By Theresa Odachi Ikwue

The widespread distribution of free money in the name of poverty alleviation has done little to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. Instead, it has fueled corruption, deepened inequality, and created a cycle of dependency. Every year, governments allocate huge sums for cash transfers, yet poverty remains widespread, and living conditions continue to deteriorate. The reality is that much of this money ends up in the hands of the politically connected relatives of government officials and those overseeing these programs rather than reaching the truly needy.

A better approach is to use these resources to provide essential public services and infrastructure that benefit all citizens, not just a privileged few. Clean water, electricity, healthcare, quality education, good roads, and reliable public transportation are far more valuable than temporary cash handouts. These investments create lasting change, empowering individuals and communities to lift themselves out of poverty.

The Lasting Impact of Infrastructure Investment…

Redirecting funds from cash transfers to essential infrastructure and services has far-reaching benefits:

1. Improved Healthcare.. Building and equipping hospitals ensures that people receive proper medical care, reducing preventable deaths and improving productivity. A healthy population is essential for economic growth.

2. Quality Education… Investing in schools, training centers, and vocational education empowers people with the skills they need to secure jobs and contribute to the economy. Education is a long-term solution to poverty, unlike cash handouts that provide only short-lived relief.

3. Employment Generation…. Infrastructure projects create jobs in construction, maintenance, and related industries. This not only provides immediate employment but also stimulates local economies and encourages entrepreneurship.

4. Economic Growth and Investment Attraction… Businesses thrive in environments with good roads, stable electricity, and efficient water supply. By prioritizing infrastructure, governments can attract investors, leading to more job opportunities and economic expansion.

5. Reducing Corruption and Inefficiency… Cash transfer programs are prone to fraud and favoritism. Investing in public goods ensures that resources benefit the entire population rather than being funneled into the pockets of a select few.

Breaking the Dependency Mindset…

Constant cash handouts do not solve poverty; they prolong it. Over time, they create a culture of dependency where people wait for government assistance instead of seeking opportunities for self-improvement. By contrast, access to education, healthcare, and infrastructure enables people to become self-reliant and contribute to national development.

Conclusion…

The government must move beyond short-term cash handouts and focus on long-term solutions that uplift the entire society. Sustainable development is built on access to quality public services, not temporary financial relief. By investing in infrastructure and essential services, we can create a future where people have the tools to succeed rather than relying on government handouts. It is time to prioritize meaningful development over political gimmicks.

Ikwue Odachi Theresa writes from Ichama District of Okpokwu, Benue State.

By Lemmy Ughegbe

In examining the ongoing trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, I will limit my intervention to a singular but critical issue of law: the principle of judicial impartiality and the implications of alleged bias in adjudication.

It is a fundamental tenet of justice that no judge should preside over a matter in which their impartiality has been reasonably called into question. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua, that no one should judge their own case, is fundamental to fair trials and honest courts. The moment a litigant formally raises concerns about a judge’s neutrality—whether due to perceived bias, vested interest, or a history of contentious rulings against them—the judge is legally and morally bound to step aside to prevent any appearance of partiality. Courts have repeatedly held that even the mere perception of bias is enough to vitiate judicial proceedings because justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently reinforced this principle. In Dime v. Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759, it was held that a judge must recuse themselves from any case where they have a direct or indirect interest. Similarly, in Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v. Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577, Lord Denning held that the test for determining judicial bias is whether a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all relevant facts, would conclude that there is a real likelihood of bias. This principle has been followed in Nigeria in Ameh v. Sosanya (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 144, where the Court of Appeal ruled that judicial officers must disqualify themselves if there is even an appearance of bias, regardless of whether actual bias exists.

Furthermore, in Kenon v. Tekam (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 12, the Supreme Court held that where a judge is accused of bias or partiality, they should, in the interest of justice, disqualify themselves from presiding over the case. The Court emphasised that a judge does not need to have actual bias; the perception of bias alone is enough to warrant recusal.

In the present case, there is no ambiguity regarding the legal status of Justice Binta Nyako’s continued involvement in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial. A valid and binding court order has already recused her from presiding over this matter. This means that any further proceedings conducted under her authority are not merely irregular but illegal. Her insistence on continuing with the trial despite this judicial directive constitutes a grave violation of due process and a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Even more alarming is Justice Nyako’s admission that she is aware of the recusal order, but is proceeding based on a letter from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court instructing her to continue with the trial. This raises serious concerns about her understanding of the law. It is trite that an administrative letter from the Chief Judge does not and cannot amount to a judicial order setting aside a valid and subsisting order of a court of competent jurisdiction. To suggest otherwise is to embrace legal absurdity and crass ignorance. The only lawful means of setting aside the recusal order is through a properly filed motion before a superior court, leading to a formal ruling that overturns the earlier decision. Any attempt to disregard an existing order based on an administrative directive is a direct affront to the independence of the judiciary and the sanctity of judicial pronouncements.

The Nigerian Constitution, particularly Section 36(1), guarantees every individual the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. Furthermore, international human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), reinforce the necessity of judicial independence and the right of an accused person to be tried before an unbiased judge. Justice Nyako’s refusal to step aside, despite a clear order to do so, not only erodes public confidence in the judiciary but also exposes Nigeria to scrutiny under international legal frameworks.

Beyond the legal implications, the continued insistence on Justice Nyako presiding over this trial has wider socio-political ramifications. The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not just any criminal proceeding—it is one that has deep ethnic, political, and national security dimensions. Given the sensitivity surrounding the case, judicial officials must exercise heightened caution to ensure that the process is above board. Anything that suggests political interference or a compromised judiciary can further fuel agitation, resentment, and instability.

Moreover, the question must be asked: why is there resistance to reassigning this case to another judge? The Federal High Court has numerous competent justices capable of adjudicating the matter fairly. If the judicial system is truly impartial, then recusing a judge who has been formally ordered to step aside should not be an issue. Insisting that Justice Nyako must proceed with the trial, despite the binding order against her involvement, raises suspicions that there may be vested interests at play, which could undermine the credibility of the final verdict.

Upholding the rule of law in this case is not just about Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; it is about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial system. If court orders can be disregarded, if accusations of bias are swept under the rug, and if due process is compromised for the sake of expediency, then no citizen is safe from judicial misconduct. Justice should not be subject to political expediency or personal interests. The law must apply equally to all, and its processes must be transparent and beyond reproach.

It is, therefore, imperative that the valid recusal order against Justice Nyako be enforced without delay, and the case reassigned to an impartial judge. Anything less would amount to a miscarriage of justice and further diminish public trust in the judiciary. The credibility of Nigeria’s legal system depends on its ability to uphold fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law—without compromise.

Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D writes from Abuja
Email: [email protected]

By Tonye Clinton Jaja

Yesterday, Mazi Nnamdi Kalu (MNK) had a long tirade inside the courtroom of the Federal High Court, Abuja. He abused the prosecution counsel, Asiwaju Awomolo, SAN (Chairman of the Body of Benchers), he verbally attacked the judge (Hon. Justice Binta Nyako), he verbally attacked the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (“I had previously written to the National Judicial Council and they recused him from handling my matter”) and later his own lawyers (“shut up, when I am talking”).

In all these tirades, the only person or thing that he did not attack, which ought to be subject of his attack is the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 and other Rules of court that relate to “recusals”

Recusal is defined as “the withdrawal of a judge, prosecutor, or juror from a case on the grounds that they are unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
“prosecutors filed a motion for her recusal in one of the cases”.

In the case of MNK, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, had previously recused herself from the said case, and returned the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. However, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court wrote a MEMO re-assigning the same case to Hon. Justice Binta Nyako. It is the contention of MNK that the only way Hon. Justice Binta Nyako can continue with the trial is if the appellate courts delivers a judgment that nullifies the enrolled Order of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako wherein she recused herself from the said case.

MNK’s contention is that an official MEMO from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court is not sufficient and cannot be the legally correct procedure for nullifying a previous recusal.

The Hon. Justice Binta Nyako then adjourned the said case sine die (indefinitely)!!

Having looked through the 58 Orders of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 and the 495 Sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and relevant case line, there is no explicit mention or provisions or judgments on the procedure on recusals with the set of facts as applicable to the MNK case.

Therefore, it is a novel area of law that can be settled either through litigation or through an amendment of the relevant legislation.

Interestingly, in June 2023, the Federal High Court had delivered a judgment in the lawsuit filed by Femi Falana SAN that the National Assembly ought to undertake an amendment of Section 438 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. According to the Federal High Court, the said Section which confers power upon the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to detain certain persons constitutes a violation of Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

The rationale for regular periodic amendment of legislation is found in the words below:

“No draftsman can envisage all the circumstances which may possibly arise in the course of human conduct. From time to time, events occur which are either within the plain words of the statute or yet outside it’s evident purpose or vice versa”-Lord Millet, Construing Statutes (1999) 20 Statue Law Review, 107 at 109.

Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja,
Executive Director,
Nigerian Law Society (NLS).

By Kazeem A. Oyinwola

The recent opposition to the establishment of Independent Sharia Arbitration Panels in some parts of Southwest Nigeria has reignited debates about religious tolerance, legal pluralism, and the role of arbitration in dispute resolution. The opposition ostensibly began in Oyo State then spread to Ekiti State and now in Ogun State. Unfortunately, much of the opposition appears to be driven by ignorance of what arbitration is and intolerance toward Islamic legal principles rather than any legitimate legal or constitutional concerns.

Arbitration is one of the legally recognized alternative dispute resolution mechanisms globally. It is a method that allows parties to voluntarily submit their disputes to an agreed-upon arbitrator(s) for settlement instead of going through the rigour of litigation in conventional courts. It is not peculiar to Nigeria, and it is also not strange or unusual in Nigeria. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 is the primary legislation providing clear legal basis for arbitration and mediation in Nigeria. It provides a unified legal framework for fair and efficient settlement of dispute including the practice and procedure of arbitration in Nigeria. Thus, parties are at liberty to decide the means by which their dispute is to be resolved as long as it is within the confines of the law.

Like every other arbitration body, Sharia Arbitration panels are not courts. They function like any other arbitration mechanism. They are set up to resolve civil disputes between consenting parties based on Islamic principles. Therefore, as long as the arbitration process adheres to Nigerian law, there is obviously no legal basis for its opposition or rejection. Numerous independent arbitration mechanisms exist in Nigeria. These include customary arbitration among ethnic communities, faith-based arbitration and industry-specific arbitration mechanisms, such as the Lagos Court of Arbitration and the Institute of Construction Industry Arbitrators. These arbitration bodies operate independently without government interference. Why then is the establishment of a Sharia-based arbitration system facing backlash? Could the backlash stem from the mere inclusion of the word “Sharia,” which mostly triggers unfounded fears rather than rational debate?

Section 277 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 allows for the establishment of Sharia Courts of Appeal in any state that desires it. The Sharia Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to administer and determine any question of Islamic personal law relating to marriage, guardianship of infant, waqf, gift, succession etc. This provision of the constitution provides a legal and constitutional foundation for the administration of Islamic personal in the country. Therefore, it is legally false and constitutionally unfounded to insinuate or opine that Islamic personal law which is part of Sharia is strange or alien to any part of Nigeria.

Furthermore, section 65 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act, (AMA) 2023 provides that the:

“Act does not affect any other law by virtue of which certain disputes may (a) not be submitted to arbitration; or (b) be submitted to arbitration only in accordance with the provisions of that or another law.”

The phrase ‘the provisions of that or another law’ in section 65 of the AMA, 2023 includes customary law and customary arbitration, as well as Islamic (or Sharia) arbitration. In the case of Agu v. Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Part 180) 385, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of customary arbitration. Yes, customary arbitration! It may be argued that Islamic law or Sharia is not the same as customary law. However, by virtue of the combined provisions of sections 277, 38 and 315(3) of the 1999 Constitution read together with section 65 of AMA 2023, it can safely be submitted that Islamic or Sharia arbitration is a legally recognized dispute resolution mechanism in Nigeria. Section 65 of AMA 2023, which states that ‘this Act does not affect any other law by virtue of which certain disputes may…be submitted to arbitration only in accordance with the provisions of that or another law,’ provides a legal foundation for the establishment and recognition of other arbitration methods, including Christian, customary or Islamic arbitration.

One of the key features of arbitration is party autonomy. Sharia Arbitration also provides for party autonomy. The principle of tahkim underscores this in Islamic (Sharia) arbitration. Sharia arbitration is a voluntary dispute resolution arrangement that relies on parties’ autonomy and consent. It does not compel or force anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, to submit dispute to it and so, it should not hurt or upset anyone. Its establishment and recognition do not in any way require the legal approval of any traditional ruler or constitutional fiat of any state governor. Moreover, there is no legal impediment in Nigeria today either under the 1999 Constitution or the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 proscribing the establishment or recognition of Islamic or Sharia Arbitration. As long as awards from such arbitration meet legal requirements, they are enforceable, just like those from customary arbitration.

I wish to emphasis that arbitration does not replace the judiciary; it does not eliminate the court; rather it complements it. Other religious and cultural alternative dispute resolution mechanisms exist even in Nigeria without controversy. For instance, the Olowu Mediation Centre located at the Itapa Olowu area of Oke Ago-Owu in Abeokuta was inaugurated in January 2024 for settlement of civil disputes among Owu communities and their neighbours through Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme; the Conflict Resolution Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Enugu arbitrate disputes in any part of the diocese and submit recommendations to the bishop; the Justice, Development and Peace Movement (JDPM) of the Catholic Diocese of Oyo State also offers Alternative Dispute Resolution as part of its focus etc. Why then the hullabaloo and avoidable cacophony about the establishment of an Independent Sharia Arbitration panel?

Religious arbitration is not unique to Islam. It is not even peculiar to Nigeria or Southwest. In the United States, the country whose democracy we claim to copy, there are many Christian and even Jewish ADR establishments such as Crossroads Resolution Group LLC, the Christian Conciliation Service and A Beth Din (or Beit Din), an official Rabbinical Court (forum) of Jews. Beth Dins serves the Jewish community in the United States as a forum for obtaining Jewish divorces, confirming personal status, and adjudicating even commercial disputes stemming from business and community issues. In United Kingdom there are Diocesan Marriage Tribunal of the East Anglia, Marriage Tribunal (National Tribunal for Wales) of the Archdiocese of Cardiff etc. In fact, in the case of Javrai v. Hashwani [2011 UK SC. 40], in Riv. Arb., 2012, 621, the UK Supreme Court on 27 July 2011 held that the requirement for arbitrators to belong to a certain religion was not unlawful, as the arbitration in question was based on Ismaili Muslim principles, making religion relevant to the arbitration process.

Every well-informed Nigerian knows that the needless opposition to the establishment of Sharia Arbitration Panels in Southwest Nigeria is largely a product of misinformation, intolerance or stark ignorance. These panels are legally permissible, voluntary, and not different from other arbitration mechanisms that operate in the country. Rather than resisting or opposing their establishment on emotional or prejudicial grounds, the focus should be on ensuring they operate transparently and within the legal framework. Faith-based arbitration is not strange or alien to Nigeria’s legal landscape and Islamic or Sharia Arbitration is not a taboo. What happens to the principle of choice? Shouldn’t individuals be free to select the dispute resolution mechanism they trust? Why are we suffocating the Muslims in the Southwest for desiring to establish an arbitration panel to resolve their civil disputes? Shouldn’t they be allowed to breath too?

Both the state and the non-state actors championing the hostility toward the establishment of Sharia Arbitration panel need to be objective; they need to remove the lens of ignorance and the spectacle of intolerance with which they are viewing the initiative. We have a duty to educate ourselves. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant or intolerant. Legal pluralism is a hallmark of a diverse society and the earlier we embrace this reality the better for our society. Just as customary arbitration, Christian mediation, and professional arbitration bodies are accepted, so too should Sharia Arbitration Panels be allowed to function without undue interference or discrimination. I hope people will see through the dust of hostility currently clouding the atmosphere and recognize that Sharia Arbitration is not uniquely contentious but part of a broader framework of faith-based dispute resolution.

Kazeem A. Oyinwola (LL.M, ABR, MCIArb) is a legal practitioner, a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), and a member of the Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria. He can be reached at [email protected].

By Suyi Ayodele

Muhammadu Buhari contested the 2015 election as Mai Gaskiya (the truthful one). He promised to publish his asset declaration form. He never did for eight years. For eight years, he lived big and clean, wearing designer shoes and wristwatches. He held multi-million-naira wedding ceremonies for his children. He ate and picked his teeth and posted his posh photos for beautiful ladies to drool over. Now he says he is poor. What is the definition of poverty? Or, rather, what are Mai Gaskiya’s definitions for truth and lie?

Mrs. Mary Todd Lincoln, wife of President Abraham Lincoln, was said to have approached her husband and asked: “Does this dress make my backside look big?” Lincoln initially squirmed, shifted on his seat and hesitated before holding his thumb and forefinger slightly apart. Then he answered: “Perhaps a bit.” Mrs. Lincoln’s response was spontaneous. She “spins on her heels and exits in a huff”, the account stated.

What happened between husband and wife in that encounter? Michael Shermer, American science writer and historian, answered this question in an April 2014 paper titled, “What Science Tells us about Why We Lie”. The article was published by the Scientific American. In answering the question, Shermer quoted a fellow American neurologist, Sam Harris, who in his 2013 booky, “Lying”, said that “By lying, we deny our friends access to reality- and their resulting ignorance often harms them in ways we did not anticipate. Our friends may act on our falsehoods or fail to solve problems that could have been solved only on the basis of good information.”

Shermer projected that Mrs. Lincoln’s question might probably be to elicit compliment from her husband or to test their love and loyalty to each other. But President Lincoln ‘failed’ the test, as Harris stated by telling “little white lies’, which “often lead to big black lies”, warning those involved that: “Very soon, you may find yourself behaving as most people do quite effortlessly: shading the truth, or even lying outright, without thinking about it. The price is too high.”

Lincoln’s ‘little white lie’ to his wife is nothing compared to what a fugitive, Alexi Santana (another false identity) did to the Princeton University, New Jersey, USA, in the fall of 1989. The account, as published by the National Geographic Magazine in its June 2017 edition, as written by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, using the title: “Why We Lie: The Science Behind Our Deceptive Ways”, says it took 18 months for the university to detect the lies.

Santana applied for admission as a self-schooled candidate from Utah, where he claimed to have been a herder. He was admitted to study Philosophy in the prestigious university. The ‘poor’ herder – again a false impression – became the darling of the university community as he scored As in virtually all his courses.

He, however, almost betrayed his true identity when a fellow roommate noticed that Santana’s bed was always neatly made. When confronted, given the poor countryside background profile he supplied to the university, Santana explained that he usually slept on the floor – a very plausible explanation that matched his poor background.

But 18 months later, a woman, who knew Santana years back identified him as Jay Huntsman of Palo Alto High School, California. The university authority got interested and began to investigate Santana. It was found out that at different times in the past, the ‘brilliant’ student, whose real name is James Hogue, had served a prison term in Utah for stealing and had been arrested several times for similar felonies in Aspen, Colorado, where he successfully passed himself off as someone else!

The university had no option but to hand over James Hogue alias Santana to the police. Thus, the end of his ‘academic’ pursuits, and possibly an end to further lies (white or black). The story of Santana is a confirmation that shame is always the lot of a liar. No matter how fast lies travel, the elders say the truth catches up in seconds! Shermer says: “Most of us are not Hitlerian in our lies, but nearly all of us shade the truth just enough to make ourselves or others feel better.” When an elder has penchant for the tall tales, what does he gain? We will answer that presently. But first, we have an appeal to make.

This is a genuine appeal from me to all good-spirited Nigerians. I mean Nigerians of immense goodwill and charity. Someone very dear to us needs help. I am tempted to open a Go-Fund-Me-Account on his behalf. But he is too shy and too ‘honest’ to accept that route. Hence, this Save-Our-Soul (SOS) appeal.

General Muhammadu Buhari is broke. You can read that again. The retired General from Daura, Katsina State, struggles, nowadays, to live comfortably. That shouldn’t be! Here is a man who served this nation meritoriously, rising to the enviable rank of a Major General in the Nigerian Army. He is not a man that should be allowed to live like a common pauper, the very stage he took the citizenry to in his eight years of rudderless leadership!

Besides retiring as a Major General in the Nigerian Army, Buhari was at a time in his career, a Military Head of State. That was between December 31, 1983, and August 27, 1985. For 20 solid months, Buhari had unfettered access to our national treasury. Yet, he did not help himself.

Fortune smiled on him again. During the reign of the expired Head of State, General Sani Abacha, a period when there was no clear-cut difference between the personal purses of our leaders and the treasury, Buhari was appointed to head the ‘richest’ agency of government, the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF). He stole no dime! Great man indeed!

Lest I forget. General Buhari was also once a Minister of Petroleum under the military government of General Olusegun Obasanjo. He maintained a clean record save for the controversial missing $2 billion oil money then. ‘Fortunately’, nobody has been able to trace the money, how it disappeared and who were responsible. The only link between Buhari and the missing money is that the Daura man was the minister of the ministry from which the money developed wings and flew into thin air!

Later in life, and in our recent past, General Buhari again found himself in power. After surmounting the initial hurdles of his inability to raise the N27 million nomination fees imposed by his All Progressives Congress (APC) party for the presidential ticket in 2025, Buhari, through the generosity of his bank in Kaduna, bought the form, contested and won the APC presidential primaries. He went ahead to ‘win’ the FeBuhari (February) 2015 general election, where he defeated the then incumbent President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (GEJ) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

For eight years (2015-2023), Buhari was president and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces. As president, our man of high integrity lived within the emoluments of the office he occupied. He supported that with a modest farm in his Daura village where his cows refused to multiply from the initial 150 herds he declared in 2003!

Now Buhari is out of office, power and influence. He has retired to his native land, Daura to tend his cows. Life has taken a new turn for the man who once saw money and had access to money but kept faith with his avowed integrity as a man who covets nothing, steals nothing but lives a simple pastoral lifestyle. Ayi Kwei Armah, the Ghanaian novelist, probably did not project the character of Buhari when he penned his The Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born in 1968. The Saints live right here with us in Nigeria! Phew!

It is therefore very saddening that after all his services to the Nigerian nation, General Buhari, former Head of State, former Minister of Petroleum, former Chairman PTF and former two-term civilian president now lives from hand to mouth as he depends on the rent from one of his two houses in Kaduna to sustain himself!

This is pitiable. This is unacceptable. Nigerians cannot afford to see a man of integrity, the very definition of honesty, like Buhari live in penury when common supervisory councillors live in opulence as a result of their ‘good works’ in office. We must rescue Buhari from the jaws of poverty. Poverty here are in twofold, poverty of liquidity and poverty of truth. This is our Macedonian call for our Mai Gaskiya. Buhari must not be allowed to live in poverty.

I didn’t make up the ‘parlous state of Buhari’s fortune. He said so himself. While addressing senior members of his APC in Katsina penultimate week. Buhari told them and the entire nation that all he lives on is the rent from one of the houses he built in Kaduna. Here is how he stated it: “After my eight years as a civil president, I have only three houses; one in Daura and two in Kaduna. I have given one out for renting where I get money for feeding.”

It is very strange in our clime that a man of Buhari’s standing would own just three houses. How come Nigerians had lived all this while with an Angel without knowing? One of the modest houses he claimed is in Daura. The remaining two are in Kaduna. Going by the vicissitudes of life, Buhari said that he had to give up one of the houses in Kaduna to tenants and use the proceeds of the rent to sustain himself.

Where is the house in Kaduna located? He did not disclose. What is its size? We would have to find out by ourselves. How much is the rent? That must be a personal information that is not for public consumption. Again, what is the expenditure of Buhari like after office? We can guess from his ‘modest’ lifestyle! If he lives permanently in Daura, how much does he need to feed, take care of his health and other dependents? These are the issues charitable Nigerians should consider and come to the rescue of Buhari. A man who was once used to the luxury of Aso Rock Villa and other high offices he had occupied in the past should not be allowed to suffer the fate of a landlord who lives on the irregular rents paid by his tenants!

Buhari probably thinks that Nigerians have a short memory. He never reckons with the fact that we know that as a retired Major General in the Nigerian Army, his pension is almost the equivalent of his salary while he was in service with the deduction of some negligible allowances.

The retired General failed to admit, while telling his transition from presidential opulence to rent-to-feed tale, that the Military Pension Board only stopped his pension when he was elected president in 2015 because the law does not allow him to earn salary and pension at the same time. Or is he saying that the Military Pension Board deleted his name from the pension roll? What about the N6.345 billion paid as severance allowance to all political office holders whose tenure ended on May 29, 2023? How much was his share of the money? Or he didn’t get a dime?

Can we also remind General Buhari that by the provisions of the Remuneration of Former Presidents and heads of state (And Other Ancillary Matters) Act, 1991 (no 32) sub-section (i), he is “entitled to be paid the sum of N350,000 per month as up-keep allowance; and (ii), entitled to the perquisites of office specified…?” if he has not been receiving that, can we know how long so that we can ‘beg’ the authorities concerned to do the needful?

Four Russians, Evgeny Nesmeyanov, Yulia Petrova, Nazhavat Abueva, Aliya Ismailova, in January 2019, published an article: “The Theory of Lie: From the Sophists to Socrates.” In the abstract of the piece, they submit that the concept of lie in European culture and social life dwells more “on the preservation of the state, the family, and the implementation of the real practice of human communication…”

Oxford Academy, in an earlier publication in 2010, entitled: “Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice”, says: “a lie is a deliberate false statement that the speaker warrants to be true”. The paper goes further to state that: “…in order to tell a lie, one must make a statement that one warrants to be true…. any lie violates an implicit promise or guarantee that what one says is true. The definition makes sense of the common view that lying involves a breach of trust. To lie, on this view, is to invite others to trust and rely on what one says by warranting its truth, and at the same time to betray that trust by making a false statement that one does not believe to be true”.

I don’t know how many of Buhari’s fans still hold the view that the man can be trusted based on what he says and what we all know to be the true picture. On a personal note, I have a difficulty here because of my upbringing. How do you tell an old man that he is not telling the truth without calling him a liar?