Home Blog Page 253

Waving at planes as Imo churns is chasing rats while the house burns

By Chinedu Agu

In the heart of Igbo folklore lies a tale as old as wisdom itself; a man whose hut caught fire in the dead of night.

As flames devoured his home, his neighbours shouted, pleading with him to fetch water or salvage what he could. But his eyes, gleaming with misplaced zeal, fixed on the fat rats darting from the blaze. “Let me catch these rats first,” he declared, brandishing a stick and chasing shadows. By the time he returned, triumphant with just a rat in hand, his roof had collapsed, his treasures turned to ash, and the rats had long vanished into the night. The villagers laughed, but their laughter was laced with sorrow, for they recognized foolishness cloaked in action.

Today, that parable is no longer confined to fireside tales. It has become the lived reality of Imo State. The man in the story is no longer a hapless villager; he is a governor. The burning hut is Imo; our home, our pride, our heritage. And the rats? They are the hollow, ceremonial distractions that consume his attention — like the recent, comical spectacle at Abuja’s Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, where the governor was photographed waving at President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s departing plane.

He was in Abuja not for a high-stakes meeting to secure federal support for Imo’s crumbling infrastructure. Not for a summit to attract investment to a bleeding state. But to stand at the departure gate, a cheerleader in a customary well-tailored white apparel and red cap, grinning for the cameras while Imo churns and burns.

This is not leadership. It is a performance.

And while the Governor plays to the gallery in Abuja, the fires of neglect, injustice, and despair rage unchecked across Imo’s 27 local government areas.

Read Also: Tears From Enugu: A lawyer’s heartbreaking diary from a state that works to a state in ruins

Nowhere is this inferno more devastating than in Imo’s justice sector. Once a beacon of hope, a sanctuary where the common man could seek redress, the Imo judiciary has been reduced to a hollowed-out shell. Since November 2024, Imo Judiciary has operated without a constitutionally recognised Acting Chief Judge. In a state bursting at it seams with the finest of legal minds, the Governor has not found a qualified lawyer to appoint an Attorney-General since that seat became controversially vacant in May 2025. This is a deliberate assault on the justice sector.

The consequences are dire. For the first time in living memory, Imo has no vacation courts; a shocking abdication of judicial responsibility. Across the state, citizens languish in police cells, their pleas for justice silenced by a system that has shut its doors. Bail applications gather dust. Fundamental rights, enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution, are treated as luxuries, not guarantees.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria in Owerri, speaking to the media recently, laid bare the gravity of this crisis: “In my 41 years at the bar, I have never witnessed this state completely shut down its courts during vacation without provisions for urgent matters. Lives are at stake, and Imo’s judiciary is comatose.”

His words should have jolted the Governor into action. Instead, they were drowned out by the roar of jet engines in Abuja, as the Governor waved at a plane carrying promises Imo will never see.

The collapse of justice is but one flame in the inferno consuming Imo. The state is besieged by crises that demand urgent, focused leadership, yet the Governor’s gaze remains fixed on fleeting distractions and departing plane.

Arbitrary arrests and indefinite detentions have become the hallmark of life in Imo as I pen this piece.

From Owerri to Orlu, citizens live under the shadow of state-sanctioned intimidation. The right to liberty, guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution, is now a privilege dispensed at the discretion of security operatives. Families whisper of loved ones whisked away in the dead of night, with no charge, no trial, and no hope.

The notorious Tiger Base in Owerri has become a synonym for terror. Young men dread its name, knowing it as a place where extortion, torture, and inhuman treatment thrive. Reports from human rights groups, including Amnesty International, document cases of suspects held without trial, subjected to brutal interrogations that violate every tenet of decency. In 2024 alone, over 200 complaints of unlawful detention were lodged against Tiger Base, yet no investigation has been launched. The Governor’s silence is deafening. I am not sure what is discussed at State Security Council meetings.

Orlu, Okigwe, and Ohaji/Egbema remain battlegrounds where violence festers unchecked. Armed groups roam freely, displacing families and shuttering businesses. It’s no longer news that over 5,000 residents have fled their homes since 2023 in Orlu, according to local NGOs.

Farmers abandon their fields, traders lock their shops, and children grow up knowing fear as a constant companion. Yet, the state government offers little beyond platitudes, leaving communities to fend for themselves.

Bulldozers have become instruments of despair. Homes and businesses are razed without adequate notice, compensation, or adherence to the constitutional right to a fair hearing.

Imo roads are a metaphor for its governance—broken, neglected, and deadly: Akwakuma junction to Egbeada; Akwakuma junction to Hardel junction; Worldbank Roundabout to Hospital junction; Worldbank Roundabout to Umuguma; Worldbank roads; Yar’ Adua drive from Worldbank; Orji Flyover stretching across Amakohia Flyover to Egbeada Housing Road [just to mention but a few] are all in very scary states.

The tragedy of Imo’s decline is stark when viewed against the progress of its neighbours.

In Abia, Governor Alex Otti has launched a relentless campaign to revive Aba, transforming its streets from swamps of decay into hubs of commerce. Aba, once derided as a sleazy backwater, has today risen into a transformed city — a transformation that now mocks and shames Owerri, the Imo capital. And what more shall I say of Umuahia? As the popular saying goes, “Ebe Aba dị otu a, kedu ka Umuahia ga-adị?” — if Aba shines this bright, how radiant then is Umuahia! Step into that city, and you will behold transformative governance at work.

In Enugu, Governor Peter Mbah has strengthened institutions while also leading in infrastructural developments. I have previously said a lot about this city and you just need to take a trip to that place and see things for yourself.

Ebonyi’s Governor, Francis Nwifuru, is confronting insecurity head-on while steadily laying the foundations of institutional and infrastructural development.

Anambra’s Charles Soludo is channeling resources into technology to spur economic growth, even as he tackles insecurity with remarkable zeal. And yet, as an aside, it should trouble every Imolite that Imo, which sometimes ranks just behind Anambra in receiving the highest federal allocation in the Southeast, has so little to show for it.

These leaders are not perfect, but they are present, rooted in their states, not chasing clout in Abuja. None would abandon their people to wave at a plane while their house burns.

Imo’s neighbours — Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, and Enugu — remind us of what leadership looks like: focus, accountability, and a commitment to the gritty work of governance.

Meanwhile, the Governor seems content to play the courtier, seeking validation in the corridors of Aso Rock rather than the streets of Owerri.

He who chases rats while his house burns will return to find nothing but ashes.

The Governor’s actions—or lack thereof—signal his priorities, and they are not with Imo. The judiciary lies in ruins, its independence shattered. Citizens rot in detention, their rights trampled. Communities cower under violence, abandoned by a government that should protect them. Families watch bulldozers crush their dreams, with no recourse or remedy.

This is not an accident. It is a failure of leadership—a deliberate choice to prioritize optics over outcomes, political dominance over people’s welfare.

History will not record Imo’s plight as a natural disaster; it will record it as the consequence of a Governor who chose to wave at planes while his state burned and churned.

Governance is not found in the departure lounges of Abuja’s airports. It is in the trenches of justice, where judges are free to uphold the law. It is in the streets of Orlu, where families yearn for safety. It is on the roads of Okigwe, where commuters deserve safety.

Until Imo has such leadership, the flames will continue to spread, and the rats—those fleeting, meaningless distractions—will always slip away.

The question is: will we stand by, laughing bitterly like the villagers in the parable, or will we demand that the Governor return to the burning house and save what is left of Imo? The choice is ours, but time is not.

Chinedu Agu is a Solicitor and Notary Public, past secretary of NBA Owerri, and can be reached on [email protected] | 08032568512.

Friday, 5 September 2025.

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

Otu Oka-Iwu Abuja demands apology from NIDCOM Chair over ethnic hate speech against Igbos

Press Statement

Otu Oka-Iwu Abuja expresses deep outrage and unequivocal condemnation of the recent conduct of Mrs. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Chairperson of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NIDCOM), in amplifying a social media post laced with vile ethnic slurs against Ndi Igbo.

On or about the 2nd of September 2025, Mrs. Dabiri-Erewa reposted a comment on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which contained deeply offensive and dehumanizing language directed at Ndi Igbo, including references to them as “monkeys,” “children of gorillas,” and “bastards.” Rather than disavow such hate speech, she chose to endorse it with laughing emojis, an act that is not only reprehensible but unbecoming of a senior government official entrusted with representing Nigeria’s image abroad.

Mrs. Dabiri-Erewa’s actions violate the spirit and letter of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the dignity of every citizen, prohibits discrimination on ethnic grounds, and mandates public officers to conduct themselves with integrity, impartiality, and respect for diversity. Her conduct undermines national unity, emboldens ethnic hatred, and sends a dangerous message to the international community about the character of Nigeria’s leadership. It is especially disturbing that such behavior emanates from the head of a commission tasked with protecting the rights and dignity of Nigerians in the diaspora, many of whom are Ndi Igbo.

Ndi Igbo have contributed immensely to the development of Nigeria across every sector, particularly commerce and governance. Therefore, any attempt to dehumanize or vilify Ndi Igbo under the guise of political commentary or social media engagement is condemnable.

We hereby demand an apology from the NIDCOM Chairperson for such insensitivity!

Sir. Chidi Udekwe, ESQ
PRESIDENT
OTU OKA-IWU, ABUJA

20-year-old woman arrested in Kebbi for burying her newborn baby

A 20-year-old mother, Maryam Atiku, has been arrested by the police for attempting to kill her newborn baby girl by burying her alive in Kamba, Dandi Local Government Area of Kebbi State.

The Kebbi State police command spokesman, CSP Nafiu Abubakar, in a statement made available to newsmen on Wednesday, disclosed that, “The incident occurred on June 25, 2025, when Maryam allegedly tied the baby’s neck with wrappers, covered her mouth, and buried her in a shallow grave at Malam Yaro bush.

Read Also: [Video] Kebbi farmer recounts how an unusual ridge in his farm turned out to be the ‘grave’ of a baby buried alive

“The following day, June 26, a farmer, Alhaji Kabiru Muhammad, while working on his farm near the area, discovered a patch of disturbed soil resembling a fresh grave.

“He raised an alarm and, with the help of nearby residents, exhumed the baby, who was found alive. The infant was rushed to the General Hospital, Kamba, where doctors confirmed her condition as stable after receiving medical attention.”

According to the statement, police detectives from the State Criminal Investigation Department promptly arrested Maryam, who confessed to the crime during interrogation.

The Commissioner of Police, CP Bello Sani, described the act as “inhuman and unacceptable,” reiterating the command’s zero tolerance for child abuse, exploitation, and gender-based violence.

“He urged parents, guardians, and community leaders to protect children under their care and not compromise their future due to poverty or other pressures.

“The CP commended the wife of the Kebbi State Governor, Hajiya Zainab Nasir Idris, for supporting the welfare of the rescued baby and praised Alhaji Kabiru Muhammad for his timely intervention.

“The suspect will be arraigned in court, where she will face prosecution aimed at serving as a deterrent to others”

Video: Australian govt settles second Robodebt class action for $475m

Note: This story contains references to self-harm

The Australian federal government on Thursday agreed to pay a further $475 million to victims of the Robodebt scandal, after deciding not to defend an appeal brought by class action firm Gordon Legal.

The settlement, which now awaits approval by the federal court, will be in addition to the $112 compensation payout agreed to in 2020 — taking total compensation to $587 million.

The court can also now determine additional amounts for legal costs up to $13.5 million and administration costs up to $60 million.

Across the two class actions, a possible total of more than $2.4 billion had been won or refunded to victims, class action lawyers said.

Robodebt was an automated debt recovery program created by former Liberal-National coalition governments and fully implemented in 2016, which wrongfully accused some welfare recipients of owing the government money.

The system incorrectly claimed almost $2 billion from around 450,000 people using income averaging techniques and data from Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office, which a Royal Commission found to be illegal.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said settling the second class action appeal was “the just and fair thing to do”.

“Today’s settlement demonstrates the Albanese Labor government’s ongoing commitment to addressing the harms caused to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians by the former Liberal government’s disastrous Robodebt scheme,” she said.

The government said members of the class action should make sure their contact details are correct with Services Australia, ahead of information about further payments being provided after the federal court’s decision.

‘A day of warning to governments and bureaucrats’

Gordon Legal representatives welcomed the government’s decision, telling media the development was “a day of vindication and validation for hundreds of thousands of Australians”.

Founder and senior partner Peter Gordon said it was also “a day of warning to governments and bureaucrats at all levels, not to recklessly and unlawfully attack the people who elected them, or who they were hired to protect”.

Gordon said the most damning evidence was only made available to lawyers through the final report of the Robodebt Royal Commission in July 2023, almost two years after first class action settlement.

“More than 450,000 Australians have or will benefit from this settlement,” he said.

“It is, of course, far and away the largest class action settlement in Australia’s history.

“… While it is satisfying for lawyers to achieve a total result of $2.4 billion, it is frankly infuriating to know that our own commonwealth government caused so much suffering to its own people — and it arose out of willful misconduct.”

Government decision ‘bittersweet’, victim says

Class action member and Robodebt victim Felicity Button told Thursday’s press conference that the government’s decision was “bittersweet” given “irreparable” damage to some victims and their families.

“People that have lost family members, people that have gone through divorce, gone bankrupt, irreparable mental health issues that have stemmed from this — we can never compensate for that,” she said.

“But this is as just and as fair as it could have been, and ever would be.”

The Robodebt Royal Commission linked at least two deaths by suicide to the scheme.

“For some, there are wounds that will never heal and we can never do justice to those people, and the system can’t,” Gordon said.

“But what we do hope and feel is that people today feel that their voices have been heard.”

Australia’s national corruption watchdog announced in February that it would investigate six individuals for their involvement in the Robodebt scandal.

Watch the video below.

Credit: ACS News

Heartbroken celebs pay tribute to Giorgio Armani after legendary fashion icon’s death at 91

Fashion designer Giorgio Armani and models acknowledge the applause of the audience at the Emporio Armani fashion show during the Milan Fashion Week Womenswear Spring/Summer 2024 on September 21, 2023 in Milan, Italy. Pietro S. D'aprano/Getty Images
  • The fashion world mourns

The entire fashion industry is mourning the death of Giorgio Armani.

The Italian designer passed away peacefully at age 91 surrounded by his family, the Armani Group announced on Thursday.

Immediately after news hit the web, hoards of heartbroken models, celebrities, and fashion elites took to social media to share tributes to the icon.

Fellow designer Donatella Versace was quick to post a broken heart emoji in response to the Armani Group’s announcement. 

‘The world lost a giant today. He made history and will be remembered forever,’ she added in a post of her own.

Princess Diana‘s niece Lady Amelia Spencer also commented with four red hearts.

Ashton Kutcher shared an emotional message on X, writing, ‘Visionary kind human Giorgio Armani, RIP.’ 

Racecar driver Charles Leclerc posted to his Instagram Stories, ‘A great honor to have had the chance to meet and work with such an amazing person. You will be missed Giorgio.’

Model and actress Alexis Ren posted a praying and broken heart emoji. 

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni spoke of Armani’s ‘elegance, sobriety and creativity’ in an emotional post.

‘Giorgio Armani leaves us at the age of 91. With his elegance, sobriety and creativity, he was able to bring luster to Italian fashion and inspire the entire world,’ she said. 

‘An icon, a tireless worker, a symbol of the best of Italy. Thank you for everything.’

‘Forever an icon,’ fashion star Maja Malnar commented. 

Italian actress Alice Pagani wrote, ‘Forever grateful to have met you.’ 

‘Giorgio, you are and will always be our KING. Thank you for making us feel proud to be ITALIAN! I love you,’ TV star Simona Ventura gushed. 

Italian fashion editor Anna Dello Russo wrote, ‘Bon voyage Maestro Giorgio. I’ll always carry you in my heart.’

Acclaimed photographer Nima Benati said, ‘What a tremendous loss.’ 

Actress Pilar Fogliati simply added, ‘Thank you,’ with a heart, while actor Edoardo Leo gushed, ‘Forever thank you.’

Singer Biagio Antonacci commented with the quote, ‘A man who will never end,’ adding, ‘Bye King, with infinite love.’

Musician Laura Pausini gushed, ‘A man, a king, a meeting that lasted 30 years that [I] will never forget. With infinite esteem and love, Laura.’

TV presenter Francesca Fagnani said, ‘Thank you for giving freedom and power to women.’ 

Soccer player Alexandre Pato added, ‘Nooo! How very sad. RIP.’

‘Bye King George, thank you for incarnating and making authentic beauty tangible, for shaping the soul,’ Italian movie star Miriam Leone penned.

‘His teaching, his elegance and his light will be eternal,’ actor and model Alex Belli added. 

Vogue described Armani as someone who ‘defined the 1980s and shaped the course of fashion beyond it’ in a moving Instagram post.

In a statement released today, Armani’s fashion firm confirmed the news, writing: ‘In this company, we have always felt like part of a family. 

‘Today, with deep emotion, we feel the void left by the one who founded and nurtured this family with vision, passion, and dedication, but it is precisely in his spirit that we, the employees and the family members who have always worked alongside Mr. Armani, commit to protecting what he built and to carrying his company forward in his memory, with respect, responsibility, and love.’ 

Known as ‘Re Giorgio’ – King Giorgio – the designer was known for overseeing every detail of his collection and every aspect of his business, from advertising to fixing models’ hair as they head out onto the runway. 

Armani had been CEO and creative director up until his death and said in his last interview last weekend: ‘My greatest weakness is that I am in control of everything.’ 

Armani dressed the rich and famous in classic tailored styles, fashioned in super-soft fabrics and muted tones. 

His handsome black tie outfits and glittering evening gowns often stole the show on award season red carpets. 

He was synonymous with modern Italian style and elegance, and his company turned over some $2.7 billion a year.

At the time of his death, Armani had put together an empire worth over $10 billion, which, along with clothing, included accessories, home furnishings, perfumes, cosmetics, books, flowers and even chocolates, ranking him in the world’s top 200 billionaires, according to Forbes. 

He had been unwell for some time and was forced to drop out of his group’s shows at Milan’s Men’s Fashion Week in June, the first time in his career that he had missed one of his catwalk events.

A funeral chamber will be set up on Saturday and Sunday in Milan, the company said, followed by a private funeral at an unspecified date.

Bio

Giorgio Armani (1934–2025) built a global luxury empire starting with his company, Giorgio Armani S.p.A., in 1975. Known for his signature relaxed yet luxurious and minimalist style, he expanded into menswear, womenswear, accessories, and more, becoming a major figure in Hollywood and red-carpet fashion. After leaving medical school and working as a department store merchandiser, and for Nino Cerruti, Armani and partner Sergio Galeotti launched the successful brand. 

Early Life and Career

  • Birth and Background: Giorgio Armani was born in Piacenza, Italy, on July 11, 1934, and grew up during World War II. 
  • Medical Studies: He initially pursued medicine at the University of Milan but left in 1953 to serve in the military and then work as a department store visual merchandiser. 
  • Nino Cerruti : Armani then joined Nino Cerruti as a menswear designer, where he refined his signature clean, minimalist style. 

Founding the Armani Brand 

  • Giorgio Armani S.p.A.: In 1975, with his business partner Sergio Galeotti, he founded Giorgio Armani S.p.A., which quickly became one of the world’s leading fashion and design houses.
  • Brand Expansion: The company expanded beyond its initial menswear focus to include womenswear, accessories, cosmetics, fragrances, and home furnishings.

Signature Style and Influence

  • Minimalist Elegance: Armani became known for his clean lines, understated luxury, and relaxed silhouettes that brought ease and modernity to fashion. 
  • Red Carpet Fashion: He is credited with pioneering red-carpet fashion and became a celebrity favourite, with Richard Gere famously wearing his designs in the film “American Gigolo”. 
  • Industry Leadership: By 2001, he was recognised as the most successful Italian designer of all time. 

Legacy

  • Business and Empire:Armani’s business acumen led to a powerful, independent, and privately-owned global empire with significant retail presence and a vast workforce. 
  • Diversification: The brand expanded into lifestyle areas, including music, sports, and luxury hotels. 
  • Social Impact: He was also a pioneer in social responsibility, banning models with a low Body Mass Index from his shows after a model died from an eating disorder in 2006. 

Credit: Except for the bio data, this report was mostly culled from Daily Mail

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.

TIPS