By Sonnie Ekwowusi

This is my response to Monday Ubani, SAN’s article: Reinventing the Nigerian Bar Association: urgent imperatives for reformative and caring leadership.

A client has just asked me to discontinue his case pending at the FHC Lagos for a gargantuan 10 years without trial, without anything. What a disaster. No need living in denial. A litigant cannot access justice in Nigerian courts, especially in Lagos courts

After 40 years in the profession without positive change in accessing justice in courts, I am seriously considering dumping the wig and gown. It serves no useful purpose, wasting my time in an institution perpetually immune from change and progress. It is not that there are too many cases in court that act as a clog in the dispensation of justice. No. That’s not the problem

The real problem is that the judicial process is bastardized or ruined by civil service bureaucracy and bottlenecks. Privatise the judiciary today, and you will see how efficient it becomes. For example, if you make me an administrator of the judiciary and I know that my livelihood depends on making the judiciary work, I will do everything to make it work overnight.

So, to hell with civil service bureaucracy that ruins the judiciary. Therefore, to make the Nigerian judiciary really work, you must get rid of age-old corrupt judicial personnel-bailiff, registrar, messenger, etc, who unleash administrative injustice in the course of their administrative functions.

And as you know very well, administrative injustice begets legal injustice. For example, if a court bailiff refuses to serve your court process, he has ruined your case before you even get to the judge.

I have participated via Zoom in the American court trial. The judge was very humble. He did not intimidate or harass lawyers or litigants. The lawyers were also very friendly. The trial ended very well within 30 minutes. Whereas in Nigeria, a judge behaves like a demigod. You can’t talk to him. He knows everything. The big lawyers wield an unnecessarily fearsome outlook.

Fear rules court proceedings. And at the end of the theatrics, nothing happens. Cases are adjourned. No progress made. The court goes on vacation. The year ends with little or no achievements. 

A parody.

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

By Monday Ubani, SAN

Across both virtual and physical platforms, a resounding consensus has emerged among Nigerian lawyers: the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has not adequately addressed the prevailing concerns that affect the welfare, dignity, and professional advancement of its members. This sentiment continues to deepen, particularly among practitioners in the public sector and those navigating the increasingly harsh realities of legal practice in Nigeria.

One enduring grievance is the stagnation in the entry point and career progression of lawyers within the Nigerian Civil Service. While medical doctors, engineers, and other professionals have successfully negotiated improved placements and remuneration for their members, the NBA has failed to secure similar reforms for its own. Even more disheartening is the continued exclusion of public sector lawyers from contesting certain NBA offices, a restriction unjustly justified by the fear of compromise or victimisation. Yet, the Trade Union Act, which governs and protects professional associations, guarantees immunity from such interferences.

Another sore point is the NBA’s perceived detachment from the everyday challenges faced by its members within the judiciary. Many lawyers are subjected to institutional indignities: arbitrary filing fees, extortionate practices at court registries, unjustified punitive actions by court staff, and near-impossible hurdles in post-judgment enforcement. These are not isolated complaints, they are systemic failings. Yet, the Bar remains alarmingly silent, leaving its members vulnerable and disillusioned.

The National Industrial Court, once praised for its efficiency, has also fallen into procedural disrepair. Delays in filing, service, and case assignment now mirror the dysfunction evident in many State High Courts and the Federal High Court. These inefficiencies not only frustrate the delivery of justice but also exacerbate the economic hardship of litigation lawyers, many of whom are now sliding into professional poverty. Again, the NBA’s intervention remains absent.

A glaring omission is the exclusion of the Nigerian Law School from TETFund patronage. While institutions like the Nigerian Defence Academy have begun to enjoy the benefits of this fund, law school campuses remain underfunded and burdened by unsustainable fees. That the NBA has neither advocated nor petitioned for this inclusion is both baffling and disappointing.

Most alarming is the consistent harassment, intimidation, and sometimes arrest of lawyers by security agencies while carrying out their professional duties. This is not just a violation of the rule of law, it is an assault on the very foundation of justice. The NBA’s muted response to these abuses signals a worrying abdication of responsibility. One must question, for instance, why lawyers are barred from entering certain security agency premises with their phones, a barbaric and unconstitutional practice that ought to be legally challenged and reversed by a proactive NBA.

Equally troubling is the distressing experience of lawyers whose appeals are pending before the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. Whether filing fresh appeals or defending hard-earned victories, the wait time before a case is listed for hearing is nothing short of agonizing. At the Court of Appeal, the earliest window is typically six to seven years, while at the Supreme Court, it is eight to ten years, if not longer.
How can lawyers sustain legal practice under such an excruciating environment? What becomes of litigants whose hope for justice is either dashed by death or destabilized by endless delays?

The economic implications are equally severe: investors are discouraged, and business confidence eroded, contributing to the stagnation of the Nigerian economy. And yet, the NBA has remained largely unperturbed.
If those in leadership and those aspiring to lead the NBA are not disturbed by these harsh realities, then they have no business seeking to manage the affairs of the largest professional body in Africa, if not the world.

Attention is urgently required to address these issues and salvage both the legal profession and the Nigerian judiciary from public opprobrium and eventual collapse.

However, it is not all bleak. The NBA’s recent push for a harmonised and realistic scale of fees in property documentation and conveyancing is laudable. If effectively implemented across jurisdictions, this reform could enhance the earnings and dignity of lawyers involved in property transactions.

It is important to also commend the current leadership of the NBA under Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN. His emergence has demonstrated a clear capacity to steer the Bar in the right direction. In just one year in office, his administration has yielded visible fruits of effective leadership, which have not gone unnoticed by knowledgeable members and respected leaders of the Bar. His proactive style, accessibility, and understanding of the pulse of Nigerian lawyers are worthy of applause.

That said, this write-up is not to diminish the achievements already recorded under his leadership. Rather, it is an earnest appeal to him to use the remaining one year of his tenure to confront and possibly resolve the pressing issues enumerated above. We believe strongly that he will succeed, if he channels his energy toward these matters, as the seasoned and responsive Bar leader we know him to be.

In conclusion, the NBA must urgently reorient its vision and reimagine its leadership ethos. A deliberate, sustained, and courageous engagement with the real issues confronting Nigerian lawyers is no longer optional, it is imperative. We need a Bar that is not only visible during conferences and elections, but also present, vocal, and protective in the trenches of everyday legal practice.

The future of the legal profession depends on a Bar that is vibrant, inclusive, assertive, and unapologetically committed to the cause of its members.

The time to act is now!

▪Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, a legal practitioner, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and a public policy analyst.

By Prof. Mike A. A. Ozekhome, SAN

INTRODUCTION

WHEN THE FOREST HIDES MORE THAN TREES

To paraphrase an old African proverb, “when the forest is silent, beware, it may be plotting”. Nigeria’s forests are no longer just a canopy of trees sheltering wildlife and whispering winds; they have become a theatre of terror. Armed bandits, kidnappers and insurgents have “discovered” what ancient wisdom already knew: that the forest is the perfect hideout. In response, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has proposed a bold and ostensibly visionary plan, the deployment of a national forest guard corps. This move has since sparked hope, skepticism, and fierce federalism-versus-unitarism debates.

At the heart of this strategy is the ambition to reclaim over 1, 129 forest reserves scattered across Nigeria’s sprawling terrain, most of which now serve as havens for terrorists and criminal syndicates. With over 130,000 armed operatives to be recruited and deployed, it is easy to view this initiative as the long-overdue solution to Nigeria’s security woes. But this move is not just about logistics and boots in the bush; it is about sovereignty, legality, and local legitimacy. Is Tinubu’s forest guard plan a federal solution to a national emergency, or is it an ill-fated centralization of local security challenges, enabling the federal government to breath down the necks of State governments?

To answer this, we must examine the legal, constitutional, and operational frameworks of Tinubu’s initiative, evaluate historical precedents, and analyze the potential risks of imposing a federally controlled paramilitary force in forests that historically and legally belong to the states. We must also interrogate whether security can be bought with arms alone; or whether it grows from the grass roots up.

But before we venture into the thicket of policy and power, let us consider the context that birthed this proposal. Nigeria’s forests, which were once ecological sanctuaries, have gradually degenerated into lawless zones of bloodbath. The green expanse that should echo with bird calls and animal grunts now reverberate with gunfire. Insecurity in rural and agrarian communities has reached such alarming heights that farmers have virtually abandoned their lands, leading to food insecurity, economic stagnation, and mass displacement. The forests no longer nurture life; they generate death.

BETWEEN POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION

The government’s decision to respond with a large-scale recruitment of forest guards may indeed seem intuitive, after all, it aligns with the global trend of ecological militarization in fragile states. Yet, the structure of implementation matters deeply. If the architecture of this plan disregards Nigeria’s federal nature, it risks exacerbating the very crisis it was intended to solve. Forests may be rooted in soil; but the guardianship of that soil is rooted in law, identity, and community ownership. The principle of quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit applies. Forest guards who do not share the language, culture, history or kinship of the terrains they are sent to police will surely be seen as outsiders. And such outsiders in the forest may become either victims or villains.

Furthermore, this proposal arrives at a critical moment in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. Debates over state and community policing, restructuring, devolution of powers and regional autonomy are no longer intellectual abstractions; they have become national imperatives. See sections 215 and 216 of the 1999 Constitution. Tinubu’s plan whether deliberately or inadvertently, intersects with these gaping fault lines. To superimpose a federally-managed forest force without recognizing the nuanced relationships between state, land and community is to risk uprooting fragile peace and replacing it with more severe antagonism.

Now, are we really a federation in truth or merely in name? I dare say what we operate in the guise of federalism is actually a unitary form of government. Can national unity be enforced through uniformed patrols, or is it better than it be cultivated through shared values and governance? As we delve deeper, the question is not just who guards the forest, but who decides who guards the forest, and in whose name. Indeed, a deeper question: Who will guard the Guard?

THE FOREST, THE FEDERALIST AND THE FEDERATION

CONSTITUTIONAL REALITIES: THE POWER OF THE STATES OVER FORESTS

In any federal system, the distribution of power especially over land and internal security is a defining hallmark. Nigeria’s federalism is no exception. The country’s current structure, codified under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), clearly delineates the powers of federal, state and local governments.See sections 2(2),3(1-6) of the 1999 Constitution. A close reading of section 7 and the Fourth Schedule ( paragraph 2( b) to the Constitution highlights the responsibilities of Local Government Councils, including the control and regulation of agricultural and natural resources and by extension, includes forest land not reserved to the Federal Government. This immediately places forests, by default, under the control of the states, unless specifically designated otherwise,since Local Governments are located in states.

Furthermore, the Land Use Act,1978, which is incorporated into the Constitution by reference (section 315), gives state governors control over all lands within their territory, excluding those under federal use, to hold them in trust for the people of their States. The Act empowers governors to allocate land in urban areas to individuals and organizations, and to oversee the use of non-urban land through Local Government Councils. Consequently, the direct implication is that any forest or land not classified under national parks, Federal Reserve zones, or military controlled areas, falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the state.

FEDERAL V. STATE POWER

Of Nigeria’s 1, 129 officially gazetted forest reserves, the vast majority are managed by state forestry departments under their ministries of agriculture, rural development or environment. These include large forest blocks in states like Cross River, Ondo, Ogun, Taraba, and Ekiti, many of which are vital to local economies, ecological sustainability, and food security. The federal government only controls forest areas designated as National Parks(such as Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Kainji Lake National Park, Cross River National Park, and Old Oyo National Park), administered under the National Park Service, an agency of the Federal Ministry of Environment.

Attempts to impose direct federal recruitment and control over forest guards in state-managed forests without legislative amendments or formal agreements risk violating both the spirit and letter of the law. Even within the federal legislative framework, forest policing is not explicitly listed on the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning that it falls under either the Concurrent List (shared responsibilities between the federal and states) or, in most practical scenarios, the Residual List, which is left to states’ discretion.

UNITARISM IN DISGUISE?: THE DANGER OF A FEDERAL PARAMILITARY FORCE

Unitarism masquerading as federal security cooperation is a deeply sensitive issue in Nigeria, where ethnic plurality, historical grievances, and political mistrust run deep. The idea that over 130,000 armed operatives could be centrally recruited, trained, and deployed under federal command while ostensibly operating within state territories is understandably alarming to many stakeholders. It evokes painful memories of other federally-controlled agencies that have operated with little or no regard for local dynamics and often with tragic consequences.

The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) is a case in point. Established as a unit within the Nigeria Police Force, SARS was accused of gross human rights violations, including extra-judicial killings, torture, and extortion. Its federal command structure meant little accountability to state governments or communities. The #EndSARS protests of 2020, which began as youth-led demands for police reforms, quickly morphed into a broader call for systemic change, highlighting the dangers of over-centralized security control architecture.

Similarly, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), while useful in its community protection mandate, has often been accused of operational inefficiencies and jurisdictional clashes with state authorities. Cases of NSCDC operatives acting with impunity or engaging in power struggles with local law enforcement agents are well documented.

Against this backdrop, Tinubu’s forest guard plan raises critical concerns. How can a federal command effectively manage such a force across diverse terrains, languages, and cultures without falling into the same trap of over-centralization and under-accountability? What happens when these guards act outside the law, or when federal and state authorities disagree on deployment priorities? Who investigates complaints of misconduct, especially in remote rural areas? Who has the final say?

These questions are not merely theoretical. In countries with similar federal structures, such as India and the United States, forest protection and environmental policing are almost always handled at the state or provincial level, often under decentralized bureaucracies with state-specific laws and enforcement mechanisms. For instance, India’s Forest Protection Committees are embedded in local governance structures, while U.S. State Park Rangers operate independently of federal policing units unless specific interstate or federal crimes are involved.

Nigeria’s own federal structure should offer no less sophistication. The creation of another federal paramilitary force, especially one that operates deep in the natives’ forests without local allegiance or accountability, risks becoming not a solution but a security liability and worse, a political tool in the hands of a powerful centre.

INDIGENOUS SECURITY MODELS: THE CASE FOR LOCAL RECRUITMENT

The wisdom of local recruitment is both practical and cultural. Insecurity in Nigeria’s forests is not just about guns and patrols, it is about intelligence, relationships and trust. Bandits and criminal syndicates thrive in environments where locals are alienated from the security structure. Conversely, they are more easily repelled when local vigilantes, hunters and indigenous operatives form part of the security fabric.

The Nigerian Hunter and Forest Security Service (NHFSS), which operates across the 36 states and the FCT Abuja, provides a compelling model. Comprised largely of traditional hunters and forest dwellers, the NHFSS brings a unique blend of tactical expertise and cultural affinity. In states like Kogi, Kebbi and the FCT, NHFSS operatives have been instrumental in intercepting kidnap gangs, uncovering illegal encampments, and collaborating with security agencies. Their effectiveness is rooted not in superior weaponry, but in their deep understanding of their peculiar terrain, their loyalty to the community, and the trust they command from locals.

A retired Army General, Peter Aro, hailed the development as a critical step in addressing rising insecurity within Nigeria’s forested regions, particularly the scourge of banditry, kidnapping, and insurgency. Forest guards must possess field survival skills, terrain literacy, and community integration. These are not qualities one can mass-produce in Abuja through crash course training programmes. Furthermore, security should be intimately linked to traditional institutions, such as village heads, district councils, and traditional rulers, who provide crucial intelligence and moral authority.

Security analyst Chidi Omeje has also pointed out the danger of sending “fresh recruits with basic firearms” into forest zones where criminal elements are known to possess military-grade weapons. He advocates for a dual-layered model, where locally embedded forest guards work alongside the military and police but under local command structures.

There are also precedents for success. The Amotekun Corps in the South West, and the Benue Community Volunteer Guards, are examples of locally-driven initiatives that have shown promising results. While not without their challenges, these corps are better attuned to the local environment and have the legitimacy to act swiftly in ways that federal forces cannot.

Furthermore, a decentralized approach would stimulate local economies. Recruitment of indigenes provides employment, instills civic pride and strengthens the social contract bond. It also ensures that the guards see themselves as protectors, not as occupiers, a distinction that is vital in volatile communities where the line between security agent and aggressor is often thin.

In summary, while the federal government has a legitimate role in coordinating national responses to threats, its approach must be that of a facilitator, not a commander. Support through training, funding, surveillance technology (e.g., drones, forest mapping systems), and standard setting is invaluable. But command and control must remain at the state level, rooted in the soil, culture, language, idiosyncrasies and rhythms of the communities the guards are sworn to protect.

Between The Forest And The Firepower: Finding The Right Strategy

The Forest As Nigeria’s New Battlefield

Nigeria’s forests, once treasured for their ecological richness and environmental contributions, are increasingly viewed through the lens of national security. Spanning over 10 million hectares which is about 10% of the total land area of Nigeria, Nigeria’s forest reserves are now being infiltrated by violent actors and used as operational bases for bandits, insurgents, arms traffickers, and cross-border criminal networks. These reserves especially those in Kwara, Niger, Benue, Taraba, Zamfara, Kaduna, and Oyo have morphed into de facto war zones, where traditional policing is rendered ineffective and the military often finds itself in reactive mode.

One particularly troubling example is the Kainji Lake National Park, a protected area that spans the borders of Kwara and Niger States. Though it is officially under federal protection, its vast and difficult-to-monitor terrain makes it a prime corridor for terrorist and bandit movements. According to security reports from the Nigerian Army’s 8 Division, several armed groups have taken advantage of the park’s proximity to Nigeria’s northwestern and central states to establish hidden bases, smuggle arms, and coordinate attacks.

Similarly, the Old Oyo National Park, which straddles Oyo, Kwara, and Niger States, has become a hotspot for criminal activity. Local intelligence from communities surrounding the park indicates that bandit groups expelled from Zamfara and Katsina have found refuge in this forest. These criminal elements exploit the remoteness of the area and the absence of a permanent security presence to regroup and launch attacks on nearby settlements.

Beyond national parks, numerous ungazetted forests especially in the Middle Belt serve as strategic hideouts for Fulani militia groups, foreign mercenaries, and rogue elements linked to organized crime. In Benue State, Governor Hyacinth Alia has repeatedly warned of incursions by foreign terrorists, allegedly linked to cross-border herder militias. The Upper Ogun Forest Reserve, a large forest block in Kwara, has also come under scrutiny following reports that Mahmuda terrorist group members used it to transit between Nigeria and the Republic of Benin.

The implications of these developments are profound. Without forest security, Nigeria not only risks losing its forests to environmental degradation but also ceding large swaths of land to non-state actors, thus turning forest reserves into breeding grounds for violent extremism. Yet, while the urgency to act is undeniable now, the quality of response matters more than its speed.

Deploying undertrained or poorly equipped forest guards into these volatile environments would be akin to sending lambs into a lion’s den. The intelligence, terrain mastery, and firepower required in such engagements go far beyond the remit of conventional paramilitary forces. You cannot send men with shotguns into a forest ruled by terrorists with RPGs. This is not hyperbole, it is a stark reality, backed by recurring video evidence of bandits showcasing sophisticated weaponry, satellite communication tools, and, in some cases, armored vehicles.

Military Might Vs. Paramilitary Prowess: A Strategic Dilemma

At the heart of Nigeria’s forest security conundrum lies a fundamental strategic mismatch. On one side is the proposal to deploy lightly armed forest guards; on the other is a threat landscape populated by insurgent groups with military-grade capabilities. Nigeria remains one of the most affected countries by terrorism, with Boko Haram, ISWAP, and multiple bandit groups shifting focus from urban bombings to rural forest insurgency.

Reports confirm that many of these groups are now entrenched in forests stretching from Zamfara to Taraba, taking advantage of limited surveillance and sluggish security response. These criminal outfits reportedly employ rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), improvised explosive devices (IEDs), drones and night-vision equipment, a sophisticated arsenal far superior to the basic AK-47s or pump-action rifles many forest guards are expected to wield. This power disparity raises a serious question: Can forest guards, even in significant numbers, hold their ground against such adversaries?

A Desirable Narrative

The answer, quite evidently, is no, at least not alone. This does not render the forest guard model irrelevant, but it necessitates a reimagining of their role. Forest guards should not be conceptualized as primary combatants but as intelligence operatives, terrain scouts, and first responders. Their role must be complementary, not confrontational, with local guards. Embedded within local communities, they are best positioned to detect unusual movements, provide early warnings, and assist in planning police or military interventions.

Such integration would mirror the highly successful model employed by the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) in the North-East, which supported the Nigerian military in combating Boko Haram. The CJTF did not go to war with terrorists alone. Rather, they provided community intelligence, identified suspects, and enabled smoother military operations.

The same should apply to forest guards. Deployed as community embedded liaisons, their greatest strength lies not in brute force but in proximity, familiarity, acculturation and adaptability. They must work in synergy with the local guards, Army, Police, DSS, and NSCDC, ensuring that information gathered at the grassroots level informs strategic planning at the federal level.

Another vital element is equipment and communication infrastructure. In many rural areas, mobile networks are poor, and emergency communication is non-existent. Forest guards should be equipped with satellite phones, GPS trackers, surveillance drones, and bodycams. Training must include combat survival, hostage negotiation, and tactical withdrawal protocols. It’s not enough to train them how to fight; they must also learn when, where and how not to fight.

The Path Forward: A True Federal Partnership

While President Tinubu’s forest guard initiative is ambitious and well-intentioned, its execution must be shaped by constitutional fidelity, operational pragmatism, and community trust. Nigeria’s diversity requires policies that are locally adaptive but nationally coordinated. A strategic roadmap should therefore include the following:

Legislative Reform and National Forest Security Act

This act should define the parameters of forest security across the federation. It must empower states to create, manage, and control forest guard units while providing room for federal assistance in the form of funding, training standards, and interoperability protocols with federal security services. The act should also clarify jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring there’s no operational conflict between federal and state forces.

Indigenous Recruitment and Decentralized Command

Only indigenous recruits, drawn from host communities, should serve in forest guard units. This principle ensures language proficiency, cultural awareness, and community acceptance. State governments, in partnership with local traditional rulers, should drive recruitment processes, with background checks vetted by local police and DSS operatives. This will mitigate risks of infiltration by criminal elements.

Technology-Driven Surveillance Infrastructure

Equipping forest guards with modern tools is not optional; it is imperative. Drone surveillance, motion-triggered cameras, satellite-linked walkie-talkies, and forest mapping systems should be deployed. The National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) and Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) can play a supporting role in developing and deploying such technologies.

Strategic Federal Support, Not Operational Control

The role of the Federal Ministry of Environment and Office of the National Security Adviser must be clearly coordinative, not administrative. Federal agencies should support states through centralized training academies, logistics depots, and intelligence sharing platforms, but the command structure should remain domiciled in state ministries or specially created state security commissions.

Community Accountability and Oversight Boards

Every state should establish Forest Guard Oversight Committees composed of community leaders, the youth, civil society groups, religious figures, and security agencies. These committees would track operations, address complaints, and ensure that forest guards act within the bounds of law and ethics. Regular town hall reports and audits should be mandated.

Integrate Environmental Protection and Counter-Insurgency Goals

One major flaw in Nigeria’s security strategy is the siloed approach to environmental policy and national security. The forest guard initiative offers a unique opportunity to bridge this divide. Forest guards should be cross-trained in both environmental protection and tactical field surveillance, thereby serving a dual purpose: preserving Nigeria’s biodiversity while countering environmental crimes that fund insurgent activities.

Illegal logging, poaching, and charcoal trading are multi-billion-naira black-market economies that fuel insecurity in rural areas. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, environmental crimes in West Africa generate funds that are often funneled to criminal cartels and armed groups. A forest security force that understands these dynamics can better dismantle such networks.

It is imperative to partner with the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nigerian Conservation Foundation, and international organizations like UNEP to embed environmental crime detection into forest guard training modules.

Establish a Centralized Forest Intelligence Command

Given the complexity of forest based criminal operations and their links to wider terrorism and transnational crime, it is essential to build a dedicated forest intelligence infrastructure. This unit, the Centralized Forest Intelligence Command (CFIC), should be a joint inter-agency platform bringing together the Police, NCDC, DSS, Military Intelligence, Nigerian Immigration Service, local guards and Forest Guard Commanders from each state.

CFIC would use advanced tools such as geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), and drone reconnaissance to provide real-time threat mapping, track insurgent movements, and anticipate forest-to-urban migration of threats. Such an initiative would vastly improve response time and prevent security breaches before they happen.

The CFIC should be integrated into Nigeria’s National Security Architecture under the supervision of the National Security Adviser, but operated through a state federal coordination model with joint personnel and interlinked command centres.

Promote Cross-Border Forest Security Cooperation

Given that Nigeria shares porous forest borders with Benin Republic, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon, it is vital to recognize the transnational dimension of forest insecurity. Bandits and militants frequently move across these borders, exploiting weak surveillance and diplomatic inertia.

Nigeria must lead in establishing a Regional Forest Security Pact in collaboration with ECOWAS and the African Union (AU) security platforms. This pact would promote joint patrols, shared intelligence, coordinated raids, and the establishment of joint forest monitoring stations in border regions like Borno, Taraba, Cross River, and Sokoto.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should work with ECOWAS to initiate bilateral and multilateral forest security agreements, underpinned by joint training programs and extradition protocols for forest-based offenders.

Conclusion

 Where The Trees Stand Tall, So Too Must The Constitution

In the final analysis, Nigeria’s forest guard initiative under President Bola Tinubu offers more than just a policy experiment; it presents a litmus test for the country’s commitment to federalism, local empowerment, administration and smart security strategy. The forests in question may be dense with trees, but the issues surrounding them are denser still: constitutional authority, operational viability, regional identity, and national unity.

We have seen how the forests have evolved from mere ecological zones into the dark sanctuaries of insurgents, traffickers, and mercenaries. We have seen how well meaning central interventions, if not delicately structured, can become bulldozers flattening both local agency and constitutional principles. And we have seen how a locally grounded, technologically equipped, and constitutionally-compliant model can actually work transforming the forest guard idea from a controversial headline into a security legacy.

But let us be clear, you do not fix a leaky roof by installing a chandelier. You do not solve rural insecurity with a flood of centrally deployed gunmen unfamiliar with the peculiar terrain or the tongues spoken therein. Instead, Nigeria must adopt a model that blends local trust with federal muscle, traditional knowledge with modern technology, and constitutional wisdom with operational pragmatism.

The forest is watching, as are the communities who live by it, feed from it, and now fear it. Let us ensure that the guardians we appoint are not strangers in camouflage, but sons and daughters of the soil; trained, trusted, and tethered to the trees they are sworn to protect. After all, if we cannot see the forest for the law, we may end up losing both. And in that case, the trees would not be the only casualty left standing in silence; our Democracy may also be.

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

By Prof. Mike A. A. Ozekhome, SAN

2nd July, 2025

The Honourable Attorney-General of the
Federation & Minister of Justice,
Federal Ministry of Justice,
Plot 71B, Shehu Shagari Way,
Maitama,
Abuja, FCT.

Dear Sir,

WHY PROF. MIKE OZEKHOME IS CORRECT AND KUNLE ADEGOKE IS WRONG

INTRODUCTION

1. Our attention has been drawn to a misleading 7-page letter dated 26th June, 2025, written to your office by a colleague of ours, Kunle Adegoke, SAN, which he tagged a reaction to my letter dated June 23, 2025, addressed to your goodself on the current simulated Local Government crisis in Osun State. The said letter which has been published as paid advertorial and which has flooded the traditional and social media hemispheres feebly purports to be the correct, factual and legal position on the matter. IT IS NOT SIR. We would have thought that my learned friend should have sent me a copy of his letter since the contents are entirely about my person and my representations before you and not him. But he did not. We say no more on this.
2. Upon a careful perusal of the contents of the aforementioned misleading and heavily distorted letter of Mr. Kunle Adegoke, SAN (hereinafter, Mr. Adegoke), we discovered several factual inaccuracies, legal misconceptions and deliberate attempts to input into the Court of Appeal judgement dated 10th February, 2025, strange matters inferences not contained therein. Thus, it has become expedient for me to write to your good self this rather lengthy response to set the records straight and humbly guide you in taking appropriate remedial steps as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation to save Osun State. Mr. Adegoke’s letter, with respect, is one of such highly partisan outings that have engendered and sustained needless crisis in an otherwise peaceful state.

CORRECT BACKGROUND FACTS

3. Towards the twilight of former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola’s Administration in Osun State, the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC) that did not conduct any local government election in the State for several years suddenly woke up to conduct election after Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) had lost the Governorship Election to Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

PDP’S SUIT

4. The PDP, upon becoming aware of the plan (even though no notice had been given by OSSIEC as at then) pro-actively filed a suit by way of an Originating Summons before the Federal High Court, Osogbo, in FHC/OS/CS/94/2022, to challenge the OSSIEC Law, 2015, then in place which provided for 150 days NOTICE as against 360 days provided for in the Electoral Act, 2022. It based its case on the decision of the Supreme Court in OSSIEC v. Action Congress (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 15114.
   ​
5. The defendants to the suit were INEC and OSSIEC. During the pendency of the suit, the Osun State House of Assembly repealed the 2015 OSSIEC Law, enacted OSSIEC Law, 2022, and inserted therein a length of notice equivalent to that of the 2022 Electoral Act, that is 360 days. During the pendency of the suit still, OSSIEC gave notice of election which was just for 60 days in breach of both the Electoral Act and OSSIEC Law itself. The PDP then applied for and was granted amendment to its Originating Summons to bring in the new facts. Along the line, the election was conducted during the pendency of the suit, and after the election, the APC and some political parties brought applications to join in the suit as defendants and they were so joined by the court. The court subsequently determined the suit and found in favour of the Plaintiff (PDP) by sacking the APC Chairmen/Councilors. OSSIEC then withdrew the respective certificates of returns from the purported winners (the APC and its candidates).

APP’S SEPARATE SUIT

6. It must be noted that immediately after OSSIEC gave the 60-days notice as against the prescribed 360 days, APP (unlike the PDP which filed its suit before the notice) equally filed its own separate suit before the Federal High Court, Osogbo, to which only INEC and OSSIEC were parties. In the course of the suit, APC, APM, APGA and some individuals again brought separate applications for joinder as defendants in the suit. They were so joined. The suit was heard and decided and the Federal High Court, Osogbo, again found in favour of the APP on 30th November, 2022, and consequently sacked the APC officials. OSSIEC did not appeal, but APC, APM, and one Babarinde (having been especially sacked by the court in the suit) filed a joint notice of appeal which was never prosecuted until same was dismissed on 13th January, 2025. The attempt to have the appeal relisted by only the APC as the Applicant among other co-appellants failed woefully as the appellate court dismissed same on 13th June, 2025 (we shall come to this later).
7. Meanwhile during the period, OSSIEC had issued another notice of election on 19th February, 2024, for fresh election to be held on 19th February, 2025 (a notice of more than 360 days).
8. Interestingly, the APC participated in the process of the fresh notice of election by nominating and submitting its list of candidates like all other political parties. It was only some 48 hours to the election that the APC suddenly withdrew their participation from the election, falsely claiming that they had been̈ reinstated by the Court of Appeal, whereas no such order existed anywhere.

APC CHAIRMEN WERE DULY SACKED BY A COURT ORDER AND NEVER REINSTATED

9. Mr. Adegoke stated in the first paragraph of his letter that he and his firm are Counsel to the Local Government Chairmen and Councilors elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress in Osun State “who were recently reinstated by the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, vide its judgement of 10th February, 2025.” This statement that his clients were reinstated by the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, vide its judgement of 10th February, 2025, is grossly false and constitutes a deliberate attempt to mischievously import into the judgement of the Court of Appeal what was not contained therein.
10. In his said letter, Mr. Adegoke thus made the judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on 10th February, 2025, in Appeal No. CA/AK/270/2022 the very hallmark and fulcrum of his flawed legal opinion. But then, a calm reading of the said judgement of the Court of Appeal in the said Appeal No.: CA/AK/270/2022, even by a greenhorn in the legal profession would show that it is Kunle Adegoke (not me, as he unfortunately alleged) is the Counsel guilty of “spinning around false narrative” and “being duplicitous.” The said judgement of the Court of Appeal neither validates his precarious stance and false narrative, nor lend credence to his egregious position that the judgement “stands as the valid and subsisting judicial pronouncement affirming the lawfully elected APC Chairmen and Councillors of the 30 Local Government Councils in Osun State.”
11. Surprisingly, Mr. Adegoke went as far as betraying the very “Oath of upholding the rule of law and integrity of justice administration…moral and ethical obligations” (all of which he claims to uphold as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria), when he said that: “the ruling did not merely strike down the lower court’s decision on technical grounds; it addressed the matter on its merit and unequivocally allowed APC’s appeal. This is the true and authentic position of the law.”
12. We are rather shocked and completely taken aback by Mr. Adegoke’s misrepresentation, sophistry and fallacious interpretation of the Court of Appeal judgement (the very false accusations he leveled against my person). He embarked on this just to favour his clients who remain sacked from office as at today. This is more so as the Court of Appeal had unequivocally declared the issues of reinstatement and/or restoration back to office as “an academic exercise”; and therefore never pronounced upon them. The court NEVER addressed the issues on their merit.

WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL DID IN THE APP CASE

13. At this juncture, it is pertinent to give a brief background of the said judgment to highlight Mr. Adegoke’s faux pas in the Court of Appeal judgement (copies of which I had earlier forwarded to you in my letter dated 23rd June, 2025, to which Adegoke claimed to have responded to).
    (A) When the APC approached the Court of Appeal vide its Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 12th January, 2023, it specifically sought for reinstatement of its sacked officials in prayer (g) of the said Amended Notice of Appeal which reads as follows:
    “(G) An Order restoring the Appellants back into their offices having been duly elected by the citizens of Osun State.”

(B) At page 34 of the lead judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Abubakar Muazu Lamido, JCA, the Court of Appeal adopted the four issues formulated by the APC for consideration. Obvious from the said issues is that the issue of whether the purportedly elected officials of the APC could be returned to the Local Governments from which they were sacked by the Federal High Court, in Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/94/2022 could only have been considered under issues 3 and 4 which were formulated by the Appellant (APC) itself thus:
“3. ​Was the lower court right to have granted the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent on the ground of non-compliance with the Electoral Act by the 3rd respondent (ground 6)

4. ​Was the lower court right to have made a consequential order nullifying the Local Government election of 15th October, 2022 and ordering the duly elected officers to vacate their office forthwith despite such reliefs not having been sought by the 1st respondent. (Grounds 7, 8 and 9).”
   (C) It is very clear that it is only after issue (4) above must have been answered in the negative that the Court of Appeal could proceed to order that these sacked officials be returned to office. However, the Court of Appeal, after considering issues 1 and 2, held at pages 49 and 50 of the lead judgment thus:

“The lower court was clearly wrong in granting leave to amend an incompetent originating summon in such circumstances as the summons sought to be amend (amended) did not disclose any cause of action. The exercise of discretion by the lower court was wrongfully made and it is liable to be set aside. Issues one and by extension, issue two formulated by the appellants succeed and they are resolved in their favour and against the respondents.

Now, since it is the position of this court that there is no valid originating process to confer jurisdiction on the lower court to hear and determine the claim of the 1st respondent, there is no point in considering the remaining issues. A consideration of the two remaining issues has now become an academic exercise which this court is not prepared to venture into.” (Emphasis supplied and word in bracket supplied for clarity)

14. The issues termed “academic exercise” border on the reinstatement of the sacked APC officials. With the above lucid pronouncement, the fundamental question which Mr. Adegoke must answer is this: can a court of Law and Equity and/or any other authority howsoever, enforce a prayer specifically requested for but which the court found the request to be “an academic exercise”; and thus refused to entertain? Our knowledge of the law tells us loud and clear that it is not practicable to enforce or give effect to what has been adjudged a mere academic exercise. If the APC believed that it was wrong for the Court of Appeal to have declared its request as an academic exercise without pronouncing on its request to have its officials reinstated, the proper thing to do was for the APC (probably through Mr. Adegoke who is one of their Counsel in some of these proceedings) to have approached the apex court and not hold the entire Osun State to ransom, as they have been doing. But to argue that the Court of Appeal decided the issue of reinstatement on its merit, is with due respect to my learned Brother Silk, a barefaced and outright falsehood. Why would I be the one to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision that delivered nothing to the APC and Mr. Adegoke?
15. As can be gleaned from the above unambiguous holding of the Court of Appeal, we wonder where Mr. Adegoke got his facts to the effect that the Court of Appeal “addressed the matter on its merit”? Running through the gamut of his said misleading letter, he curiously and deliberately failed to state the specific page, wherein the Court of Appeal, in its entire judgment of 10th February, 2023, allegedly reinstated the sacked Chairmen and Councilors. They therefore remain sacked till date.

THE CORRECT TIMELINE OF EVENTS

16. There were 2 separate suits by 2 different political parties against the Osun local government election purportedly conducted by OSSIEC on 15th October, 2022, before the Federal High Court, Osogbo.
17. The two political parties were:

a. The PDP in FHC/OS/CS/94/2022; and
b. The APP in FHC/OS/CS/103/2022.

18. The APC brought separate joinder applications in the two separate suits. The said applications were granted. So, APC for itself and on behalf of all its candidates at the election in issue were made parties to the two suits by way of joinder.
19. The PDP’s suit was decided on 25th November, 2022. The court nullified the election and consequentially sacked the APC candidates who were the beneficiaries of the said purported election. The APC immediately filed an appeal and an application for stay of execution which application was refused by the court.
20. The APP’s suit was decided on 30th November, 2022, wherein the court equally nullified the election, and sacked the APC officials. As in the PDP case, the APC equally appealed the APP’s judgment.
21. It was therefore not Governor Ademola Adeleke who dissolved the Councils as mischievously claimed by Mr. Adegoke. They were all sacked by orders of the Federal High Court, Osogbo, in two separate judgements as stated above.
22. On 10th February, 2025, the Court of Appeal in the PDP case adopted all the issues formulated by the APC as the Appellants. The first two issues dealt with the jurisdiction of the lower court to grant an amendment when the suit was actually initiated before the notice of the election in issue was published by OSSIEC, as well as the refusal of the court to uphold the preliminary objection filed by the APC before the lower court. The remaining two issues dealt with the validity or otherwise of the election, the legality or otherwise of the officials’ sack from office, and the specific request for reinstatement.
23. The Court of Appeal held the suit filed by the PDP, subject of the appeal, as premature and speculative and consequently struck out the suit. The court specifically held that the substantive issues as regards the validity of the election, legality of their sack and request for reinstatement had become academic. So, Mr. Adegoke got it all wrong when he said the appeal was decided on its merit. The Court of Appeal never made any order upholding the election or reinstating the sacked APC officials in the judgment of 10th February, 2025.
24. It was this deliberate misrepresentation by the Osun State APC to illegally hold on to power in the local government councils that made them import and invent the word “reinstatement” into the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 10th February, 2025. We challenge Mr. Adegoke to point out the portion wherein the Court of Appeal reinstated them.

HOW THE APC SLEPT ON ITS APPEAL IN THE APP MATTER

​

25. Realising that the Court of Appeal did not reinstate them in the other extant judgment in APP’s case, the APC hurriedly filed an appeal against same but did not prosecute the appeal as it went to sleep.
26. On 13th January, 2025, the Court of Appeal, on the application of one of the Respondents dismissed the appeal for lack of diligent prosecution, having failed to compile records or file brief after 2 years since the filing of the Notice of appeal.
27. The APC, on the 23rd of January, 2025, after illegally hijacking the council secretariats despite the judgment sacking them and hanging on their neck, belatedly filed an application to relist their already dismissed appeal.
28. Meanwhile, on 21st February, 2025, the High Court of Osun State in a suit initiated by the PDP delivered judgement in Suit No. HIL/M.19/2025 wherein the court recognized the vacancies of the seats of Local Government Councils in Osun State and ordered the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC) to conduct elections to fill in the said vacant seats.
29. On 13th June, 2025, the Court of Appeal refused the request by the APC to relist the appeal and consequently dismissed their application filed on 23rd January, 2025. The court reiterated that the judgment of the Federal High Court of 30th November, 2022, was not only sacrosanct and subsisting, but defines “the state of affairs as regards the status of the officers of the various Local Government Councils in Osun State”. Furthermore, in view of the fact that parties had joined issues in respect of the election of 22nd February, 2025, the court also made a clear pronouncement in favour of the validity of the said election the court further reiterated that the APC officials having slept on their appeal for over two years could not be aided.
30. Even though the reality of the subsisting APP’s judgment has since dawned on the APC, they are still illegally clinging unto offices using federal might and brute force. And my learned brother Silk, Mr. Adegoke, cannot see the danger in this and help advise his clients to back off? And he is still weaving this kind of narrative to you, the Chief Law Officer of the Federation.
31. Honourable Attorney-General, the APC officials are currently facing contempt proceedings before the Federal High Court on account of their disobedience to the APP’s judgment, and Mr. Adegoke, is one of the counsel representing them in the contempt suit. His political partisanship and lack of objectivity (matters he ironically accused me of) are therefore understandable.
32. The APC and Mr. Adegoke know this truth but they are merely using legal subterfuge and federal might to back their illegality.

EFFECT OF THE CONCURRING JUDGEMENT OF HON. JUSTICE OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, JCA

33. Honourable Attorney-General sir, Mr. Adegoke, missed the point sorely when he said that “it is indisputable, sir, that every serious law student knows that obiter dictum, no matter how eloquently and sentimentally expressed, do not possess the force of law. Only the lead judgement constitutes binding precedent”. He also added that “to base a call for executive action on the obiter of a concurring judge while fully ignoring the binding judgement of February 10, 2025, and lead ruling of the same 13th June, 2025, is a desperate distortion unworthy of serious consideration”.
34. Honourable Attorney-General, it is Adegoke that is actually engaged in a desperate distortion unworthy of serious consideration. He is wrong on the legal principles governing concurrent or concurring judgements. We dare say even a fledging greenhorn in the legal profession knows that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the significant legal status of concurring judgements especially where they articulate points not covered by the lead judgement, yet remain supportive of the ultimate decision.
35. A concurring judgment, though not the lead judgment, forms an integral part of the court’s decision, particularly where it introduces novel reasoning, observations, or clarifications which, though not expressly articulated in the lead judgment, align with the final outcome. Nigerian jurisprudence recognizes that concurring judgments are not mere ornaments to the lead judgment; they are valid expressions of judicial reasoning which express the mind of the court. It may be cited independently. It may expand, emphasize, or introduce additional dimensions to the ratio decidendi, provided they do not deviate from the final conclusion. This was what Hon. Justice Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye, JCA, did after carefully considering the facts of the case.
36. In the very recent case of NIGERIA ARMY COUNCIL & ORS v. ONYEACHU (2025) LPELR-80760(SC), the apex court held:

“”Concurrence/concurring opinion is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 9th edition as follows: “A vote cast by a Judge in favour of the judgment reached, often on grounds differing from those expressed in the opinion or opinions explaining the judgment. A separate written opinion explaining such a vote” In the case of NWANA V. FCDA & ORS (2004) LPELR-2102(SC) (Pp.11-12 paras. F), his lordship, Tobi, J.S.C., while determining the weight to be given to a concurring judgment, held thus: “A concurring judgment complements, edifies and adds to the leading judgment. It could at times be an improvement of the leading judgment when the Justices add to it certain aspects which the writer of the leading judgment did not remember to deal with. In so far as a concurring judgment performs some or all the above functions, it has equal force with or as the leading judgment in so far as the principles of stare decisis are concerned.”

Similarly, in OKONKWO v. STATE (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1677) 292 at 320-321, the Supreme Court held thus:

“A concurring judgment is not a mere repetition or echo of the leading judgment; it may expound principles, supply further reasoning, or address issues untouched by the lead judgment. Where it does so, it forms part of the judgment of the court, and may itself contain ratio decidendi capable of binding effect.”

See also OYAKHIRE v. STATE (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 157 at 179SC; BUHARI v. OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 at 269 SC; and ORHUE v. NEPA (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 557) 187 at 207 SC

It is therefore clear that the holding by Hon. Justice Oyebisi Folayemi Omoleye, JCA, recognising that the LGCs had been filled at the February 22, 2025, election was not an obiter. It was the judgement of the court.

THE SUPPRESSED APP CASE THAT MR. ADEGOKE WOULD NOT TOUCH

37. In all of Mr. Adegoke’s outings, he carefully avoided discussing Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/103/22, with a separate extant judgement which the APC had appealed in Appeal No. CA/AK/15/2025. It was dismissed for want of diligent prosecution. The spirited attempt by the APC to relist the appeal was roundly and unanimously dismissed on 13th June, 2025. Mr. Adegoke hung on to the weak tendril of Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/94/2022 and the emanating Appeal No. CA/AK/270/2022. But, sir, bear in mind that he has thus merely shown you one side of the coin whereas a one-sided coin is a bad tender. The reverse side is Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/103/22 and Appeal No. CA/AK/270/2022 which he avoids discussing because it equally sacked the APC and remains extant and unturned.
38. Shorn of all pretentions and legal gymnastics, the pertinent question to ask at this point is this: is there any decision of the appellate court setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/OS/CS/103/22 (Action Peoples Party (APP) vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 6 Ors.) delivered on 30th November, 2022, which nullified the Local Government Election held on October 15, 2022 from which the APC Chairmen and Councilors had emerged and which equally sacked the said Chairmen and Councilors? There is none. If there was, why the unsuccessful desperation by the APC to relist CA/AK/226M/2024 which arose from the said judgement so as to upturn it?
39. Since there is none, the next question to ask is this: is the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/OS/CS/103/22 (Action Peoples Party (APP) vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 6 Ors.) delivered on 30th November 2022, not valid and binding, deserving to be obeyed by the APC, PDP and all authorities throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria in accordance with section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended?

Sir, we believe that the obvious answers to the above questions would guide you in making the appropriate decision as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation to bail Osun State out of its simulated crisis.

40. The next question is: even if you were persuaded that the Court of Appeal judgement of 10th February, 2025, reinstated the APC Chairmen/Councilors (which is not true and therefore denied), what happens to the second separate extant judgement delivered by the Federal High Court, Osogbo, on 30th November, 2022, over which the APC frantically but unsuccessfully attempted to relist its dismissed appeal on 13th June, 2025? The answer is that being a separate judgement on its own, it remains extant, subsisting and must be obeyed. APC’s appeal in Appeal No. CA/AK/270/2022. from Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/94/2022, is quite different from Appeal No. CA/AK/226M/2024 (from Suit FHC/OS/CS/103/22). None of them binds each other having arisen from different causes, facts, subject matters, dates, etc.
41. We must emphasize that an appeal is a complaint against the decision of the lower court and therefore a continuation of the original cause and not a new action. See OKONKWO v. UBA PLC (2017) LPELR-42781(CA). The binding effect of a Court of Appeal judgment is limited to:
    ​•​The specific parties before the court;
    ​•​The facts and issues canvassed;
    ​•​The specific decision arising from the appeal.
    ​•​A Court of Appeal judgment cannot directly bind or nullify a judgment in another distinct case (with different parties, facts, or Suit No.) unless:
    ​•​The Court of Appeal judgment lays down a general principle of law, in which case, other courts are bound to follow that principle as a precedent; but the actual judgment applies only to the particular case appealed against. See DALHATU v. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310 (SC), where the apex court held:

“A judgment binds only the parties and privies to the extent of the issues decided. However, the legal principles enunciated may serve as binding precedents on courts of coordinate or lower jurisdiction”.

42. In BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246 (SC), it was held that:

“The pronouncement of a court in one case cannot bind parties in another case not before the court unless it lays down a general principle of law applicable across board.”

The above reasoning is because as was held in GLOBAL TRANSPORT OCEANICO S.A. v. FREE ENTERPRISES (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 411 (SC),

“Judgments operate inter partes. However, the legal reasoning or ratio decidendi binds lower courts as precedent, but it does not override the judgment in a different case unless appealed and set aside.”

43. Honourable Attorney-General, the situation at hand here is that CA/AK/270/2022 which arose from Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/94/2022 cannot bind Appeal No. CA/AK/226M/2024 which arose from Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/103/2022. The latter sacked the APC Chairmen/Councillors and it remains extant.

DID APC AND PDP NOT CONTEST ISSUES BORDERING ON THE FEBRUARY 2025 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION?

44. Mr. Adegoke had stated in his letter that none of the parties made reference to the election of 22nd February, 2025, and that all the processes in the said motion were filed before the said election was conducted; and that the Court of Appeal referenced the election suo motu. We are alarmed by this statement. We say this because it is on record that Mr. Adegoke personally appeared for the hearing of this very Motion on Notice at the Court of Appeal, specifically on the 25th of March, 2025. On that day, the appearance for the 3rd Appellant/Applicant (i.e. the APC) reads:

“Kunle Adegoke, SAN appeared with A.W. Salmon, Esq.”

45. Our understanding of his appearance in the matter is that, as a Senior Advocate, he must have read and digested the case file. However, surprisingly, he misrepresented facts when he stated forcefully that parties across the divide did not canvass the said election of 22nd February, 2025; and that the pronouncement of Omoleye, JCA was made suo motu. However, to prevent an ugly situation where a person can call a cow an elder brother in order to eat meat, we state hereunder that issues were fully joined on this election matter in the motion to relist APC’s dismissed appeal as follows:
46. In the Counter Affidavit of the 3rd Respondent (i.e. OSSIEC) deposed to before the Court of Appeal on 21st March, 2025 and duly served on the APC (Appellant/Applicant), one Sikiru Ayanfe Amoo, who at that particular point in time described himself as the “Director of Administration and Supply in the Osun State Electoral Commission” deposed at paragraph 7(i) and (ii) thus:

“(i) ​That not too long after the dismissal of the instant Appeal by this honourable court (which effectually affirmed the Judgment of the Federal High Court of 30th November, 2022, appealed against), the 3rd Respondent on record, who is the electoral umpire in Osun State, had conducted fresh Local Government Council Elections in Osun State on the 22nd day of February, 2025.

(ii)​New Local Government Chairmen and Councilors have been elected in Osun State in the fresh election conducted by the 3rd Respondent. In fact, the new Chairmen and Councilors have been sworn into office.”

47. Reacting to the above deposition, the APC through one Tajudeen Aremu, who described himself as a “politician” and “one of the Clerks to the Director of Administration in the Office of the 3rd Appellant/Applicant”, on 24th March, 2025, at paragraph 8 of their Further Affidavit in support of the Motion to relist, deposed thus:

“8.​I state as a matter of fact that granting this application, contrary to paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, will not prejudice any party including the 3rd Respondent but will only ensure the determination of the real issues in the appeal between the parties in the interest of justice. I also know as a matter of fact that conduct of the purported elections claimed by the 3rd Respondent to have been done on 22nd February, 2025 was never premised on the Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 13th January, 2025 as the 3rd Respondent had been preparing to conduct the said election since July, 2024 long before the ruling of his honourable Court of 13th January, 2025. Thus, the conduct of the said election is not relevant to the determination of this application or the appeal being sought to be restored.”

48. Honourable Attorney General, from the depositions of parties across the divide (including the APC) reproduced above, could it be legally and fairly contended that Honourable Justice Omoleye, JCA did not make the said pronouncement from facts put before her as supplied by parties? One would have thought that after the strong condemnation of the attitude of Muhydeen Adeoye, Esq. (who is equally a Counsel on record to these sacked APC Chairmen and Councilors) by the Court of Appeal in its ruling of 13th June, 2025, Counsel representing them would be circumspect in honour of the Rules of Professional Conduct and ethics of our profession. The attitude of Mr. Adegoke, my learned brother Silk, with respect, is to the contrary; and it demonstrates unnecessary desperation on behalf of his clients. To defend his clients, he created the wrong impression that Honourable Justice Omoleye, JCA, simply went on a voyage of her own to make the said pronouncement when, indeed, parties actually joined issues that led to same. He even refused to acknowledge that Hon. Justice Omoleye, JCA, is a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Honourable Attorney General, as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, you owe a duty to our profession to kindly direct him (Kunle Adegoke) to apologize to the Court of Appeal and in particular to Honourable Justice Omoleye, JCA. We say no more on this.
49. Please, find attached herewith, the said Counter Affidavit and the said Further Affidavit as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively (this is without the exhibits referred to in the two affidavits). The said attachments equally prove beyond any iota of doubt that parties including Mr. Adegoke’s sacked clients filed processes long after the conduct of the said election of 22nd of February, 2025.

RE: ALLEGED LAWYER’S CONTRADICTIONS AND LEGAL WHIPLASH

50. Honourable Attorney General, contrary to Mr. Adegoke’s postulations and allegations against me, there was no contradiction howsoever in my statement issued on 20th February, 2025, to the effect that since there existed endless tussle between the winners (PDP) and the losers (APC) as regards the LGC elections, both parties should resolve it by going to court to test their strength. I said so and we stand by that piece of advice. In a piece titled, “Is the Judiciary complicit in the Osun State Local Government Debacle” (https://share.google/7ecQCaBXeEWxUlT1t Mike Ozekhome’sChambers.com), we answered the above poser a follows:

“To save themselves from needless orchestrated violence, all the political parties in Osun State should go for fresh polls and test their popularity in a free, fair and credible election. Politicians should leave the Judiciary alone by playing clean politics. As to the title of this piece, my humble submission is that the Judiciary was not in any way complicit in the Osun State LG imbroglio. Rather, it acted in good faith, striving fiercely to defend the rule of law and uphold electoral integrity”.

HOW THE OSUN STATE HIGH COURT, ILESA, RESOLVED THE KNOTTY ISSUE

51. In view of the weight the Honourable Attorney-General’s advice against the conduct of the Local government elections scheduled for the 22nd of February,2025, the PDP went to Court and got an Order of the Osun State High Court, Ilesa, in a judgement in Suit No. HIL/M.19/2025 that ordered the election to proceed as planned, after examining the judgement of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC /OS/CS/103/2022 and the Court of Appeal judgement thereon in Appeal No. CA/AK/226M/2024. There was therefore no impediment to the conduct of the planned 22nd February, 2025, election, as the Local Government officers elected on the basis of the election conducted on the 15th of October, 2022, had been duly sacked by the Federal High Court and same sustained by the Court of Appeal.
52. I had made the above published analysis unaware that the PDP had already actually gone to court from which it got judgement from the Osun State High Court, Ilesha (coram Hon. Justice Dr. A.A. Aderibigbe). The court in the said judgement gave the go-ahead and judicial imprimatur for a new election as follows:
    “1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT is granted, recognizing the existing vacancies across all the 30 Local Government Areas of Osun State, the election conducted by the 1st defendant on 15th October, 2022, having been invalidated, nullified and voided, and the purported elected officials produced by the purported election having been sacked by the Federal High Court in FHC/CS/OS/103/2022; ACTION PEOPLE PARTY (APP) vs. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ors. delivered on the 30th November, 2022, and as confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeal, in Appeal No. CA/AK/226M/2024, ALLIED PEOPLE MOVEMENT (APM) & ORS vs. ACTION PEOLES PARTY (APP) & ORS delivered on 13th January, 2025.
53. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT is granted, directing, mandating and compelling the defendants to fill the vacancies across the 30 Local Government Areas of Osun State through a democratic process by proceeding to conduct the Local Government ELECTIONS already scheduled by the defendants for 22nd of February, 2025.
54. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT is granted, directing, mandating and compelling all the Security agents comprising of the Nigeria Police, the Nigerian Army, the Department of State Security Services (DSS), the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), the National Drugs and Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), the Amotekun Corps, the Vigilante Groups etc. to provide adequate security and maintain peace and order before, during and after the local government election scheduled by the Defendants for 22nd February, 2025 in Osun State.”
55. The judgement of the Osun State High Court that Ordered and legitimized the conduct of the Local government elections of 22nd of February, 2025, was thus given effect to and the elected officials were sworn in. There has been no contrary order or stay of that election or the inauguration of the Local government officials elected therefrom till date. There is even no appeal against it by the APC.
56. Predicated on the above judgement, the OSSIEC held the elections on 22nd February, 2025, and the PDP Chairmen/Councilors triumphed. They were subsequently sworn in on 23rd February, 2025.

HOW THE COURT OF APPEAL VALIDATED THE JUGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, ILESA AND CONFIRMED THE SACK OF THE APC CHAIRMEN/COUNCILORS

55. The APC had returned to the Court of Appeal for the relisting of their dismissed Appeal, Suit No. CA/AK/226M/2024, against the Federal High Court judgement Suit No. FHC /OS/CS/103/2022, which sacked its members that were elected in the nullified election of October 15th, 2022, in Appeal No. CA/AK/15/2025 which the Court of Appeal dismissed again in its ruling of 13th of June, 2025, giving the following Ratio, among others, as per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA in his lordship’s Lead judgement, in dismissing the appeal:

a. “The parties locked horns before the Federal High Court, Osogbo in Suit No.: FHC/OS/CS/103/2022 which was an action in respect of election into Local Government Councils in Osun State. The lower court delivered its judgment on 30th November, 2022 effectively nullifying the election into the Local Government Councils across Osun State and sacked all individuals occupying offices in the Local Government Councils by virtue of the said election.” (as per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA, in his lordship’s lead ruling at para. 2, page 32 of the ruling).

b. “the dismissal of the appeal means that there being no existing appeal against the judgement of the lower court, the said judgement stands as the authority defining the state of affairs as regards the status of the officers of the various Local Government Councils in Osun State” ( as per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA, in his lordship’s lead ruling at para. 2, page 16 of the ruling).

c. “Whatever that made the 3rd Appellant/Applicant and her sacked members to go to sleep for two years without worry and suddenly wake up after two years cannot be based on motives that are altruistic and in conformity with expeditious determination of the appeal, for even a right to fair hearing is expected to be exercised within a reasonable time as clearly stated in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.” ( as per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA, in his lordship’s lead Ruling at para. 2, page 49 of the ruling).

d. “Everything in this application shows that the 3rd Appellant has not shown good cause why this application should be granted. The fate that has befallen them is self-inflicted. It is therefore my conclusion that the application lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.” ( as per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA, in his lordship’s lead Ruling at para. 2, page 56 of the ruling).

56. Their Lordships, OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, JCA and HADIZA RABIU SHAGARI, JCA also had the following to say in their concurring Ruling respectively:

a. “…the fresh Local Government elections conducted on the 22nd February, 2025 and the swearing-in of new Chairmen and Councilors have overtaken the substratum of this dispute. Relisting the appeal at this stage would serve no practical purpose.” (as per OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, JCA in his lordship’s concurring Ruling at para. 2, page 4 of the Concurring Ruling).

b. “I agree with the reasoning therein and the conclusion arrived at that the 3rd Appellant had shown no good cause why the application should be granted they went to slumber and they should remain therein. The law aids the vigilant and not the indolent.” ( as per HADIZA RABIU SHAGARI, JCA in his lordship’s concurring Ruling at para. 1, page 1 of the Concurring Ruling).

57. Learned AGF, a simple holistic look at the lead and concurring decisions of their Lordships’ ruling herein delivered on the 13th of June, 2025, in Appeal No. CA/AK/15/2025, which is the latest pronouncement of the highest Court in the hierarchy of Courts that has dealt with the subject gives no room for ambiguity or equivocation. As decided therein, “there being no existing appeal against the judgement of the lower Court” in suit number FHC /OS/CS/103/2022, (APM & Ors and APP & Ors.), “the said judgement stands as the authority defining the state of affairs as regards the status of the officers of the various Local Government Councils in Osun State”. That judgement sacked and removed from office, the APC members that contested the October 2022 Local Government elections; hence the legitimate 22nd February, 2025 elections are valid and the officers thereat elected and sworn in were legally and validly elected, sworn in and in office. Respectfully sir, any opinion or interpretations contrary to this regarding this matter, will be contrary to the pronouncement of the court on same and will be perverse, frivolous, misconceived and self-serving. Consequently, the views expressed on this matter in the letter from Mr. Adegoke do not represent the correct position.
58. Honourable Attorney-General, it must be noted that Mr. Adegoke is a versatile senior lawyer and consummate partisan politician of APC extraction. It is on record that he contested for the APC Governorship ticket for Osun State with Mr Gboyega Oyetola, the immediate past governor of the state. It is also in the public domain that Mr. Adegoke has his eyes on the next governorship of Osun State in 2026. We verily believe that his opinion and views expressed in his under referenced letter are more an expression of his political interest than his learned silky erudition. It is politics in its worst and anti-democratic form and not the law in its pursuit of justice, as he claimed.
59. Consequently, the Court of Appeal ruling of 13th June, 2025, which Mr. Adegoke unfortunately attempted to downplay as “a mere ruling of the Court of Appeal” actually vindicates our position. There was therefore no duplicity, “contradictions or legal whiplash” against me as he alleged. We say no more on the language deployed. But sir, call the Osun State APC to order.

OUR PRAYERS
We humbly urge you to use your good offices to:
​
I. Advise relevant agencies of government (the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, the Accountant General of the Federation and the Governor, CBN) to immediately pay the judicially-sanctioned PDP Chairmen/Councilors their allocations with effect from March, 2025.
II. Advise that public allocations from the Federation Account under section 162 of the 1999 Constitution should not be paid to the private accounts of the sacked APC officials.
III. Advise all federal and state security agencies (the Army, Police, DSS, NSCDC, etc) to forthwith withdraw from the LG secretariats which they forcibly occupied and laid siege on since February, 2025, to prevent the lawful PDP Chairmen/Councilors from occupying same.
IV. Advise that full protection of life and property be accorded the lawful PDP Chairmen/Councilors.
CONCLUSION

60. We appeal to you to maintain your high esteem and nobility that placed you in the front of the class of the inner Bar, by redirecting the institutions and offices of the government, especially federal bodies, to give effect to the 13th of June, 2025 ruling of the Court of Appeal by ensuring that the PDP Local Government Chairmen and Councilors that were elected on the 22nd of February, 2025, are allowed and given security coverage to enter their offices and continue their work.
61. May we humbly remind the Hon. Attorney-General that it is not the office you occupy that made you; but you now have the onerous duty to make that office as honourable as it can ever be under your watch. We believe you are more than capable of doing this given your antecedents, especially so as the leader of the Bar in the Country. Your decisions and actions or inactions, in times like this, will not only define the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation; it will also define your person in the future.
62. Hon. Attorney-General sir, a time like this calls for strong defence of the rule of law, the sanctity of court judgments and our fledgling democracy. It challenges you to abide by your oath of office to defend the Constitution. It calls on you to shun partisanship in favour of any political party including the ruling one that accorded you your position as the Hon. Attorney-Genera . As a respected litigation lawyer, the time calls upon you to show your well known deep knowledge of the law, defend democracy and save Osun state from needless tension and financial strangulation.
    Please, accept the highest assurances of our respects.

Thank you, sir.

Yours faithfully,

Prof. Mike A. A. Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, LL.D
CHIEF COUNSEL / HEAD OF CHAMBERS

CC:

1. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
   Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR,
   President and Commander-In-Chief,
   Federal Republic of Nigeria,
   State House, Aso Villa,
   Abuja-FCT.
2. The Hon. Minister of Finance and the
   Co-ordinating Minister of the Economy,
   Federal Ministry of Finance,
   816, Ahmadu Bello Way,
   Central Business District,
   FCT, Abuja.
3. The Hon. Accountant-General of the Federation,
   Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation,
   Plot 1570, Samuel Ladoke Akintola Boulevard,
   Garki 2, Abuja
4. The Governor,
   Central Bank of Nigeria,
   Plot 33, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa Way,
   Central Business District,
   FCT, Abuja.
5. Inspector-General of Police,
   Nigeria Police Force (NPF),
   Louis Edet House, Area 11,
   Garki, Abuja,
   FCT, Nigeria.
6. The Director-General,
   Department of State Services (DSS),
   1 Maitama Avenue,
   P.M.B 253, Abuja.
7. The Chief of Army Staff (COAS),
   Nigerian Army,
   Army Headquarters,
   Plot 1092, Mohammadu Buhari Way,
   Area 7, Garki,
   Abuja, Nigeria.
8. The Commandant-General,
   Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC),
   Umaru Musa Yar’adua Express way,
   Airport Road, Sauka,
   Abuja, FCT Nigeria.
   Page 20 of 23