By Sonnie Ekwowusi

“I wish to express my deep regret for my role in driving the National Health Act 2014 as a Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Health. At the time, I was unaware of the far-reaching implications of certain clauses, particularly those related to reproductive health. Professor Phillip Njemanze, Head of the Global Pro-life Alliance, brought this to my attention during a courtesy visit to my office, warning about the potential health consequences. Unfortunately, I dismissed his concerns, viewing them as an attempt to undermine our progress in the health sector or as mere politicking.

Now, reflecting on my actions, I realize the gravity of my oversight. If there’s an opportunity for me to share my regrets with the National Assembly and the Nigerian people through a conference or any other platform, I would seize it to clear my conscience. I believe it’s essential to acknowledge the concerns raised by various stakeholders, including Professor Njemanze, and to engage in a constructive dialogue about the Act’s implications”.

The above is a regretful open confession sent by Dr. Linus Akwute to Professor Philip Njemanze today, Sunday, 27th July 2025. As soon as Prof. Njemanze received the message, he wasted no time in forwarding it to me.

Prof. Njemanze, I, and several others vehemently opposed the National Health Bill 2014, which we believed contained vexatious and obnoxious provisions endorsing trafficking in human embryos and organs, as well as organ transplantation. Dr. Akwute, who was then a Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Health, co-chaired Nigeria’s Technical Working Group for implementing the National Health Act 2014, promoting it as a transformational reform for primary health care delivery and intergovernmental coordination. He was a strong proponent of the Act’s full implementation and often spoke publicly in its defence. In fact, Dr. Akwute positioned himself as one of the leading voices advocating for accountability and strict adherence to the policy frameworks of the National Health Act.

However, as I mentioned earlier, Dr. Akwute wrote to us today, Sunday, 27th July 2025, expressing deep regret over his role in driving the National Health Act 2014, which is now having far-reaching negative repercussions on the Nigerian health system—particularly the clauses related to “reproductive health,” a euphemism for abortion.

To refresh your memory, former President Goodluck Jonathan signed the National Health Bill (NHB) 2014 into law on October 31, 2014. It is worthwhile to briefly recall that long before the signing of the NHB 2014 into law, the Bill had been mired in serious controversy. While some stakeholders criticized it for being largely indistinguishable from the National Health Bill 2008 and the National Health Bill 2012—both of which late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and President Jonathan, respectively, refused to sign on grounds that they were perverse, discriminatory, inchoate, and self-serving—others faulted the NHB 2014 for violating certain provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, and other international human rights instruments.

You may recall that on Monday, 11th February 2013, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria organized a Public Hearing on the National Health Bill at Room 231 of the Senate Building. The hearing was well attended by a wide array of stakeholders, including the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives (NANNM), the Association of Radiographers of Nigeria (ARN), the Nigerian Society of Physiotherapy (NSP), the Medical and Health Workers’ Union of Nigeria, the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria (AMLSN), the National Association of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the Health Reform Foundation of Nigeria, the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria, the Institute of Health Administrators of Nigeria, the Nigerian Physiotherapy Association, the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, and some Northern traditional rulers.

The Public Hearing was chaired by Senator Arthur Ifeanyi Okowa, who was then the PDP gubernatorial candidate for the 2015 Delta State election. Senator Ike Ekweremadu served as co-chair of the hearing.

Prof. Njemanze and I both submitted memoranda vehemently opposing the National Health Bill.

Prior to the commencement of the Public Hearing, Senator Okowa reassured all stakeholders that their inputs would be taken into account in the final version of the Bill to be adopted by the Senate. To his credit, Senator Okowa did give all stakeholders the opportunity to make their respective submissions. I made my presentation. Prof. Njemanze made his. I remember clearly that almost all the stakeholders present criticized Sections 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, and related provisions of the Bill, which either directly or indirectly endorsed trafficking in human embryos and organs, as well as the sale or trade in human tissues, blood, or blood products from living persons without their informed consent.

Even representatives of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria held a closed-door meeting with then Health Minister, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, to discuss the vexed provisions. The bishops strongly urged Prof. Chukwu to ensure that those offensive sections were expunged from the Bill.

At the time, Ban Ki-moon, who served as United Nations Secretary-General from 2007 to 2016, was in Abuja lobbying for the passage of the Bill, as Nigeria was reportedly designated as a depot for human parts trafficking globally. Sad

Despite Okowa’s assurances, the final version of the NHB 2014 signed by President Jonathan still contained the aforementioned offensive provisions. Specifically, Section 48(1)(b) of the National Health Act states that a person may remove tissue, blood, or a blood product from another living person without their informed consent for “medical investigation and treatment in emergency cases.” Strangely, the terms “medical investigation” and “treatment in emergency cases” were never clearly defined in the version of the Bill signed into law by ex-President Jonathan.

The implication of this is that anybody, under the pretext of carrying out “medical investigations” or “treatment in emergency cases,” could waylay any non-consenting living person and forcefully remove his or her tissue, blood, or blood product. This could obviously lead to willful bodily injury or even the murder of a human being. Furthermore, it may lead to an increase in human tissue trafficking in Nigeria. Wealthy human-parts merchants in Europe and America, who trade in the tissues of living human beings in Nigeria, will now have a legal justification to perpetuate their illegal activities in Nigeria.

Section 48(2) of the NHB 2014 states that “a person shall not remove ’tissue’ which is not replaceable by natural processes from a person younger than 18 years.” Clearly, this implies that tissue replaceable by natural processes may be removed from individuals aged 18 and above. Section 49 is ambiguously worded and could be grossly abused. It states that a person shall use tissue removed, or blood or blood products withdrawn from a living person, only for such medical or dental purposes as may be prescribed. However, the terms “tissue” and “medical or dental purposes” are not defined in the interpretation section of the Act. This means that anyone could remove any human part under the guise of fulfilling some undefined “medical or dental purpose.”

Section 48(2) permits the removal of tissue from a person over the age of 18, but the section lacks a consent clause. This implies that under the pretense of medical investigation, tissue may be removed from any adult without their informed consent.

Sections 51, 52, and 53 are even more alarming. Section 51 permits the removal of tissue or organs from a living person for transplantation into another living person, without any consent clause. The only requirement is that the removal must occur in a hospital authorized for such purposes or with the written authority of a medical practitioner in charge of clinical services. Section 52 authorizes a registered medical practitioner or dentist to carry out such procedures. Section 53 permits the sale or trade of human tissues such as female egg cells, sperm, and corneas, provided that the payments made are considered “reasonable” and are conducted within an appropriate health establishment.

The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation in Nigeria is that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to that meaning without inferring any other interpretation. This principle was upheld in cases such as IBWA Ltd v. Imano Ltd(1988) 3 NWLR 633 at 660 and Savannah Bank Ltd & Ors v. Ajilo & Ors (1987) 2 NWLR 421. Therefore, the language of Sections 48 and 51 of the National Health Act must be understood as written.

It is my humble view that Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act, which permit the removal of tissue, blood, or blood products from a living person without their informed consent for “medical investigations” or “emergency treatment,” and which authorize the sale and trade of human tissues and blood products, are in violation of Sections 33 (right to life), 34 (right to dignity of the human person), 37 (right to privacy), and 38 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10.

Under these sections of the National Health Act, a Nigerian medical practitioner or dentist could, upon receiving payment from a wealthy foreign merchant, remove tissue, blood, or an organ from a living Nigerian without that person’s informed consent for transplantation into the foreigner. This could lead to rampant cases of the theft of human tissues and organs and the sale of women’s eggs in Nigeria. It would even be legal to remove a kidney from a living Nigerian without consent and transplant it into a paying foreign recipient. Such actions would only serve to expand Nigeria’s already thriving black market in human parts.

Owing to widespread poverty, some relatives of patients, in collusion with unethical medical professionals, may begin to sell off vital body parts of their living patients without obtaining the patients’ informed consent.

Therefore, Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act are in flagrant violation of Sections 33, 34, 37, and 38 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

It is noteworthy that among all the fundamental rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution, only those under Section 34 are granted in absolute terms. Not even a state of emergency or war permits derogation from the prohibition against torture, inhuman treatment, slavery, and servitude. While rights under Sections 37 and 38 may be curtailed under Section 45(1) in the interest of defence, public safety, order, morality, or public health, or to protect the rights of others, the non-consensual removal of tissues or organs for transplantation cannot be considered a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Indeed, the continued retention of Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 in the National Health Act threatens to exacerbate the insecurity crisis in Nigeria.

More importantly, as I earlier noted, Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act are inconsistent with Sections 33, 34, 37, and 38 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10.

Relying on the case of Denloye v. Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, the Nigerian Supreme Court held in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Dr. John Emewulu Nicholas Okonkwo (2002) AHRLR 159 that failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent before administering a blood transfusion constitutes a violation of the patient’s fundamental human rights to privacy (Section 37) and to freedom of religion and conscience (Section 38).

The Supreme Court held that a patient’s constitutional right to object to medical treatment—or, specifically in this case, to the removal of his tissue, blood, blood products, or organs—is rooted in the fundamental rights protected under the 1999 Constitution, namely:

1. The right to privacy – Section 37;
2. The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion – Section 38.

The Court further stated that the right to privacy “implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience, or religious belief and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion; and one’s body from unauthorized invasion.” The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, it continued, includes “a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification, from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to religious belief.” These freedoms are limited only when they infringe on the rights of others or threaten public welfare or health.

In sum, the rights to privacy and to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion guarantee that an individual should be left alone to choose the course of his life—unless a clear and compelling overriding state interest justifies otherwise.

Under English law, the consent of a living person to medical treatment or to the removal of any part of his body is absolutely mandatory. It is a violation of medical ethics to remove a living person’s organ without his or her consent. In fact, such a person may maintain an action in tort for damages for trespass to the person against a medical practitioner or hospital for removing tissue, blood, or any body part without consent.

See Wells v. Surrey AHA(1978). Even where consent has been obtained, it is the duty of the medical practitioner—said Justice Bristow in Chatterton v. Gerson (1980)—to explain in advance what is intended and its medical implications, in a manner consistent with what a careful and responsible doctor in similar circumstances would do. If the doctor claims that the procedure was performed in a medical emergency, the burden of proving that an emergency existed rests with him—and this may be difficult to establish.

The argument advanced by proponents of Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act—that since the sale or trade in human parts is now a thriving business in Nigeria, it is better to regulate it than to ban it outright to ensure only authorized persons engage in it—is fundamentally flawed.

First, a society does not regulate a crime simply because it is widely committed. For instance, a society cannot regulate the heinous crime of armed robbery merely because it has become rampant.

Second, given Nigeria’s ineffective policing, weak judicial oversight, and poor regulatory enforcement, attempts to regulate the sale or trade of human parts are likely to be futile.

Third, Section 21(a) of the 1999 Constitution enjoins the State to protect, preserve, and promote Nigerian culture.

Fourth—and more importantly—under Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly is empowered to make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of Nigeria. That means making laws that reflect the country’s social and religious realities. Trading in or selling human parts is not part of Nigerian culture.

Laws must align with the values of the people. Every country seeks to protect what it holds dear—its cherished values. It is self-destructive to import alien practices and lifestyles into Nigeria and attempt to impose them as law under the guise of fulfilling international obligations.

As Professor John Ademola Yakubu argues in his book Who Gives the Law? Determining the Jurisprudential Question, the only way to avoid chaos in a society is for the legislature to make laws that reflect the values and aspirations of the people.

It is a major scandal that in a country like Nigeria—where countless patients are dying due to lack of access to basic primary healthcare—our National Health Act is creating a leeway for trading in human tissues and organs. I do not understand why we cannot get our priorities right in this country.

Therefore, to the extent that the National Health Act is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, it is null, void, and unenforceable. In Military Governor of Ondo State & Others v. Adewumi (1988) 3 NWLR 280, Justice Nnaemeka-Agu (of blessed memory) held that the Constitution is the grundnorm—the fundamental or organic law of the land. Similarly, in *Nafiu Rabiu v. State, Justice Udo Udoma emphasized that the Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law and must not be treated as if it were an ordinary statute passed by the legislature.

All other laws derive their validity from the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is void to the extent of its inconsistency. Nigerian courts, in the exercise of their judicial powers, are empowered to declare any legislation of the National Assembly that contravenes the 1999 Constitution invalid and unconstitutional—whether the contravention is substantive or procedural, or whether it merely interferes with any constitutional fundamental, including guaranteed rights, federalism, or the constitutionally recognized principle of separation of powers.

(See the pronouncements of Justices Fatayi-Williams, Bello, Idigbe, Obaseki, Eso, Nnamani, and Uwais in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Others). Also, in M.O. Oloyo v. B.A. Alegbe, Speaker, Bendel State House of Assembly (1985) 6 NCLR 61 at 80, Justice Kayode Eso stated:

“The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 is not intended to be a merely academic model Constitution. It is a pragmatic Constitution made for Nigerians, by Nigerians, and by a process of constitution-making which is expected to have benefited from the experience of this country under previous Constitutions and to provide, as much as possible, a panacea for the ills of the past.”

In light of the foregoing, urgent steps must be taken to amend the National Health Act to bring it into conformity with the 1999 Constitution. Until such an amendment is effected, the National Health Act remains unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable. The Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja is in dire need of reform.

In a constitutional democracy, sovereignty resides with the people. That means leaders must govern with the consent of the governed. Once that consent is absent, genuine democracy is lost. The American Founding Fathers aptly stated that:

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Tinubu administration should be reminded that access to affordable healthcare is a constitutional right—not a privilege. By virtue of Section 17 of the 1999 Constitution, the government is duty-bound to improve the welfare of Nigerian citizens by ensuring they have access to adequate medical and health facilities. If this obligation is fulfilled, the billions of Naira wasted annually on medical tourism could be saved.

CONCLUDED

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

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

On Thursday 24th July 2024, it was reported that there was an altercation between the Senate President, AKPABIO and the Majority Leader of the Senate, named Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele (MOB).

Disputes and conflicts are inevitable in the course of interactions between humans, legislators and Legislatures or other government institutions.

However, it is the ability to manage and RESOLVE these disputes in an amicable manner that provides evidence of capable leadership of legislative institutions.

This is what is called PARLIAMENTARY DIPLOMACY.

For example, as evidence of his parliamentary diplomacy skills, the Rt. Hon. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Tajudeen Abbas has successfully managed his relationship and interactions with his Deputy Speaker and Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.

Not many Nigerians are aware of the frictions and stresses arising from seeming acts of insubordination and embezzlement of public funds by his subordinates.

As a true leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has reprimanded these subordinates in private, away from public view.

To the contrary, the President of the Senate, has been embroiled in public spats with Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and now the Senate Majority Leader.

Regarding the altercation of the 24th July 2025, it was reported as follows:

“The senator regretted that the rift between Natasha/Akpabio “has consumed the goodwill of the senate before the public,” adding that Senator Opeyemi has “threatened to quit his position if Akpabio continues to act autocratically.”

The purpose of this write-up is to encourage the Senate President to spend this period of recess to undertake a mandatory REFRESHER Course in Parliamentary Diplomacy.

This is a course that I wrote the curriculum for when I was first appointed as an Adjunct Lecturer at the Institute for Legislative Studies, University of Abuja in the year 2018.

It appears that this Institute for Legislative Studies, University of Abuja is the only Nigerian institution that offers this course.

I offer myself to teach this refresher course at no cost to the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, provided that they provide a venue and my hotel accommodation and airfare costs.

I also had the opportunity to increase my knowledge of this course when later the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) approved my membership of the Inter-Parliamentary Engagement Network (IPEN) which is based at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

I was also privileged to work as a consultant with the Czech Republic-Nigeria Parliamentary Friendship Group.

“Parliamentary diplomacy refers to the activities of parliamentarians in promoting their country’s interests and values through international interactions, often complementing traditional diplomatic efforts by the executive branch. It involves dialogue, cooperation, and advocacy on global issues, fostering mutual understanding and influencing foreign policy.”

It can also refer to the skill set that is necessary for leaders of legislatures to navigate through their tenures.

It is never too late to learn.

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

By Suyi Ayodele

How should a king react to an in-your-face abuse by his son’s schoolmate? An altercation on a football field led to a physical engagement between two schoolboys: one a prince; the other sired by a poor farmer. The one who was farmer-born was dexterous in (eke) wrestling. He had the upper hand in the fight; threw the prince a couple of times and enjoyed himself, beating the hell out of him. Other friends stepped in and separated the combatants.

But it didn’t end there. The prince instantly became the butt of the jokes by the others on their way home. Most boys do that, you know.

The path to the community runs in front of the palace. The prince walked slowly and deliberately. But as soon as the boisterous group entered the palace precinct, the prince regained his mojo, his boldness and confidence. He hurled curses at his opponent, who remained calm, aware that the king was watching from the palace balcony, flanked by a few chiefs.

Sighting his father, the king, the prince did the unthinkable. He walked up to his opponent and uttered the following words in his Ekiti dialect: “Ayé ùba re hí a dáa (may it not be well with your father)!” The son of the farmer stopped in his tracks. The party became silent. Kabiyesi and his chiefs heard the prince clearly. They waited in suspended breath to see what the other boy would do or say. They did not have to wait for a long time.

The boy looked up to Kabiyesi on the balcony, and at the prince. Then he pointed at the king and told the prince: “Sé òrúba re [mentioned the title of the king] kì mì o o, ayé rè hí a dáa (you see this your father I am looking at; it will not be well with him)!” Silence! What did the king do?

On hearing what the boy said, Kabiyesi first restrained his palace guards from acting. He ordered the children to be brought to the palace. He descended the stairs, followed by his chiefs and the palace griot chanting his praises. The king asked the two combatants to relay what happened. He got corroborations from the other students. Then he made his pronouncement.

The Oba asked a palace guard to get a cane. Done. He ordered two more guards to stretch out the prince, the naughty way rascals are stretched out for punishment. Then without counting, the king asked the palace guard holding the cane to do justice to the buttocks of the prince with the cane. He resisted the pleas from his chiefs.

The Olori, mother of the prince, dared not venture into the open space. Satisfied that enough strokes of the cane had been donated to the prince, Kabiyesi stopped the guard. He lectured the children on why they should not fight, and if they must, why they must never extend their vituperations to the parents of their opponents. Did the message sink? The prince in this story is a judge of a High Court of Justice today. The farmer’s son is a successful businessman and a big farmer too! Are they still friends? I will find out!

The children prostrated. The son of the farmer offered apologies for what he said. Kabiyesi responded that he did the right thing by defending himself against the prince. He dismissed the party. The news travelled fast. The farmer gathered relations and the elders of his clan. They went back to the palace to beg the king. They brought gifts, farm produce to appease the Oba.

Kabiyesi would have none of those. The king insisted that the boy did no wrong by cursing back at the prince. He asked the farmer if he would be happy if his child had come back home to say that the prince cursed him (father) but he (child) could not retaliate because his opponent’s father was a king. The farmer answered in the negative. Kabiyesi said he would feel the same way if it had happened to the prince.

Then he dropped the moral of the incident to wit: children must be trained so well so that if the parents looked back in their hereafter, they would be proud of the children’s conducts!

Children upbringing in Yoruba emphasises character (iwà). From the cradle, children are moulded to be of good conduct (behaviour) and the pride of the family. A child is beautiful only if he has good character (iwà lewà). Yoruba also categorise character. There is a type called iwà abínibí (congenital character), which is hereditary or one that easily depicts a family a child comes from. If it is good, the family source can be identified; likewise, if it is otherwise.

There is also iwà atowádá (a character trait a child develops by himself). Modern sociologists trace this type of character to so many things with the influence of peer groups being the most visible culprit. No matter the fine upbringing a child had, if he gets involved in a negative peer group activity, such a child could derail.

Another category is iwà atúnraenibí (reenactment of one’s congenital character). A child with this type of character trait is rated as the best. This is the type of child who is conscious of his enviable background and takes steps to preserve the good name, the family pride and heritage.

He is the type that is always conscious that he cannot behave contrary to his solid upbringing. In this case, the name of the family counts, what others would say about him, and his background comes into play and thus, the child remains within acceptable boundaries. This, to a greater extent, births the saying: resemblance depicts ancestry (àbíjo làá mo iran).

But a caveat here is necessary. That a child behaves badly or turns out to be a miserable, terrible adult does not mean that such a child was not nurtured very well. A parent can be lucky to have a child who combines iwà abínibí and iwà atúnraenibí to produce the Yoruba ethos of Omoluabi. A society or group populated more by Omoluabi thrives. When that Yoruba primordial ethos is in short supply in any society or group, what you have is what the once dominant Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is experiencing at the moment.

Last week, two top leaders of the PDP in the South-West spoke about the present and future of the party. The two top figures share so many things in common. One is a prince. The other is a son of a clergyman. The two are separated in age by 10 years.

The first is Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola, a retired Brigadier-General, former Military Governor of Lagos State and former civilian governor of Osun State. His late father was the Olokuku of Okuku, Oba Moses Oyewole Oyinlola, who reigned between 1934 and 1960.

The second PDP leader is Ayodele Peter Fayose, a son of a preacher of the Gospel and was brought up in ‘the ways of the Lord and in His Vineyard!’ Fayose is phenomenal in politics. At two different times, he defeated two incumbent governors to clinch the governorship of Ekiti State.

In 2003, Fayose was a nobody. But through the instrumentality of ‘street credibility’, he led the PDP to victory in the governorship election, defeating the then Governor Adeniyi Adebayo of the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) in 12 out of the 16 local government areas of the state.

While ‘street credibility’ brought Fayose to power, character could not sustain him. Within a short time in office, he plunged the state into unprecedented crises. He had dispensed with two deputy governors before the system got rid of him six months to the end of his first term. A state of emergency was declared in Ekiti State by General Olusegun Obasanjo, the then president and Fayose was parcelled out of the state like contraband goods.

Like the proverbial once-defeated ram, Fayose turned his misfortune to fortune, re-strategised and challenged his removal in the courts. Luckily, and just as many people believed that Obasanjo overreached himself, the court declared Fayose’s removal as invalid. That paved the way for him and having rebuilt the PDP in Ekiti, he again became the gubernatorial flag bearer of the party for the 2014 governorship election.

More like the 2003 election, Fayose’s opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial race was another soft target, a far more vulnerable target with lacklustre performance in office. Thus, it was a total political tsunami as Fayose routed the then Governor Kayode John Fayemi of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), in all the 18 local government areas of the state.

Again, by the time Fayose signed off in 2018 as Ekiti State governor, he had little, or nothing left of him in terms of politics. He had wasted his goodwill so much that installing a ward councillor became a herculean task for him. His PDP performed so woefully in that election that one began to wonder if the party ever existed in the state. And that was the beginning of Fayose’s descent.

When a man falls, our elders counsel that he should look at all the factors responsible for the fall. That is not for Fayose. By the time another election came calling in 2022, Fayose had become Mr. Giwa, the legendary trader of our primary school New Oxford English Course (NOEC) textbook, openly supported the All Progressives Congress (APC) that defeated his deputy and PDP governorship candidate in the 2018 election, Professor Olusola Eleka.

Ironically, Fayose remains in the PDP. What he did in the 2022 Ekiti State gubernatorial election, he repeated in the 2023 presidential election by throwing his weight behind the candidature of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC against Atiku Abubakar of the PDP. Today, the PDP is on oxygen. Everyone who is a member of the PDP political family, except Fayose, is all over the place, looking for the cure for the party’s seeming terminal ailment.

It is against this background that Oyinlola and Fayose spoke last week, assessing the fate that has befallen the PDP and how the party could get out of coma. This is where the character of the two personalities came to play.

I watched the video clips of the interviews where Oyinlola and Fayose featured. My reactions are predictable. One, there was nothing new that Fayose said. Besides, there is nothing he said in that interview that is not within his character portraiture. He couldn’t have acted otherwise. Who are his friends, by the way?

The only baffling thing is how Fayose, in bringing down the PDP, failed to realise that a knife which destroys its pouch invariably destroys its own home. Ever since Fayose started this journey of let-the-PDP-die-if-it-wants, I have not seen any gain that comes his way, politically. His camp keeps dwindling; his popularity keeps sinking; yet he feels destroying the party that gave him life is the best way to please the powers that be! In the last general election, all his former aides who contested lost woefully.

The gale of failure that hit his camp did not spare his own biological son, who contested the House of Representatives election and lost. Yet, the people in opposition that Fayose is selling the PDP to are not just in power and government, they have their children and running dogs fixed up in government as commissioners, members of the legislative arm and heads of choice statutory Boards!

How do we then describe an elder who eats his yesterday, his today and his tomorrow? My elders posit that the owner of the hut will not allow it to be demolished. Where is that wisdom in Fayose and his attitude of household enemy that he has turned himself to in the PDP?

If I were close to the one once hailed as Oshokomole, ebora to unje jollof rice (the deity that eats jollof rice) in recognition of his fabled ‘street credibility’ and mass mobilisation, I would advise him to walk the streets of Afao Ekiti, his hometown, to see the reaction of the people. Can he still amass the crowd of yesteryears in Ekiti today?

And coming to Oyinlola’s interview on the same misfortune of the PDP, it is not surprising that his message, his tone, his mien and candour while the interview lasted, are in sharp contrast to Fayose’s. A child who witnesses the setting of the yam barn, our elders say, cannot be mistaken while removing a tuber from the stack (omo tí a bí nínú ogbà kò ní si isu ogbà yo). You cannot be a prince, a retired General, an officer and gentleman, former military and civilian governor and lack decency in public engagement!

But my view of Oyinlola’s interview, his use of anecdotes, the folkloristic voyage to the deceitful game-hunting party and the weight of the tail of a crocodile and that of the lizard are more in the message Kabiyesi in the introductory story passed across when he adjudicated over the matter involving his son and the son of the farmer.

Character is the ornament on a man (ìwà ni èsó ènìyàn) is a saying of our elders. They have another one: Character is beauty (ìwà lewà). What informed the wisdom? This is what the prince and the son of a pastor displayed in their attitudes to their party, the PDP!

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