our logo on vehicles not linked to the Group,” the company stated.

The company noted that it usually refrains from commenting on individual cases but was compelled by misinformation.

“Ordinarily, it is our policy not to comment on individual cases, but the spread of misinformation linking these incidents to the Dangote Group without evidence has compelled us to respond.

“We call on the public and the media to avoid spreading unverified claims,” the statement partly read.

The group also pledged support for the authorities handling the matter.

“We are committed to cooperating fully with the relevant authorities and insist that investigations should be allowed to run their course without interference.

“We strongly reject attempts to exploit tragedies like this for malicious or financial gain,” the statement concluded.

The company maintained that it remains committed to the highest standards of corporate responsibility, safety, and integrity.

In recent years, Dangote-branded trucks have repeatedly been linked to road accidents across the country, fuelling public criticism and social media backlash.

Ruth Otabor, the younger sister of Big Brother Naija Season 7 winner, Ijeoma “Phyna” Otabor, died following a leg amputation after being hit by a truck a linked to the Dangote Group near Auchi Polytechnic, Edo State.

Her family confirmed her death in a statement issued on Sunday by Eko Solicitors & Advocates, disclosing that she passed away around 6:30 a.m. while they were still seeking justice and compensation over the incident.

The accident occurred on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, just six days after Ruth graduated from Auchi Polytechnic.

Eyewitnesses said the heavy-duty truck crushed her leg before it was chased down and stopped by a bystander.

Many Nigerians have called for stricter regulation of heavy-duty vehicles associated with the conglomerate, often accusing the company of failing to rein in reckless drivers.

Every El-Rufai Accusation is a Confession

By Farooq Kperogi

There is a popular American political proverb that goes: “Every accusation is a confession.” It describes the tendency for politicians to attribute to rivals the very traits, desires, guilty knowledge, or actions they themselves harbor or have committed.

No one embodies this proverb more spectacularly than Malam Nasir El-Rufai. For example, in 2017, he admitted on national television that he used Kaduna State resources to pay bandits who kidnapped and murdered people.

“Yes, we offered [bandits] money,” he told Channels TV’s Chamberlain Usoh. “We said, ‘Look, if we have to pay you not to kill our people, we’re happy to do it.’ Compensation for life and property has foundations even in the Qur’an and the Bible.”

Eight years later, in an August 31 interview with Channels TV, he declared: “What I will not do is to pay bandits,” then accused his political rivals of doing just that. “It’s a national policy driven by the Office of the National Security Adviser, and Kaduna is part of it.”

Both the Office of the National Security Adviser and the Kaduna State government have flatly denied his claims.

To be fair, El-Rufai did tell BBC Hausa in February 2021 that he disagreed with Sheikh Ahmad Gumi’s call for compensating bandits. And in April 2021, he vowed he would never pay ransom even if his own son were kidnapped. But he never reconciled these positions with his 2017 admission that he did, in fact, pay ransom.

In that same August 31 interview, where he accused the NSA of “empowering bandits,” El-Rufai bragged that he had “dealt with” Christian Southern Kaduna leaders and with Shia Muslims of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN). “I didn’t take any nonsense from them,” he said. “Go and ask them.”

What he described so cavalierly about the IMN was the cold-blooded mass massacre of more than a thousand Shia Muslims and the destruction of their place of worship. One of the victims was my Facebook friend, the brilliant young Bukhari Muhammed Bello Jega, who was murdered along with his infant daughter, wife, and sister.

Another was the family of my former Daily Trust colleague (who’s now a lecturer at ABU), Isa Waziri Gwantu, who lost three children in the state-sanctioned mass butchery.

Set aside doctrinal differences or resentments toward Shias for a moment. These were human beings whose governor ordered their slaughter simply to show he “doesn’t take nonsense.” The sheer cold-bloodedness of bragging on national television about mass killings as proof of toughness is beyond what my mind can grasp. Honestly.

Yet this same governor, who boasts of orchestrating a mass massacre, complained bitterly on AIT that the Kaduna State government he helped install sent thugs to disrupt a meeting of his loyalists on August 30.

I don’t condone violence against him or his associates. But apart from his televised braggadocio about mass murder, Senator Shehu Sani, his longtime political foe, has documented, with videos and news clippings, a sordid history of thuggery and violence sponsored by El-Rufai’s government from 2016 to 2021.

The record is damning. In December 2016, gunmen attacked Senator Sani’s constituency office, injuring many. In July 2017, armed thugs stormed a press conference at the NUJ Secretariat, assaulting Senators Sani and Hunkuyi, other politicians, and journalists.

In May 2018, at Ranchers Bees Stadium, El-Rufai cursed Kaduna’s three senators before cheering supporters and urged attacks on them. Just weeks earlier, thugs had invaded a meeting led by Senator Hunkuyi, killing one man and injuring others.

And in May 2021, thugs attacked peaceful NLC protesters after mass sackings, an assault Sani says was led by El-Rufai’s aide, who was later freed on El-Rufai’s orders.

Now, in his AIT interview on August 30, El-Rufai lamented: “I’m quite disappointed and disgusted… If the authorities don’t take decisive action to end this reintroduction of thuggery into Kaduna politics, well, God help us, because nobody has a monopoly of violence. Nobody has a monopoly of thugs.”

Did he mean by “reintroduction” the continuation of the very violence and thuggery he normalized while in power?

Few Nigerian politicians weaponize the strategy of accusing others of what they themselves did as effectively as El-Rufai. It is his favorite tool for self-preservation, moral reframing, and political attack. That it collapses under the slightest scrutiny has never deterred him.

Whenever El-Rufai hurls accusations, my instinct is to check when he himself did the same things he accuses others of, or to assume, if no precedent exists, that it is what he harbors or intends.

Psychologists call this “projection.” Rhetoricians call it “accusation in a mirror,” where one levels against opponents the very charges that could be leveled against oneself, thereby confusing the public and flipping blame.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s notion of “ressentiment” is also apt. It says moral condemnation can become a mask for the bitterness of lost influence, a way to strike at successors or foes who enjoy the power he no longer wields.

So, when I say every El-Rufai accusation is a confession, I am not showing off a witty American aphorism. I am describing what has now become a consistent pattern in his politics.

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

Reviewed Curriculum: Full List of new JSS, SS subjects

The full list of subjects in the newly introduced school curriculum has surfaced online after the Special Assistant to the President on Social Media, Dada Olusegun, shared it on Wednesday.

Olusegun, in a post on his X handle, displayed an unsigned and unmarked image said to contain the subjects for Junior Secondary School and Senior Secondary School.

“The new curriculum for Nigerian Schools, which will commence from the next session in September 2025 has been released,” he said.

The curriculum, which the Federal Government unveiled on Sunday, introduces compulsory digital literacy and basic entrepreneurship at the JSS level, while programming, artificial intelligence, and new languages feature prominently at the SSS level.

Below is the full list of subjects for JSS and SSS as shared:

JUNIOR SECONDARY (JSS 1–3)

  • Mathematics & Measurement: Numbers, fractions, decimals, percentages, ratios, proportions, rates, geometry (angles, area, volume), algebra, statistics, graphs, measurement (km, m, cm, g, kg, ml, °C, time zones).
  • English Language: Essay writing (narrative, descriptive), advanced grammar (clauses, idioms), comprehension, vocabulary, oral (debates, speeches, drama).
  • Integrated Science: Physics (motion, forces, energy), chemistry (matter, mixtures, reactions), biology (cells, reproduction, ecology), earth science (climate, resources), technology, lab safety.
  • Digital Literacy & Coding: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, internet research, coding (Python basics, Scratch advanced), robotics (basic kits).
  • Social Studies: Nigerian and African history, geography, civics, economy (trade, money, entrepreneurship basics), global issues.
  • Languages: Advanced mother tongue, conversational fluency in foreign language (French/Arabic).
  • Creative Arts: Drawing, painting, crafts, drama, theatre, film basics, music.
  • Physical & Health Education: Sports, fitness, nutrition, reproductive health, first aid, drug abuse awareness.

SENIOR SECONDARY (SS 1–3)

  • Mathematics & Advanced Applications: Algebra, trigonometry, calculus basics, probability, statistics, financial maths, applied maths.
  • English & Communication: Advanced essays, academic writing, literary analysis, world literature, research skills, public speaking, journalism, fact-checking.
  • Sciences: Physics (mechanics, waves, electricity, nuclear physics), chemistry (organic, inorganic, industrial, analytical), biology (genetics, ecology, biotechnology), environmental science.
  • Technology & Innovation: Programming (Python, JavaScript, HTML/CSS), data science basics, AI & robotics, digital entrepreneurship, cybersecurity.
  • Social Sciences: Government & law, economics (micro, macro, trade), history (Africa, world revolutions), philosophy & ethics, entrepreneurship.
  • Languages: Advanced mother tongue literature, fluency in international language (French/Arabic/Chinese optional).
  • Creative Arts & Innovation: Fine arts, music, drama, film/media production.
  • Physical & Health Education: Advanced sports, mental health, first aid & CPR, leadership.
  • Research & Project Work: Final-year project, data collection, analysis, presentation & defense.

PUNCH

‘Orders from above’ and how FCT High Court denied bail to eight-month-old baby, mother held since March in Suleja Prison

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has refused to grant bail to a young mother and her eight-month-old baby who have been languishing at the Suleja Prison, Niger State, since March 2025, following their arrest during a #FreePalestine protest.

SaharaReporters learnt that Hon. Justice C.O. Agasheze of the FCT High Court declined the bail application on Thursday, citing what he described as “orders from above.”

A witness who attended the proceedings told SaharaReporters: “The bail application was moved today at the FCT High Court. But the judge refused the bail application on the ground that his superior did not give him the go-ahead to release them. He said he couldn’t grant the bail because the remand order used to detain them since March was signed by the FCT High Court 4, who is superior to him. The judge simply told us it is the order from above stopping him from granting the ruling.”

The detainee’s husband, Misbau, also confirmed the development to SaharaReporters, lamenting the continued detention of his wife and baby without trial.

“The remand order was signed by the judge in March and they have not been arraigned. Nothing has been done. They were only abandoned in jail together with my daughter. The judge today said it is only the Chief Judge or any of his superiors that could release them. I even stood up to address the court and begged them to at least consider my daughter,” he said.

As earlier exclusively reported by SaharaReporters, the ordeal began on March 28, 2025, when Misbau’s wife, a tailor, was arrested alongside their then three-month-old baby during a protest in Abuja.

She had gone to deliver clothes to a customer who turned out to be part of the demonstration when Nigerian security forces launched a violent crackdown.

“My wife is a tailor. She went to deliver clothes to a customer at the protest ground. Suddenly, police and soldiers started shooting and arresting people. She was carrying our baby on her back and could not run. They arrested her on the spot,” Misbau recounted.

Since then, both mother and child have been held at Suleja Prison under a remand order obtained by the Nigerian police. 

No charges have been filed, no trial has been held, and no explanation has been given for their detention.

“They have been there for five months now without trial. My wife and our baby are very sick. They have not been given access to proper medical treatment. The authorities have abandoned them,” Misbau told SaharaReporters.

The case has raised serious concerns about judicial independence and human rights abuses under President Bola Tinubu’s government. 

Rights activists have described the detention of an infant and mother without trial as a blatant violation of Nigeria’s constitution and international conventions.

The refusal of the court to grant bail — citing “orders from above” — has further fueled suspicion that the case is being politically influenced to silence voices sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. 

“I am traumatised as a father and husband, watching my wife and baby suffer this injustice,” Misbau said. “All I want is justice. I am calling on President Tinubu and all well-meaning Nigerians to help me get them out of prison.”

Family of three pursued to death by Abuja louts

A family of three died in a car crash along the Mabushi Bridge in Abuja on Wednesday, after the driver had an altercation with some touts, resulting in the crash that killed the family instantly.

PUNCH correspondent gathered that the louts had stopped the private vehicle for flouting their rules by reportedly stopping to pick up a passenger who was a relative.

The refusal of the driver to pay the “fine” angered the louts, who then hopped in the vehicle, dragging the steering wheel and eventually causing the accident.

Subsequently, angered passersby who witnessed the scene chased down the louts, eventually setting one of them on fire, and severely injuring the other two, who were rescued and rushed to the hospital by the police.

A parallel account, however, claimed that five persons were involved in the crash – a family of two and three touts who forced themselves into the vehicle while it was in motion.

Eyewitnesses said the vehicle then collided with a painted taxi, near the Mabushi bridge, before veering off the road into a ditch.

The family reportedly died on the spot, while the three others were rescued and taken to the National Hospital for treatment.

The wreckage was consequently cleared by officers of the Mabushi Police Division.

Our correspondent is yet to receive any official statements from the Police Public Relations Officer of the FCT Police Command, SP Josephine Adeh.

PUNCH Online reports that road traffic accidents remain a serious public safety concern in Nigeria.

In 2023 alone, the Federal Road Safety Corps recorded 5,081 fatalities, a 21% decrease from the 6,456 deaths reported in 2022. Despite this progress, the fatality rate remains alarmingly high, underscoring the ongoing urgency of road safety interventions.

The Mabushi area, located along one of Abuja’s busiest corridors linking the Central Business District with Jabi and Wuse, has been notorious for traffic gridlock, touting activities, and occasional road rage incidents.

Illegal louts operating near motor parks and bus stops in the area are known to harass private motorists and commercial drivers for alleged traffic infractions, sometimes escalating into physical confrontation.

Authorities have repeatedly warned against such extortion and harassment, but enforcement remains patchy.

In July 2024, the FCT Administration and the Directorate of Road Traffic Services announced a clampdown on illegal louts, promising to prosecute offenders to curb violence on major roads.

Incidents like the Mabushi crash raise fresh concerns about road safety, lout-related violence, and the need for effective policing to prevent avoidable loss of lives.

1...226227228...1,431Page 227 of 1,431

TIPS

Load more