Home Blog Page 25

The Sundiata Post Model (4): Realm of the long term

By Max Amuchie | The Sunday Stew 

 This fourth instalment of the Sundiata Post Model asks the inevitable question: What must a knowledge-producing newsroom do to survive, adapt and remain relevant across generations? 

That question is the gateway to what we call the Realm of the Long Term.

Every institution eventually enters the Realm of the Long Term. It is the stage at which immediate success gives way to enduring relevance, and where the central question is no longer whether an organisation can perform today, but whether it can continue creating public value across generations. Entering this realm requires more than ambition. It demands governance, institutional memory, financial resilience, leadership succession, continuous learning and an unwavering commitment to trust. This is the realm in which institutions either become enduring or gradually disappear.

The Realm of the Long Term is the point at which management ceases to focus primarily on performance and begins to focus on long-term stewardship. Decisions are evaluated not only by their immediate outcomes but by their contribution to the institution’s capacity to create enduring public value across generations.

Within the Sundiata Post Model the Realm of the Long Term rests on seven interdependent pillars: Financial Sustainability, Human Capital and Leadership, Knowledge Stewardship, Governance, Innovation and Adaptation, Trust and Reputation, and Mission Continuity. Together, these pillars determine whether an institution merely survives the present or continues creating public value across generations.

Financial Sustainability

Financial Sustainability is the institution’s capacity to generate, diversify, steward and invest financial resources in ways that preserve its independence, strengthen its capabilities and enable it to pursue its mission across generations.

Financial Sustainability is the institution’s capacity to generate diverse, mission-aligned sources of income that preserve its independence while strengthening both its Media Operations Engine and its Knowledge Operations Engine over the long term.

No institution, however compelling its vision or noble its mission, can endure without the economic capacity to sustain its work. Institutions do not survive on ideas alone. They survive because they deliberately create the financial resources that allow those ideas to mature into enduring public value.

Within the Sundiata Post Model, Financial Sustainability is understood differently from its conventional treatment in management literature. It is not simply about generating revenue, balancing budgets or maintaining profitability. Rather, it is the strategic financing of a knowledge-producing institution. Its purpose is to preserve institutional independence while providing the resources required to sustain both the Media Operations Engine and the Knowledge Operations Engine over the long term.

The Media Operations Engine generates value through journalism and public engagement. Its financial ecosystem includes advertising, brand partnerships, digital marketing, content syndication, commercial publishing, multimedia production, conferences, annual lectures, policy dialogues, executive forums and other public-facing institutional activities. These are not merely commercial ventures; they are mission-aligned enterprises that strengthen the institution’s capacity to produce independent journalism.

The Knowledge Operations Engine expands the institution’s financial horizon beyond the traditional economics of media. As the institution generates original knowledge, it creates opportunities for research grants, commissioned studies, partnerships with universities, think tanks and research institutions, collaborative projects with international organisations, consultancy, executive education, policy research, book publishing, biographies, proprietary datasets and the licensing of analytical frameworks, indices and methodologies. Knowledge itself becomes an institutional asset capable of creating both public value and sustainable income.

This represents a fundamental shift in how media organisations think about finance. The Sundiata Post Model recognises that journalism and knowledge production are complementary economic activities. The first generates public attention, civic engagement and commercial opportunities; the second generates intellectual capital, scholarly influence and knowledge-based revenue. Together, they produce a diversified and resilient institutional economy capable of supporting long-term growth without compromising editorial independence or research integrity.

Financial Sustainability therefore extends beyond accounting. It encompasses the institution’s capacity to build strategic partnerships, secure collaborative projects, attract research funding, develop intellectual property and transform original ideas into enduring institutional assets. 

In the Realm of the Long Term, Financial Sustainability is ultimately the stewardship of institutional resources in service of institutional purpose. It is the first pillar because every other pillar depends upon it. Without sustainable financing, governance becomes fragile, knowledge production becomes intermittent, innovation slows, leadership development suffers and institutional memory gradually erodes. 

2. Human Capital and Leadership

If Financial Sustainability provides the economic foundation of an enduring institution, Human Capital and Leadership provide its human foundation. Buildings, technology, financial resources and even brilliant institutional designs do not create enduring organisations by themselves. Institutions ultimately rise or decline because of the quality of the people who lead them and the culture they cultivate.

Within the Sundiata Post Model, Human Capital extends beyond recruitment. It encompasses the deliberate attraction, development, retention and continuous renewal of talented professionals who possess not only technical competence but also a commitment to the institution’s mission, values and standards. An institution enters the Realm of the Long Term only when it begins to think beyond filling positions to building generations of capable people.

Leadership occupies a special place within this pillar. The true measure of leadership is not merely what is accomplished during a leader’s tenure, but what remains after that tenure has ended. Institutions become enduring when leadership is viewed as stewardship rather than ownership. Every generation of leaders inherits an institution from those who came before and bears the responsibility of strengthening it for those who will come after.

This requires intentional investment in professional development, mentorship, succession planning and organisational culture. Expertise must be cultivated. Institutional values must be transmitted. Leadership pipelines must be continuously renewed. The departure of talented individuals should never threaten the continuity of the institution because knowledge, experience and responsibility lhave been systematically transferred to the next generation.

For a knowledge-producing institution, this responsibility becomes even greater. Journalists must continuously improve their craft. Researchers must deepen their methodological competence. Editors must strengthen both editorial judgment and institutional leadership. The objective is not merely to employ professionals but to cultivate an intellectual community capable of sustaining journalism, research and public service over the long term.

3. Knowledge Stewardship

Knowledge Stewardship is the deliberate creation, preservation, governance and transmission of institutional knowledge so that learning accumulates rather than disappears.

Every institution produces knowledge through its daily operations. Yet much of that knowledge is often lost through staff turnover, poor documentation or organisational neglect. The Sundiata Post Model rejects this waste. It regards datasets, editorial experience, research outputs, methodologies, institutional records and accumulated expertise as strategic assets that must be governed, preserved and continuously enriched. Knowledge stewardship transforms experience into institutional capital.

4. Governance

Governance is the system of structures, principles and accountability through which an institution safeguards its mission, exercises authority responsibly and makes sound strategic decisions.

Strong institutions are not sustained by personalities alone but by systems that outlive individuals. Effective governance establishes clear responsibilities, ethical standards, transparency, accountability and strategic oversight. It protects institutional integrity during periods of growth, crisis and leadership transition. Within the Realm of the Long Term, governance provides stability without preventing innovation.

5. Innovation and Adaptation

Innovation and Adaptation are the institution’s capacity to respond intelligently to changing technological, economic and social environments while remaining faithful to its core mission.

Long-term institutions do not survive by resisting change. They survive by adapting continuously without abandoning the principles that define them. Innovation therefore extends beyond technology. It includes new products, new organisational practices, new revenue models, new research methods and new ways of engaging society. Adaptation ensures relevance; mission provides continuity.

6. Trust and Reputation

Trust and Reputation constitute an institution’s accumulated credibility, earned through consistent competence, integrity and public service over time.

Trust is not created by slogans or marketing campaigns. It is built gradually through countless decisions that demonstrate reliability, fairness and professionalism. Reputation becomes one of an institution’s most valuable strategic assets because it influences public confidence, partnerships, talent recruitment and long-term legitimacy. In the Sundiata Post Model, trust is not simply an ethical aspiration; it is an institutional resource that must be deliberately protected.

7. Mission Continuity

Mission Continuity is the institution’s ability to preserve its fundamental purpose while continually renewing its strategies, structures and methods.

Institutions that endure distinguish between mission and method. Their purpose remains constant even as the means of fulfilling that purpose evolve. Mission continuity prevents organisations from losing their identity in response to short-term pressures while enabling them to adapt confidently to changing circumstances. It provides the enduring direction that unites successive generations of leaders, professionals and stakeholders.

The seven pillars are mutually reinforcing. They are not independent compartments that can be strengthened or weakened in isolation. The erosion of one inevitably affects the others, because institutions endure as integrated systems rather than as collections of separate functions.

Without Financial Sustainability, you cannot recruit and retain the best people (Human Capital and Leadership).

Without capable people, Knowledge Stewardship deteriorates.

Without Knowledge Stewardship, Innovation and Adaptation becomes weak because there is little accumulated knowledge to build upon.

Weak Governance eventually damages Trust and Reputation.

Once trust declines, revenue suffers, weakening Financial Sustainability again.

Eventually, Mission Continuity is threatened.

The Global South 

While the region has produced many outstanding newspapers and broadcasters, relatively few have demonstrated the kind of uninterrupted institutional continuity that characterises some of the world’s oldest media organisations. Political instability, economic volatility, succession challenges, fragile governance structures and rapidly changing media economics have made institutional longevity the exception rather than the rule. 

The Realm of the Long Term is therefore not merely about preserving an existing institution; it is about addressing one of the enduring structural weaknesses of media development in Africa and much of the Global South. The ambition is to build media organisations that do not merely survive their founders, but continue to generate public value across generations.

However, there are few media institutions that have proved capable of surviving across generations. In Nigeria, the Nigerian Tribune, founded in 1949 by Obafemi Awolowo, has endured for more than seven decades, surviving colonial rule, independence, military governments, democratic transitions and the digital revolution. In South Asia, The Hindu in India, established in 1878, and Dawn in Pakistan, founded in 1941, have likewise sustained their institutional identities through profound political, economic and technological change. In the developed world, organisations such as Reuters (founded in 1851), The Economist (established in 1843),  The New York Times (founded in 1851) have demonstrated similar resilience over even longer periods.

The longevity of these institutions suggests that enduring media organisations share certain characteristics. They invest in governance, preserve institutional memory, renew leadership, adapt to technological change, cultivate public trust and develop sustainable business models. Their endurance is rarely accidental; it is the product of deliberate institutional choices sustained over decades.

The Sundiata Post Model seeks to identify, organise and systematise institutional principles that appear repeatedly among such media organisations. In that sense, it is both descriptive and prescriptive. It draws lessons from enduring institutions while proposing a coherent framework for building the knowledge-producing newsroom of the twenty-first century.

Finally, history shows that ideas sometimes outgrow the domains in which they were first conceived. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War was written as a treatise on military strategy, yet its principles have since informed thinking on business, leadership and organisational management. Likewise, while the Sundiata Post Model is proposed as a framework for twenty-first-century journalism, its underlying principles of knowledge production, institutional memory, governance and long-term stewardship may ultimately prove relevant to other knowledge-intensive organisations. Whether that broader applicability emerges is not for me, as its author, to determine, but for others—scholars, intellectuals, media executives, publishers, and management experts—to test, adapt, critique and refine through practice.

Trust is sacred. Stay seasoned 

•Dr. Max Amuchie is a Scholar-Journalist, Media CEO, Lead Researcher at the Sundiata Post Intelligence Unit (SPIU), and an Expert Member and Peer Reviewer at ScienceOpen. He is the architect of The Insecurity Triad framework for African security analysis as well as the Trinity of Sovereignty Decay (formerly Trinity of State Decay) theory, and the Decoupling Sovereignty Index (DSI)—original frameworks for understanding, categorising, and measuring conflict, state decay, and sovereignty in the Global South. 

X: @MaxAmuchie | Email: [email protected]

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

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Dissenting Judgment: The lonely voices in the wilderness |An excerpt from the Full Chapter, By Pastor Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi, CRJ

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all My Lords and legal luminaries in the temple of justice—those still serving and those who have retired, the living and those who have passed on—from the highest judicial officer to the humblest court clerk.

By ordinary human standards, I may not be considered qualified to stand before such distinguished minds.

 I am not qualified to rise and utter a word while the court is in session. Yet one thing is certain: by grace and circumstance, I have gained access to My Lords in their chambers, access to the courts and, most importantly, access to court records.

One truth about judicial records is that they do not die.

Records preserve the voices of people long after the courtroom has become silent. They carry the testimonies of accused persons, the arguments of counsel, the reasoning of judges, the pain of victims and the unanswered cries of those who may have suffered injustice.

The prison is like a graveyard. Many people enter it and disappear from public attention. 

Their voices become faint, their names are forgotten and their stories are buried beneath the weight of conviction.

Whenever I enter a court registry to obtain a Certified True Copy of a judgment or other court records, and I see the registers and case files arranged in orderly rows upon the shelves, my heart is deeply stirred.

Each file contains a life.

Each register contains a story.

Each judgment carries consequences that may continue for decades.

Whenever I begin to read those records, it is as though I hear a voice crying in the wilderness:

“Justice! Justice!! Justice for the oppressed!”

Sometimes, however, I realise that the loudest cry heard before God may not be the voice of the prisoner. It may be the voice of the prisoner’s mother or father—the cry of parents who go to bed every night carrying the burden of a child behind prison walls.

The prisoner may have become accustomed to suffering. He may have lost the strength to cry or surrendered himself to despair. Yet somewhere outside the prison walls, an aged mother is still praying. A father is still asking questions. A wife is still waiting. Children are still wondering when their parent will return home.

Those voices may never appear in the official proceedings of the court, but they rise before the throne of God.

 WHEN ONE JUDGE HEARS ANOTHER VOICE

Sometimes, in the midst of a majority judgment, one judge hears what others have not heard.

One judge sees the doubt that others have overlooked. One judge identifies a weakness in the evidence and refuses to follow the majority merely for the sake of uniformity.

That judge may stand alone. The opinion may not carry the day. The accused may still be convicted, and the appeal may still be dismissed.

 _Nevertheless, the dissenting judgment remains in the record—a lonely voice in the wilderness, waiting for a future generation to listen. 

A dissenting judgment is the opinion of a judge who disagrees with the conclusion reached by the majority of the court. It does not ordinarily determine the immediate outcome of the case, but it remains permanently within the judicial record.

A majority judgment may bring a case to an end while leaving important questions unanswered. A dissenting judgment may preserve another judicial answer to those questions.

It may expose weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, identify a legal principle that has been wrongly applied, question the reliability of a confession, draw attention to contradictions in the testimony of witnesses or warn that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been satisfied.

The fact that several judges agree does not automatically make their conclusion infallible. In the same way, the fact that one judge disagrees does not necessarily make that judge wrong.

Judges are human beings, and human beings may honestly differ in their interpretation of the facts, the evidence and the law.

In criminal justice, such disagreement deserves special attention because the consequences of error may be irreversible. A person may lose liberty, spend decades in prison or be sentenced to death.

Where one member of an appellate panel finds that the evidence is unsafe, that the requirements of the law have not been satisfied or that the conviction should not stand, that disagreement should not be treated as an insignificant footnote.

It may be a warning.

It may be an invitation to examine the record again.

It may be the first judicial recognition that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

 THE CASE OF OLUSOLA ADEPETU

The case of Olusola Adepetu v. The State, Supreme Court Appeal No. SC.176/1997, reported as (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 185 and (1998) 7 SC (Pt. I) 117, demonstrates how a dissenting judgment may become a powerful instrument of lawful advocacy.

Olusola Adepetu was convicted and sentenced to death in connection with the death of his girlfriend, Miss Ranti Moradeyo. 

The case became widely associated in public discussion with ritual killing, although the medical evidence showed that no part of the deceased’s body had been removed.

His appeal eventually reached the Supreme Court. On 10 July 1998, the majority dismissed the appeal and affirmed his conviction. However, the dissenting opinion preserved an alternative judicial examination of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.

When the Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation began examining the case, many people were unwilling to listen. The majority judgments appeared to have brought the matter to a final conclusion.

However, the dissenting judgment drew attention to important weaknesses in the case, including the medical evidence. What had previously been dismissed as the argument of an advocate was now supported by the independent reasoning of a Justice of the Supreme Court.

The dissent did not automatically reverse the judgment or establish his innocence. It did, however, confirm that the concerns raised about the evidence were not merely emotional objections from an outside advocate. A Justice of the Supreme Court had also examined the record and reached a different conclusion.

The dissent became a lawful instrument of advocacy.

It became the lawful weapon with which we confronted a long-held public opinion.

After spending twenty-six years in prison, Olusola Adepetu eventually regained his freedom on 16 October 2016.

The majority judgment ended the appeal, but the dissenting judgment opened another chapter in the search for justice. The case could travel no higher within the judicial system, but the dissent remained alive in the court record and became a foundation for lawful advocacy, public reconsideration and eventual mercy.

 THE CASE OF SUNDAY JACKSON

A more recent illustration can be found in Sunday Jackson v. The State, Supreme Court Appeal No. SC/CR/1026/2022.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment on 7 March 2025. By a majority decision, it upheld Sunday Jackson’s conviction and death sentence for culpable homicide punishable with death. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju delivered a dissenting judgment and would have allowed the appeal.

The case arose from a violent encounter on farmland. Jackson maintained that he had been attacked with a dagger, that he disarmed his attacker during the struggle and that he acted in self-defence.

The majority concluded that, after Jackson had disarmed his attacker, the immediate danger had ended and that the force he subsequently used was excessive.

Justice Ogunwumiju disagreed. Her dissent preserved another judicial interpretation of the evidence and the law. She considered the realities confronting a person already involved in a violent and life-threatening struggle and concluded that the circumstances supported Jackson’s plea of self-defence.

Although the dissent did not determine the immediate outcome of the appeal, it kept the legal and moral questions surrounding the conviction alive. It provided a strong foundation for continuing public advocacy and appeals for executive mercy.

On 23 December 2025, the Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, granted Sunday Jackson a state pardon after he had spent more than a decade in custody.

The dissent did not itself open the prison gate. The formal act that secured his freedom was executive mercy. Nevertheless, the dissent helped preserve the questions that advocacy later carried before the public and the appropriate authorities.

That is one of the enduring purposes of dissent: it ensures that the judgment which prevailed is not the only judicial voice preserved for history.

Olusola Adepetu gained freedom after twenty-six years.

Sunday Jackson gained freedom after more than a decade.

In both cases, dissent preserved a judicial voice upon which sustained advocacy could build.

 WHY DISSENT MUST BE ENCOURAGED

Dissent should be encouraged within the judiciary, particularly in difficult criminal cases where the evidence, reasoning or application of the law is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation.

The majority will ultimately have its way because judicial decisions are determined by the greater number. However, the fact that the majority controls the outcome should not prevent each member of the panel from undertaking a critical and independent examination of the record.

Where several judges are considering the same appeal, each judge must be free to examine the evidence from another perspective, question assumptions that others may have accepted, identify contradictions that may have been overlooked and determine whether the prosecution truly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Such independence should not be regarded as rebellion, disloyalty or an attack upon fellow judges. It should be recognised as an expression of judicial courage, intellectual honesty and freedom of conscience.

A judge who dissents does not necessarily claim superior wisdom over the majority. The judge simply preserves another line of reasoning for the record.

That reasoning may later assist a higher court, future judges, legal scholars, defence counsel, Attorneys-General, Boards of Mercy, innocence organisations or other lawful authorities examining whether justice was truly done.

The absence of dissent in every case may create the impression that all members of the court reached precisely the same conclusion without uncertainty. Yet difficult criminal cases frequently contain conflicting evidence, questionable confessions, doubtful identification, missing witnesses, incomplete medical evidence or unresolved contradictions.

In such circumstances, independent judicial reflection should be welcomed.

Encouraging principled dissent preserves the collective wisdom of the judiciary. It ensures that the official record contains not only the reasoning that prevailed but also the strongest argument against it.

The majority judgment determines the immediate fate of the case. The dissenting judgment preserves the possibility that another interpretation may be wiser, safer and more consistent with justice.

True judicial harmony does not mean that every judge must think alike. It means that judges may disagree respectfully, reason independently and remain united in their commitment to justice.

 DISSENT AND THE INTELLECTUAL LABOUR OF DEFENCE COUNSEL

A principled dissent also preserves the intellectual labour of defence counsel.

In many criminal proceedings, counsel may present brilliant arguments arising directly from the record, only to have those submissions rejected by the majority. 

The lawyer must bow respectfully and say:

“ As the Court pleases.”

Yet the lawyer may leave the courtroom carrying the pain of unanswered questions and the burden of knowing that another person’s liberty or life is at stake.

A dissenting judgment may bring relief to that professional and intellectual pain. It may confirm that the submissions were not empty, frivolous or misplaced. It may demonstrate that at least one member of the court carefully considered the arguments and found sufficient reason to disagree with the majority.

The dissent therefore preserves not only the conscience of the judge and the voice of the accused but also the intellectual contribution of the lawyer who stood in defence of liberty.

A dissenting judgment may not open the prison gate on the day it is delivered.

But it can preserve the key that may one day open that gate.

The dissent gives the accused a voice. It gives the judge freedom of conscience. It recognises the intellectual labour of defence counsel. It preserves the wisdom and credibility of the judiciary.

Above all, it gives future generations an opportunity to discover that the argument which failed yesterday may contain the truth required for justice tomorrow.

A dissenting judgment is therefore sometimes more than a minority opinion.

It is the lonely voice in the wilderness crying:

“Examine the record again. Do not allow finality to bury the truth. Justice has not yet finished speaking.”

AUTHOR’S NOTE

This publication is only an excerpt from the full chapter.

The complete chapter develops twelve principal arguments on the significance of dissenting judgments in criminal justice, their limitations, their value to the judiciary and their potential role in identifying and correcting miscarriages of justice.

The full chapter is reserved for publication in my forthcoming book:

Miscarriages of Justice: A Global Injustice

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

Should dissenting judgments be more strongly encouraged in difficult criminal appeals, particularly where the life or liberty of an accused person is at stake?

Have you encountered a case in which a dissenting judgment later proved wiser than the majority judgment?

Please read, reflect and drop your opinion.

Do you know someone who should read this? Please share it with them.

Pastor Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi, CRJ

Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation

ABOUT THE ORGANISATION

Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation (CJMR) is a grassroots organisation dedicated to advocating for inmates who may have been wrongfully convicted across custodial centres in South-West Nigeria.

Through case review, access to court records, legal advocacy, public awareness, petitions and rehabilitation support, CJMR works to ensure that credible claims of injustice are not forgotten.

Website: www.cjmr.com.ng

Telephone: +234 803 048 8093

REFERENCES

1. Sunday Jackson v. The State: dissenting opinion of Ogunwumiju, JSC. View source

2. Report on the pardon granted to Sunday Jackson in December 2025. View source

WhatsApp Channel

Around Africa, elections have become too inconvenient

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

José Eduardo Van-Dúnem dos Santos was 37 when the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, (better known by its Portuguese acronym, MPLA) chose him to succeed its founding president, Augustinho Neto, in September 1979. By 2010, dos Santos had been in power for 31 years. But the shy and retreating dos Santos was neither an enthusiastic glad-hander nor a wildly popular figure.

For a long time, dos Santos laboured in search of a cure for both ailments. In 2010, he finally found one. Under Angola’s 1992 constitution, the president was the only leader with national standing. The citizens elected him directly on a national ticket. In December 2006, the country issued a three-year notice of presidential election to be conducted in 2009. When the time came, however, President dos Santos could not be bothered with one.

Instead, on 21 January 2010, the parliament controlled entirely by the MPLA approved a new constitution. On 5 February, dos Santos formally assented to the new constitution. It abolished the right of the people to elect their president and extended the unelected tenure of dos Santos as president until a new vote in 2012.

Under the terms of the new constitution, the president was to be elected no longer by the people. Instead, the leader of the majority party in the National Assembly would automatically assume power as the president. The parliament controlled by dos Santos and his MPLA had accomplished an extraordinary power-grab at the expense of the people and without even a pretense of giving them a say or look-in.

In neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo, President Joseph Kabila took notice. It took every tool in the DRC’s complex political economy to foil him. Elected to a second five-year term in 2011, “Kabila employed various strategies to prolong his stay in power” and “to manipulate the system to his advantage.” After running out of tenure tarmac in December 2016, Kabila contrived to grant himself an unelected two-year extension. In the end, the country forced him to yield up power in 2019 and bring an end to his 18-year rule.

In Togo, Faure Gnassingbe has presided over two republics over 21 years as successor to his father, General Gnassingbe Eyadema. As president, Faure has never faced a term limit that he could not lift. In May 2024, faced with a term limit that seemed insuperable, Faure, president of Togo since the death of his own father in 2005, abolished the executive presidency and the right of Togo’s citizens to elect their own president in order that he could continue in power.

Under a new constitution to usher in Togo’s 5th Republic in 2024, Parliament doubled the number of presidents in Togo from one to two. The office of the state president became largely ceremonial. Beside him, the constitution created the new and all-powerful office of President of the Council of Ministers in which it reposed all executive powers. In one swoop, Faure Gnassingbe ended all speculations about term limits and presidential elections.

Under the new constitution, the President of the Council of Ministers can hold office indefinitely as long as his party is in power. Indeed, Faure “could…. remain in power for life as president of the council as long as his party remained in the majority.” In a close reprise of the script by Angola’s MPLA, the amendment in Togo was authored entirely by the ruling party and with no opportunity for the people to participate. The political opposition in Togo called it a “constitutional coup”. Elsewhere in Africa, others have called it  “a blueprint for dictators.”

One dictator who took close notice was Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa. When he overthrew the long-serving regime of President Robert Mugabe in November 2017, Mnangagwa – who goes by the nickname “the Crocodile” in homage to his political ruthlessness and cunning – was already 75. Many regarded him as no more than a stop-gap figure in what they hoped would be an assured transition to more open and democratic Zimbabwe. Instead, he began a methodical process of consolidating power in a scheme that appears clearly designed to guarantee him a life presidency (which he denied his predecessor).

When the tenure of the Chief Justice, Luke Malaba, fell due upon his turning 70 in May 2021, President Mnangagwa contrived to grant Malaba an unprecedented five-year extension and eventually got a compliant court system to fall in line. To manage suspected judicial un-ease ahead of presidential elections in August 2023, he awarded all judges a non-repayable housing loan of $400,000 US dollars.

In the period since Mnangagwa’s rise to power, over 25 leading military generals, including four of the six who propelled him to power, have died, most of them mysteriously.

Under Zimbabwe’s 2013 constitution, the president is elected to a five-year tenure, which can be renewed once. Elected to his first presidential term in 2018, Mnangagwa was liable to become term-limited in 2028. However, in October 2025, the ruling ZANU-PF Party decided to seek an extension of his tenure for the sake of continuity and national stability.

On 7 July, 2026, President Mnangagwa assented to a constitutional amendment “extending the presidential term from five to seven years and abolishing the popular election of the president in favour of selection by parliament, a change that will keep him in office two years beyond the limit previously set by the constitution.” Again, it was an entirely parliamentary affair.

So, in 2028 when he is due to turn 86 and become term-limited, President Mnangagwa will instead be presented to the people of Zimbabwe for the formality of continuing his rule until he is at least 93. If his tenure is renewed at the end of that, Mnangagwa will be eligible to rule until he is a centenarian, and the people of Zimbabwe will have no say in this.

Nearly three years ago, in November 2023, Nigeria’s former President, Olusegun Obasanjo, who himself tried – and failed – to grant himself an extended tour of duty in the presidency beyond the eight years permitted by the constitution under which he took office in May 1999, complained that Western-style democracy was forced on Africa and was not good for the continent. He was short of clarity on a model that could replace it.

Perhaps inspired by Obasanjo’s complaint, his disciples in power across different political traditions on the continent now offer experiments in how to attain his goal. The emerging elements are clear.

First, the people are inconvenient. Increasingly, the question of who sits at the top of the pecking order of power is to be decided by folks entirely beholden to the ruler and not by a perennially obstreperous citizenry.

Second, parliament and judges are dependable enablers of dictatorship. It is a lot cheaper to pay them off and much easier to eliminate or isolate hold-outs among them with no complaints.

Third, popular elections are an unaffordable luxury. It is more efficient to carve up the country into small, manageable constituencies in the service of pretend democracy.

Fourth, periodic renewal of mandate is an anachronism. It pays to keep things predictable and simple. A life presidency does it.

Around the continent, many wannabe life presidents are limbering up. Wherever you look, the future of government of the people, for the people, and by the people in Africa increasingly looks beleaguered, if not indeed bleak.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected] 

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

Battle for the Bar: Former NBA presidents divided as audit call gains momentum

The controversy surrounding the recently concluded Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) national elections has entered a new phase, with two former presidents of the Association advancing sharply different prescriptions for resolving the growing dispute, even as another past NBA leader called for an independent constitutional audit as the only credible path to restoring confidence in the electoral process.

Their interventions come against the backdrop of a pending suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking to halt the inauguration of President-elect, Mrs. Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, and other newly elected national officers over allegations of irregularities in the electronic voting process.

The latest exchange began after former NBA President, J.B. Daudu, SAN, questioned the legitimacy of the July 2026 election, arguing that widespread technical failures, cyberattacks and voting glitches substantially undermined the integrity of the exercise. While acknowledging that he had supported one of the presidential candidates, Daudu maintained that the election could not command the confidence of the profession when thousands of lawyers reportedly encountered difficulties in exercising their franchise.

Pointing to the disparity between the more than 82,000 lawyers listed on the voters’ register and the significantly lower number of votes eventually recorded, Daudu contended that the election raised fundamental questions about inclusiveness and credibility. He also called for a full explanation of reports that the electronic voting platform had been migrated to a replacement server during the exercise, warning that unless the concerns were addressed transparently, confidence in the NBA’s electoral system could suffer lasting damage.

His intervention drew a swift response from another former NBA President, Chief O.C.J. Okocha, SAN, who challenged what he described as assumptions underpinning claims of mass disenfranchisement.

Rather than defending every aspect of the election, Okocha questioned whether the allegations had been supported by verifiable evidence. He asked whether all lawyers now complaining had actually registered to vote, who compiled the register of eligible voters, whether it could be established that every lawyer claiming disenfranchisement genuinely attempted to cast a ballot, and, more significantly, whether there was any evidence that the reported glitches, cyberattacks or technical disruptions benefited any particular candidate.

Okocha observed that Daudu himself had publicly supported a preferred presidential candidate, noting that every lawyer was equally entitled to vote for the candidate of his or her choice and that those whose candidates emerged victorious also deserved to have their votes respected.

“As we know too well, the syndrome of sour grapes is part and parcel of our partisan human nature,” the former NBA President remarked, while urging lawyers, particularly the candidates who participated in the election, to move beyond the contest and focus instead on strengthening the Association’s electoral architecture.

He nevertheless conceded that the NBA’s electoral process “is undoubtedly in need of reform,” calling on members of the Bar to channel their energies toward improving future elections rather than prolonging divisions arising from the last poll.

As the debate intensified, a former 1st Vice President of the NBA, John Aikpokpo-Martins, proposed what many observers regard as a constitutional middle ground. He noted that the NBA Constitution already provides for an audit of elections and argued that the Association should allow that mechanism to determine the fate of the disputed poll instead of allowing speculation and competing narratives to dominate public discourse.

According to him, the President-elect has publicly undertaken to resign if any independent audit establishes that the election was manipulated in her favour, a commitment he said should now be tested through a transparent verification process.

“At this point, the responsible and statesmanlike call that well-meaning lawyers—including the other candidates and their supporters—ought to be making is for an independent and transparent audit of the election,” he said.

He argued that if the audit established that the election had indeed been rigged in favour of the President-elect, she should honour her public commitment by stepping aside to pave the way for a fresh election. Conversely, if the audit vindicated the process, he maintained that she should be allowed to enjoy the mandate freely given to her by members of the Bar and be sworn into office without further controversy.

Anything short of such an institutional process, he warned, amounted to little more than “deliberate gaslighting” capable of inflaming passions without factual foundation.

The interventions by two former NBA presidents and a former 1st Vice President underscore a deeper constitutional question that now confronts the Association. Beyond political preferences and competing post-election narratives lies a more fundamental legal issue: what standard should govern the invalidation of an election conducted under the NBA Constitution?

For many legal observers, that question mirrors the principles regularly applied by Nigerian courts in election petitions, where irregularities, however serious, do not automatically nullify an election unless it is demonstrated that they substantially affected the outcome. Whether that jurisprudential principle should equally guide internal professional elections is now emerging as one of the defining legal debates arising from the 2026 NBA poll.

The controversy has already spilled into the courts. In a suit pending before the Federal High Court, the Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) is seeking, among other reliefs, an order restraining the swearing-in of the newly elected NBA leadership pending the determination of questions relating to the conduct of the election.

Regardless of how the litigation ends, there appears to be one point on which even opposing voices increasingly agree: the NBA’s electronic voting framework requires significant reforms. From cybersecurity safeguards and independent audit mechanisms to voter authentication, transparency and post-election accountability, many senior lawyers believe the Association must now use the present controversy as an opportunity to build a more robust electoral system capable of commanding the confidence of the profession in future elections.

Dennis Amachree on Abacha’s death: Bogus investigation, scandalous conclusion

By Tony Eluemunor

I’ll never presume to teach any Department of State Security (DSS) agent how to conduct investigations because they are supposed to be adequately trained. I will be grateful to learn from them. So, the best I can grant from ex-DSS Assistant Director, Mr. Dennis Amachree’s bloopers (including mere lapses and terrible blunders) is not to blame his teachers, but to assume that he betrayed them, at least on his conclusion that the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, died from
a heart attack during a tryst with a woman. The gaffes and blunders are contained in the excerpted part of his book, “DSS @40: My Journey Behind the Shield”.

In case you assumed from the title that he authored a Nigerian version of “Every Spy A Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence Community” published in 1990, please, hold your piece; this book is Amachree’s personal story. His take about how Abacha perished while in bed with a woman, is filled with errors any secondary school student would have easily corrected.

First example: The Vanguard newspaper of July 22, 2026 published that “Amachree recalled that a few days before his death, Abacha received Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s emissaries and later hosted Pope John Paul II, who appealed for the release of political detainees”.

Just when I thought that Vanguard must have misrepresented the author, the paper seemingly quoted him: “Indeed, the Pope was the last visitor that Gen. Sani Abacha received”. These few lines contained three errors: One, Arafat himself, not emissaries, visited. Two, the Pope was not Abacha’s last visitor; three, Arafat was and the sunset Abacha saw on his way to the Airport was the last he saw on earth
because he didn’t survive the night.

Why am I picking holes in Amachree’s tall tale? Oh, from the Vanguard of July 25 this year comes this: “Amachree said that his decision to write about the incident was informed by a desire to preserve what he believes is an accurate account. Yet, Amachree made little attempt to achieve accuracy. Pope John Paul II (now Saint John Paul II) visited Nigeria on March 23, 1998. But Arafat made a brief, high-level
stopover visit to Nigeria on June 7, 1988, meeting with military head of State, General Sani Abacha at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja. This visit is historically notable as the final public engagement and public appearance of General Abacha, who died less than 24 hours later on June 8, 1988”. I just posted “Arafat’s visit to Nigeria” on google and that quotation popped up.

So, if Amachree was not sure about such easy items and yet saw no reason to cross-check them, it is easy to understand why he was wrong about weightier matters, such as how Abacha died. For nstance, if he had been humble enough to phone the Director of National Operations at the time under reference, Barr Mike Ejiofor, to verify when the Pope visited, he would have avoided his “error”. Mr. Ejiofor who is a popular national security analyst now, was in charge of the Pope’s security and personally took the “Pope’s Mobile” back to Lagos enroute to Rome, after the visit.

Mr. Ejiofor was also in charge of the DSS security matters concerning Gen. Abacha. So, if Amachree had cross-checked the relevant timelines with his superior or such other superiors of his in the DSS, he would have understood the suspicion Nigerian security agencies attributed to Abacha’s and Arafat’s Airport rendezvous.

Terribly, without his knowing when Abacha hosted Arafat, that is if the Vanguard quoted him correctly, he totally dismissed every other version of Abacha’s death, saying: “Many accounts were published but few were based on verifiable facts. These range from fictional stories of a poisoned apple from disaffected soldiers to more sensational claims involving foreign intelligence agencies”.

Then, only the Almighty God knows what came upon Amachree when his hubris level brimmed over, and he went ballistic: “As a security professional who was in the thick of it, I feel compelled to set the record straight and provide the true narrative for posterity”. Please, someone should tell Amachree that he
couldn’t have been in “the thick it” because he was actually Assistant Director, Travel Control (overseeing Airports, Sea Ports and Land Borders) and he left the DSS in 1999. So, he handled migration and people on the watch list matters, not Abacha’s security.

Even about the single interview he conducted concerning Abacha’s death, on which his entire story about Abacha rests, he verified nothing. He wrote: “At roughly 4:05am, the pharmacist” whose sister was Abacha’s girlfriend but had left her to spend the night with the General, noticed that Abacha had died, returned to the Abuja Hilton Hotel, and she and her sister escaped to Lagos”. Then Amachree
interrogated the pharmacist in Lagos, as the DSS Director of Operations the national headquarters instructed him. “The first thing she said to me was: ‘I did not kill him, he died on top of me.'” Then
Amachree sent the lady back to Abuja immediately. Finish!

Mr. Amachree’s publication is an indictment on the DSS! Any journalist who would base his conclusion on such an unverified tale would be issued a query. What if she smothered him with a pillow or poisoned Abacha but lied that the man died while having illicit sex, or worked for a foreign secret agency?

Worse still, Amachree who sent the lady back to Abuja for further interrogation said nothing about Abuja’s findings. Showing that ignorance could actually be bliss, he rated his unverified conclusion
above those of the DSS headquarters’ final determination of what killed Abacha. That Amachree never referred to the findings of his DSS head office is his greatest self –indictment.

So, the most charitable one could be to Amachcree is to wave off his claim as that of an ill-informed ex-agent who was blissfully ignorant of the concerted efforts at the controlling heights of the DSS,
National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Military Intelligence and coordinated by the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) over Abacha’s death. I assume Amachree had no role in the investigations
but was contacted to watch the Airports for that lady or some people being investigated. Worst of all for Amachree, he may never have knownof the conclusive findings…which I now lay bare here.

Though two women, Filipinos and not Indians, had visited Abacha that night, the informed opinion was that he died after an asthma attack. As he did not plan to stay away from home for long, he did not take his anti-asthma inhaler with him. So just when he was about to leave the girls, he was said to have slumped at the steps, fully clothed, yes he was certainly fully clothed.

It is almost certain that nothing hanky-panky happened between the late General and the Filipino damsels that fateful night as wasn’t well, and his doctor had plied him with steroids, as usual. That enabled him to leave his sick bed after some sleep, welcomed some visitors, attended to his very last
official duty – signing a cheque and giving it to former military officer and Sports Minister, Air Commodore Emeka Omerua, for our national team’s South Korea trip. Really, Abacha was very ill with
diabetes and liver sclerosis.

Signs of trouble appeared well before Abacha died; on returning from the Airport after seeing off Yasser Arafat, Abacha’s health deteriorated and his doctor gave him an injection by 6 P.M and advised
Abacha to have a bed rest. He did, but rose up by 9p.m and began to receive guests.

His last visitor, the late General Jeremiah Timbut Useni, the then Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, remained with him till about 3.35a.m. So, between that time and the 5 a.m. when Abacha’s
Chief Security Officer, Major Hamza al-Mustapha (rtd) was informed about Abacha’s health emergency, was what Amachree termed a critical unaccounted for period.

But he had no way of verifying the story he claimed that the lady told him. And this is tragic for he published the information he wasn’t in a position to verify as a fact and so fouled up Nigeria’s institutional memory. Gen. Useni said in the Sunday Vanguard of April 3, 2010, in “How Abacha Died, by Jerry Useni”, “May be around 5 A.M or so”. Abacha’s doctor said so, too, at the Oputa Panel.

Soldiers summoned Hamza al-Mustapha to see a dying Abacha, as opposed to a dead one. Al Mustapha met him alive but gasping for breath and so summoned a doctor. Amachree’s Pharmacist
told him that Abacha died by 4.05 A.M, and he published it as the truth though he verified nothing. Haba, hubris should have a limit!

There is this hole any journalist would have noticed but it escaped Amachree. Did Amachree, a trained security agent, believe that a soldier guarding Abacha for the night would have, on his own, ordered
a car to smuggle Abacha’s visitor out of Aso Rock, just because the lady said so? Of what rank would that soldier have been to order a vehicle to take Abacha’s guest out of Aso Rock without going through Abacha’s ADC, Security Officer or the like? Not even the protocol office people would do that. That would never have been possible when Nigeria had no mobile phone by then. Or, did the soldier abandon his duty post of guarding a Head of State to wake up a driver?

Then, if truly the lady fled, who informed the soldiers who in turn informed Mustapha that Abacha needed help? Or did the soldiers barge into the room to tell Abacha to get up and go home? This is the
question Amachree didn’t address. Answer: The female visitors who were with Abacha did. But they were not prostitutes. Those two Filipinos were old time visitors to the presidential villa. They grew up in Kano, a city with a large Asian population.

So, what killed Abacha? Though Abacha was lethally ill, he was pushed off the cliff and into the abyss. Abacha’s last public assignment was the airport departure formalities for the late Palestinian leader,
Yasser Arafat, in the evening. In Arafat’s entourage was a Palestinian, who Nigerian security agencies identified as a double-agent – who was collaborating with the Americans.

It was during the Airport formalities that the double-agent tapped the head of his pen repeatedly and dropped some poison on Abacha as he introduced members of Arafat’s entourage to Abacha, and he shook their hands, during airport formalities. A review of the video recording showed the double-agent undoing Abacha – and such video reviews and other security issues were carried out after Abacha’s death to determine what killed him.

The NIA took that task very seriously because that organization was at war with the global West in its attempt to thwart their numerous efforts to bump Abacha off. But the West succeeded through that man Arafat brought to Nigeria.

Tony Eluemunor covered the Presidency (Doddan Barracks, Lagos, for Newswatch and Aso Rock, Abuja, for the Guardian and later Daily Independent). Abacha’s death details came from his manuscript for a book, “AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY: 24 Years of Nigerian Leadership from 1999 – 2023.

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

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Mother at 51, Pregnant Again at 53: The extraordinary journey to baby No. 4

A woman who welcomed her third baby at 51, is pregnant again at 53 and she’s hoping her story will inspire older women who want to start a family.

Grace Collins, a Texas mom-of-three who shares her life online on social media, is 17 weeks pregnant with her fourth baby.

Collins tells PEOPLE that having another baby at 53 is something she and her husband spoke about for a while. People& Society

“My husband and I did not go into this lightly. We have been praying about this for years,” Collins told Today.com. “It wasn’t a willy-nilly decision.”

“I know the ramifications of having a child at 53 years old,” she continued, adding that she underwent extensive testing, including a colonoscopy, skin cancer screening and full cardiac workup, before deciding to have kids.


“People are like, ‘Do you know that you’ll be this age at his high school graduation?’ I’m like, ‘Yes, I do.’”

Collins met her husband Chris, who is 15 years younger, when she was 40 and he was 25.

She got married to him when she was 42 years old and she went on to welcome their first baby, daughter Maggie, at 44. They also share daughter Goldie, whom she welcomed at 46, and son A.J., whom she welcomed at 51.

Read Also: Miracle and Meltdown: A mother got quintuplets after 12 years of waiting Nigerian dad laments after receiving triplets

Read Also: “At the age of 54 God still surprised me,” Says 54-year-old mom who welcomed triplets

Read Also: 57 Communities In FCT Kill Twins, Triplets, Albinos — ActionAid

“We are not expecting our children to take care of us,” she told the outlet. “We made those arrangements beforehand. When I saw that I’m in better health at 53 than I was at 33, I can absolutely stand by that statement.”

The mom has been inviting her audience behind-the-scenes of her entire pregnancy journey. She says she hopes to inspire other older women to feel empowered to start their own families.

“I’ve reiterated that we have used every aspect of assisted reproductive technology available to us,” she told Today.com. “My whole goal is to support women who are looking to build their families that just are just on a different timeline.”

Collins said that because she’s an older mom, having younger kids has helped maintain the “best version of me.”

“I was a hot mess for a long time. I’ve worked all through those deep-seated issues that a lot of us have growing up,” explained Collins. “My relationship now with myself and with God is the strongest it’s ever been.”

She also described her husband as an “old soul” and said the two aren’t concerned about not being present to see their kids become parents themselves.

“Nobody’s promised tomorrow. Will I be here for my grandchildren? I might be,” said Collins. “I trust that God already knows and has made provisions.”

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Otu Oka‑Iwu Abuja demands immediate sack of police officer over ethnic profiling Of Ndi‑Igbo

Otu Oka‑Iwu Abuja, strongly condemns the recent incident in Ondo State where a police officer was caught on video threatening to detain a motorist simply “if he were Igbo.” This statement, dripping with ethnic prejudice, is not only disgraceful but a direct assault on Nigeria’s unity, the dignity of Ndi‑Igbo, and the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law.

We state without hesitation that the evidence of misconduct is overwhelming. The video footage is clear, the words are unambiguous, and the intent is unmistakable. This is not a matter requiring endless panels or prolonged investigation. The Inspector‑General of Police and the Police Service Commission must act decisively by ordering the immediate dismissal of the officer involved, alongside disciplinary sanctions for his colleagues who enabled such conduct. Anything short of this will amount to tacit approval of ethnic profiling within the Nigeria Police Force.

There is no doubt that ethnic profiling by law enforcement is a cancer that eats away at the fabric of our nation. To suggest that detention or harassment should be determined by one’s ethnic identity is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The Nigeria Police Force is mandated to serve all Nigerians equally, not to perpetuate ethnic bias.

When an officer openly declares that being Igbo is sufficient reason for detention, it sends a chilling message, that justice is not blind, but tribal. This is unacceptable in a country striving for unity amidst diversity. It is a betrayal of the oath of office and a dangerous precedent that must be stamped out immediately!

In fact, this shameful episode is not isolated because Ndi‑Igbo have long endured harassment and extortion along the notorious Lagos–Benin Expressway, where police checkpoints have become synonymous with intimidation. Igbo traders, transporters, and motorists have repeatedly reported being singled out for undue scrutiny, arbitrary detention, and financial extortion.

We recall instances where Igbo travellers were branded “fraudsters” or “smugglers” without evidence, subjected to degrading treatment, and forced to part with their hard earned money just to continue their journey. These patterns of abuse mirror other ethnocentric remarks across the country, where officers have criminalised entire communities with sweeping generalisations. Such conduct is not only unlawful but corrosive to national cohesion.

Beyond all arguments, the human suffering is immense. Families travelling for business or social occasions are delayed for hours, subjected to humiliation, and stripped of their dignity. Traders lose money, students miss opportunities, and ordinary citizens live in fear of the very institution meant to protect them. For Ndi‑Igbo, the Lagos–Benin Expressway has become a corridor of pain, where extortion and profiling thrive unchecked.

Incidentally, the problem extends beyond Lagos-Benin Expresway. In the South‑East, highways such as the Onitsha–Owerri Road, Enugu–Onitsha Expressway, Aba–Port Harcourt Road, and Awka–Onitsha corridor are littered with police and military checkpoints that have become notorious for extortion. Motorists often encounter dozens of roadblocks within short distances, each demanding “settlement” before passage.

Recent reports revealed that between December 2024 and January 2025 alone, security personnel extorted an estimated ₦21.8 billion from motorists in the South‑East. Of this staggering sum, police officers allegedly pocketed ₦15 billion, while military personnel took ₦6.8 billion. Specific checkpoints such as Uga Junction and the Atani Road Naval post in Onitsha were identified as the most lucrative, with over ₦600 million extorted at gunpoint.

The human cost of this extortion is devastating. Traders transporting goods are forced to pay bribes, commercial drivers inflate fares to cover these illegal costs, and ordinary citizens are subjected to harassment and humiliation. In one tragic case, Inspector Sani Suleiman allegedly shot a young man at a checkpoint in Anambra after he refused to pay a ₦100 bribe, a chilling reminder that extortion is not only an economic burden but also a deadly threat.

These checkpoints, instead of providing security, have become tollgates of intimidation. Traders transporting goods are forced to pay bribes, commercial drivers inflate fares to cover extortion costs, and ordinary citizens are subjected to harassment and humiliation. This practice cripples commerce, and disproportionately affects Ndi‑Igbo, whose livelihoods depend heavily on road transport and trade.

To this end, we call on the Inspector‑General of Police to sanitize the entire Lagos–Benin Expressway corridor up to Onitsha, Anambra State, and extend reforms across the South‑East highways, which have become notorious for police misconduct. This vital artery of commerce and social interaction must be freed from the chokehold of extortion, intimidation, and ethnic profiling. The checkpoints along these corridors should be reformed, closely monitored, and staffed only by officers trained in professionalism and respect for human rights. Ndi‑Igbo deserve safe passage without fear of harassment, humiliation, or discrimination.

Otu Oka‑Iwu Abuja is not only demanding dismissal and disciplinary action in passing. We will formally send a demand letter to the Inspector‑General of Police and the Police Service Commission insisting on the immediate dismissal of the officer involved. We will follow up relentlessly until the officer is served the consequences of his words, words which reflect not a slip of the tongue, but the trade and practice of intimidation that has become routine along Nigeria’s highways.

We will monitor the process, engage the police hierarchy, and ensure that this matter does not fade into silence. Justice must be done!

For the avoidance of doubt, we call on the Inspector‑General of Police and the Police Service Commission to:

  1. Immediately dismiss the officer involved in the Ondo incident, as the evidence is incontrovertible.
  2. Institute a zero‑tolerance policy against ethnic profiling within the Nigeria Police Force.
  3. Reform checkpoint practices along the Lagos–Benin Expressway and other notorious routes in Ala-Igbo, ensuring that Ndi‑Igbo can travel without fear of harassment.

Otu Oka‑Iwu Abuja stands firmly against any form of ethnic discrimination. We denounce the officer’s statement as a disgrace to the uniform and a betrayal of the oath to serve all Nigerians without bias and urge the Inspector‑General of Police and the Police Service Commission to act now.

SIR. CHIDIEBERE NWABUEZE UDEKWE ESQ
PRESIDENT
OTU OKA-IWU, ABUJA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Tinubu’s government of ghosts, doubles and phantom agencies, By Farooq Kperogi

A disturbing pattern of unending, self-destructive administrative chaos in appointments to consequential public office positions is defining President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government, which signposts Tinubu’s lack of control of his government and the reality of a shadowy, disorganised, feuding and mercenary cabal of conscienceless influence peddlers in the Presidential Villa.

Muhammadu Buhari pioneered this sort of disabling administrative anarchy, but Tinubu has upped it a notch, to the point that no one can be certain of the validity or even legitimacy of appointments announced by the presidential spokesperson.

As I’ll elaborate shortly, there is now a recurring pattern of the Presidency repeatedly announcing appointments before verifying the legal office, the incumbent’s status, the supervising minister’s knowledge and the SGF’s capacity or willingness to implement the decision. The result is a government in which press releases conflict with appointment letters, agencies announce presidential decisions of doubtful origin and incumbents disregard publicly announced replacements.

In this atmosphere of administrative anomie, it’s no surprise that someone can forge, or be assisted to forge, presidential instruments to establish a fraudulent presidential council that can pass through multiple layers of the Nigerian federal bureaucracy.

Buhari’s administrative infirmity expressed itself chiefly through lethargy, vacancy and spectacular absent-mindedness. He took more than five months to constitute his first cabinet in 2015. After dissolving the boards of federal agencies in July 2015, he waited until December 2017 to announce 209 chairpersons and 1,258 board members. At least eight of the appointees had died. In 2020, Buhari appointed Tobias Chukwuemeka Okwuru to the Federal Character Commission two months after Okwuru’s death. By August 2020, reports counted about 80 federal agencies without substantive heads or governing boards or both.

Buhari’s major weakness was that he forgot to appoint people when he needed to, which I used to characterise as “ungovernance”, but Tinubu’s is a different hue. He appoints, unappoints and reappoints people with the nervous rapidity of a man changing television channels during a thunderstorm.

The examples have become too numerous to ignore. Maryam Shetty arrived at the National Assembly for ministerial screening in 2023 and discovered that her nomination had vanished. Tinubu replaced Niger Delta Development Commission nominees within 24 hours of naming them. Kashim Imam’s appointment as chairman of the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency lasted less than a week.

In August 2025, the presidency reappointed Muheeba Dankaka as chair of the Federal Character Commission at 6:35 p.m. and announced Ayo Omidiran as chair at 10:44 p.m. One commission acquired two presidentially appointed chairs within four hours.

The Nigerian Television Authority provided an even more dramatic case. Tinubu, through his official spokesman, appointed Rotimi Pedro as director-general in August 2025 while Salihu Dembos still had an uncompleted tenure. Two weeks later, the presidency reversed itself and restored the incumbents. Premium Times reported that the supervising information minister learned of the original appointments through the media. Its investigation traced the upheaval to a presidential aide who had bypassed the minister and supplied allegations that an official review found spurious.

That episode illuminates the anatomy of the disorder. Access appears to have become authority. An aide can insinuate an allegation into the presidential bloodstream, procure a consequential announcement and leave ministers scrambling to discover what their own government has done.

Then came NIPOST. In October 2023, the presidency appointed Tola Odeyemi postmaster-general with immediate effect. But NIPOST’s own communications channels subsequently announced the reinstatement of Sunday Adepoju. Workers barricaded the headquarters against Odeyemi. She eventually assumed office.

The current imbroglio at the Border Communities Development Agency perfects the absurdity. On June 27, 2026, the presidency announced Abdulrazak Sa’ad Namdas as the agency’s new director-general, replacing Dakorinama Alabo George, who it said had resigned to run for an election in Rivers State.

Read Also: THE ₦8 BILLION QUESTION (II): From churches to palaces, what does Nigeria’s budget really value?

Read Also: THE DAY AFTER THE RESCUE (Part IV D): Whether Oriire becomes a turning point depends on what Nigeria does next

Namdas reportedly still awaits the formal appointment letter from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. George says he never resigned, claims his announced replacement was an error and continues to act as head. On July 9, he met the finance minister to discuss agency funding. Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga answered with two words: “Namdas stays.”

Who, then, leads BCDA? The man announced by the presidency, the man recognised by the bureaucracy or the man exercising operational control? Trust TV’s analysis sharpened the question by pointing out that the BCDA Act creates the office of executive secretary, while the presidency calls the office director-general. The Act also makes clear that the executive secretary is the accounting officer who controls contracts, staff and public property. This semantic confusion therefore carries fiscal consequences. One agency now has two titles, two claimants and three divergent sources of authority: public announcement, formal instrument and administrative possession.

A president has the prerogative to hire and fire appointees. State authority, however, requires legible procedure. An appointment exists in law and administration through an authenticated instrument, a clear effective date, a lawful office and an orderly transfer of power. A press release floating free of these elements is risible political theatre. Repeated reversals convert presidential words into provisional rumours.

The suspicion of a cabal arises here. “Cabal” often functions in Nigerian discourse as an all-purpose name for invisible conclave of devils in the seat of power, an informal constellation of aides, patrons, bureaucratic gatekeepers and political financiers who can insert a name into a presidential announcement, withhold the letter that activates it, reverse the decision after resistance or sustain an incumbent against a published presidential directive.

The observable pattern establishes that Tinubu has lost the monopoly over the voice and force of his own presidency and that a cabal rules on his behalf. Competing nodes around him appear able to originate, obstruct and annul decisions. His government speaks in tongues, with each tongue claiming the presidential seal.

The scandal of the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, or PFIPC, becomes intelligible within this administrative Babel. The presidency says Adeniyi Adeyemi fabricated an appointment as director-general of a fictitious presidential agency. Yet this phantom acquired a ₦1.3 billion line in the 2026 budget, occupied federal office space, met foreign diplomats and secured an approved staff establishment after official verification failed. The Central Bank opened dollar and pound accounts for it on the Accountant-General’s mandate, although the accounts remained empty and inactive.

Calling Adeyemi a con man explains his intention, but his success diagnoses the sad, cabal-infested, fraud-prone, dysfunctional pathology of the Tinubu government.

A solitary impostor cannot travel through the Office of the SGF, Head of Service, Budget Office, Accountant-General, Central Bank and diplomatic system unless verification gates have collapsed or helpful insiders have opened them. PFIPC became a government agency through serial bureaucratic authentication. Fiction accumulated official stamps until it acquired the material attributes of fact.

How do we reverse this? We can learn from our former coloniser. Britain subjects many public appointments to a published Governance Code and oversight by an independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. Nigeria needs a publicly searchable presidential appointments register showing the statutory office, appointee, tenure, effective date, instrument number and current status.

Every presidential council and every entity in the federal budget since 2023 deserves a forensic audit. The National Assembly should trace who inserted PFIPC into the budget and who validated each stage of its bureaucratic incarnation.

PFIPC surfaced because its counterfeit authority collided with the real Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission. How many silent phantoms flourish because they have avoided such a collision? How many presidential appointments originate from people Tinubu cannot identify? How many announced decisions die inside the SGF’s office while their ghosts roam the news?

A government that cannot authenticate its own voice invites impostors to speak for it. A president whose appointees cannot tell whether they have been hired, fired or duplicated presides over a dysfunctional, self-dealing banana republic. His authority has become divisible, tradable and deniable.

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

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Former porn star Ortiz sworn in as Senator in Colombia

An ex-adult movie actress, Deyci Alejandra Omaña Ortiz, has been sworn in as a senator in Colombia.

Ortiz, popularly known by her stage name, Amaranta Hank, secured the seat after a March election victory on a platform advocating rights and protections for adult entertainment workers.

According to Colombian outlet El Tiempo on Thursday, Omaña will represent Colombia’s Norte de Santander region as part of the leftist Historic Pact bloc for the 2026-2030 parliamentary term, having placed 23rd on the coalition’s closed list.

The Historic Pact is currently the strongest political force in the country, with data from Colombia’s National Registry showing the bloc secured 22.72 per cent of the Senate vote, more than 4.4 million ballots, translating to 25 seats.

The lawmaker, who transitioned from journalism into the adult film industry before returning to public life, has said her past should not stand in the way of her legislative work.

According to Infobae Colombia, she argues that women who have worked in the sexual economy contribute meaningfully to the country’s finances and deserve legal recognition rather than continued stigma.

She pushed back against critics questioning her fitness for office in a TikTok video addressing the controversy around her win. “¿Por qué una mujer que estuvo en la industria para adultos no puede aspirar a un cargo de elección popular?” she asked, which translates to why a woman who was in the adult industry cannot aspire to a popularly elected office.

Omaña, born in the city of Cúcuta, has said her broader agenda in the Senate will also include mental health and sexual abuse initiatives.

Her emergence marks one of the most closely watched developments in Colombian politics in recent years, coming months after her appointment, alongside fellow former performer Juan Carlos Florián, as a deputy minister in the Ministry of Equality had already stirred controversy within President Gustavo Petro’s cabinet.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

Trump Finally Pays: E. Jean Carroll receives $5.63m after landmark sexual abuse verdict

After years of bitter courtroom battles, repeated denials and unsuccessful appeals, United States President Donald Trump has, for the first time, paid damages to writer E. Jean Carroll following a landmark civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

Court records show that Carroll has now received nearly $5.63 million, representing the original $5 million awarded by a federal jury in 2023 together with accrued interest, after a judge authorised the release of funds that had been held in a court-supervised escrow account pending appeals.

The payment follows the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Trump’s appeal, effectively leaving intact the jury’s verdict and clearing the way for the money to be released. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered the disbursement despite strenuous objections from Trump’s legal team, which argued that the funds should remain frozen while the President pursued further legal options.

The case stems from Carroll’s allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s before later defaming her by publicly dismissing her account as fabricated.

Although the 2023 jury concluded that Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation, it did not find that Carroll had proved the legal claim of rape under New York’s civil standard. The jury nevertheless awarded her $5 million in damages.

The latest payment marks the first time Trump has actually compensated Carroll, despite her winning civil judgments totalling $88.3 million against him over two separate lawsuits.

A second jury, in January 2024, awarded Carroll $83.3 million after finding that Trump continued to defame her through statements made while he was serving as President. That much larger judgment remains the subject of further appeals.

Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s allegations, insisting he never assaulted her and describing the lawsuits as politically motivated. Following the latest court order, his legal team again characterised the litigation as a “witch hunt” and accused political opponents of weaponising the justice system.

Before the funds were released, Trump’s lawyers unsuccessfully urged the court to delay payment, arguing that the President would suffer “irreparable harm” if Carroll disposed of the money before the legal process was fully exhausted. Carroll’s lawyers responded that the funds would remain in an interest-bearing retirement account, not be immediately spent or donated.

Carroll’s lead counsel, Roberta Kaplan, welcomed the development, saying the payment finally enforced a unanimous jury’s verdict holding Trump accountable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

Beyond the monetary award, legal analysts say the significance of the case lies in the principle it reinforces—that even a sitting President is not insulated from civil liability once the judicial process has run its course. After years of litigation, appeals and political controversy, the case has become one of the most consequential civil accountability decisions involving a serving American president in modern history.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel

1...242526...1,470Page 25 of 1,470

TIPS

Load more