Home Blog Page 316

Explosive device kills suspected suicide bomber, injures one near Mogadishu barracks Abuja

Car bomb.jpeg Credit: The Guardian

A suspected suicide bomber was killed by an explosive device near Mogadishu barracks on Monday, in the nation’s capital, Abuja.

One individual was injured as a result of the blast.

A military source, who pleaded anonymity at the scene of the blast, said the man believed to be a suicide bomber was killed by an explosive contained in a rubber can close to the Mogadishu barracks in Abuja.

At the time of this report, the military personnel, DSS, police and officers of the National Emergency Management Agency were taking inventory of the incident at the location

Issues of suicide bomb blasts are not a recent phenomenon in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

In 2011, at least 18 people lost their lives in an apparent suicide car bombing at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in Abuja.

Filing of Criminal Charges Against Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan: The most dangerous abuse of criminal justice in aid of primordial partisan selfish interests

By J.S. Okutepa, SAN

I do not know what points the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the Federal Government of Nigeria wants to score with the criminal charges it filed against distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan for the alleged criminal defamation of the Senate President and Yahaya Bello.

I can see nothing useful other than a waste of public resources to prosecute the distinguished Senator to cowed her to keep quiet. The charge in my honest and humble view was filed purely for partisan political vengeance not rooted in the overall interests of Nigerians and the public interests.

There is no doubt that daily we read on social and conventional media how monies belonging to the people of Nigeria have been stolen by those who served or who have served in the Nigerian government and some are still serving in the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in various departments.

The pursuits of those who are alleged to have stolen these monies will be more of public interests and the interest of justice than the vengeful pursuit of Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan.

Recently, it was alleged that Alaja Steel company, worth more than 700 million dollars was allegedly sold for partry sum of 30 million dollars. The stealing of these monies, in my view, can not be done without the connivance, acquiescence and or knowledge of the people in the government and to fund the political activities of the politicians.

That is why, in my view, one man can be untouchable in political parties and everyone worships such individuals.

How public funds are stolen by most public officeholders is mind-boggling. Why can’t the Federal government of Nigeria pursue these economic saboteurs instead of wasting taxpayers’ money to prosecute Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan for what appears to be pure private interests and reputation of individuals that have no economic value to the people of Nigeria?

Just recently, we heard of Emefiele houses. Did Emiefiele steal these funds without the knowledge of the security agencies? I do not think so. Are security agencies allowed to go after big thieves? I do not think so.

The government know the thieves of public funds but the government is afraid of these thieves or covers up for these thieves because most of the thieves are either in governments or closely connected with those in government, that they are always untouchable. Until we have a government that is bold and courageous to fight the thieves in government and make examples so with governmental appointments be the greatest stealing platform.

So the real problem of Nigeria is not Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan. So when I read on social media that the Federal government of Nigeria through the office of the Hon Attorney of the Federation filed a criminal charge in FRN vs Senate Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the FCT High Court due to the statement made by Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan on the political programme on channels TV and political rally that the duo of the Senate President and Yahaya Bello had planned to kill her, I doubted the stories that the Federal government can file such changes until I saw the charge on social media.

According to the charge, distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan is accused of making allegations against the duo of the Senate President and Yahaya Bello that have the potential to harm the reputation of the said Senate President and Yahaya Bello. Well, while it may well be true that the Attorney General either of the states or the Federation is a law unto himself and he can file criminal charges against anyone save those who have immunities, the constitution placed on his shoulders grave constitutional responsibilities to the effect that in filing criminal charges the Attorney must have regard to the interest of justice, public interest and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Can it be reasonably said that given the issues raised by distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan, the circumstances leading to the various allegations she made against these persons, and even the circumstances leading to what made her, make the allegations, can it be said that this criminal charge was not filed too hasty and in abuse of power to lead to the reasonable conclusion that the Federal government of Nigeria is engaging in criminal persecution rather than prosecution and to suppress Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan?

I think reasonable members of the society will go with the impression that the Federal government of Nigeria has joined forces oppressing Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan to further oppress her.

Honestly, in my humble but firm view, the filing of this charge is ill-timed and certainly not in the overall interest of public interest. On the 12th of December 2024, I had a cause to write: “If you want the best place to study and learn how to put the law to bad use and for ulterior purposes, it is in Nigeria.

“The Nigerian systems allow the misuse of power using law to attain unlawful ends to satisfy primordial partisan selfish interests. All that the security agencies need to do in the abuse of power and to keep you out of circulation is one bogus allegation or the other and the judex is likely to lock you up. There is nowhere in the world that people abuse judicial processes like in Nigeria. If you ever handle election matters, you will understand the point. The number of motions and processes filed to overwhelm the Judex and the opponents is just unimaginable. Justice is undermined, and confidence in justice is eroded daily. That is why development is eluding Nigeria.

“Those who are supposed to use the law for the good of the people circumvent laws either to enrich themselves or misuse the law as an instrument of oppression. In Nigeria today, despite the avalanche of judicial decisions that security agencies have no jurisdiction to allow themselves to be used as instruments to recover debts in contractual relationships, many Nigerians are in prison based purely on civil contracts. Most security agencies today act as debt recovery agencies on a commission basis.

“The powerful, the affluent, and the touch not people in society in most cases have these security agencies in their pockets. These security agencies obey unlawful orders and directions. The victims of misuse of these powers have no remedies. There are no immediate remedies for victims of misuse of power in Nigeria. The wrongdoers know this. That is why oppressive proceedings last longer in our courts. Abuses of judicial processes are tools of trade of oppression in Nigeria.

“In most cases, you see many victims of lawless adjudications languishing in prison at the instance and instigation of the most powerful individuals using the apparatus of the state. Can we as a people boast of immediate remedies for victims of lawlessness in Nigerian society? I do not think so. In Nigeria and just like any other civilised society, lawyers and judges are not to be sued for the cases they do or file, and judicial officers too are immune from being sued in adjudications in cases before the courts. This immunity is being gradually abused in some glaring cases in the courts. But is it not time we start thinking of reviewing this immunity and allowing those who suffered terrible pains in the hands of some judges and lawyers to have recourse to litigations to get remedies? Where the is a wrong there must be remedies.

“While it may be argued that victims of judicial adjudications rooted in lawlessness can petition the relevant bodies of the judex and the legal practitioners to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers, it is doubtful if such decisions if at all rendered on time can properly compensate victims of judicial lawlessness and professional oppressive proceedings that some lawyers filed.

“I think it is time for us as people to start looking at the misuse of which law is being put against hapless Nigerians to punish them unjustly and unnecessarily. There are many victims of lawless adjudications in Nigeria. We must think of the immediate remedies for lawlessness in legal practice and adjudications in Nigeria. The rate at which people suffer in this area is becoming too alarming. It is assuming the character of electoral robbery in Nigeria.

“I believe that it is a failure of the systems to give immediate remedies to victims of oppressive persecution that has emboldened the powerful in Nigeria to misuse the law to the prejudices of justice. The time has come that we should, as a people, provide immediate remedies for victims of lawlessness. No society can grow and develop when wrongdoers are celebrated while the victims of wrongdoers are left without remedies. This is the sad reality of our systems of governance in Nigeria”

Even though my view above was expressed in 2024 before the filing of this criminal charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan I think this is the meaning of the charge against distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan. We have to just watch to see how the drama will unfold. I am looking forward to this acrobatics, legal gymnastics rooted in what appears to be misuse of prosecutorial power of the Federal government in political disputes between Nigerian citizens who ought to enjoy equal protection of the Federal might. The stand of the Federal government is simply at variance with the equal duties and responsibilities it owe us all as Nigerians. But what do I know. Power corrupt absolutely power corrupt absolutely I can see in this unfortunate charge filed against a victim based as it were on system oppression.

Rejoinder to Prof. R.A.C.E. Achara on budget padding

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

Budget padding, the act of inflating a budget with unnecessary or exaggerated expenses, is not explicitly defined as a distinct crime under a specific Nigerian statute. However, it can be considered illegal under existing laws that address corrupt practices, fraud, and financial misconduct.

The Legal Context of budget padding as a crime

As you are aware, no Specific Law on Budget Padding exists. There is no single Nigerian law that explicitly names “budget padding” as a standalone offense with stipulated penalties. However, actions associated with budget padding—such as inflating project costs or inserting unauthorized projects—can fall under broader legal provisions addressing corruption and financial crimes.

Relevant Laws:
Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act (ICPC Act): Section 19 of the ICPC Act covers corrupt practices by public officers, including diverting or attempting to divert public funds for unauthorized purposes. This could apply to budget padding if funds are misallocated for personal gain or non-existent projects, with penalties including up to five years’ imprisonment.

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act: This Act addresses economic crimes like fraud, embezzlement, and misappropriation, which can encompass budget padding when it involves altering budgets with corrupt intent.

Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007): This law mandates transparency in budgeting and could be violated if budget alterations lack executive consent or betray the budget’s objectives.

Criminal Code Act and Penal Code: These codes address fraud, conspiracy, and misappropriation, which could apply to budget padding if it involves deceit or personal enrichment. For instance, fraudulent insertions in budgets could be prosecuted as conspiracy or theft.

Constitutional Provisions: Section 81 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution assigns the President the responsibility to prepare and present the national budget. The National Assembly’s role is to review and approve, not to rewrite or insert unauthorized projects. Unauthorized budget alterations by legislators could be seen as usurping executive powers, potentially constituting an unconstitutional act or economic crime.

Judicial and Public Perspectives
Judicial Precedent: A 2017 Federal High Court ruling (suit no: FHC/L/CS/1821/2017) by Justice Idris, following a case brought by SERAP, declared budget padding unlawful, suggesting it violates legal and ethical standards.

Public and Expert Views: Prominent figures like Femi Falana have argued that budget padding is an economic crime, prosecutable by agencies like the EFCC, especially when alterations occur outside legitimate legislative processes. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo and others have labeled it a form of corruption, equating it to economic sabotage.

Why Budget Padding Persists
Lack of Prosecution: Despite allegations, such as the 2016 budget scandal involving N100 billion in constituency projects or the 2025 budget’s alleged N6.93 trillion padding, prosecutions are rare due to political protections, legislative immunity claims, or investigations being downplayed as “internal matters.”

Legislative Immunity: Some lawmakers, like former Speaker Yakubu Dogara, have claimed immunity under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, though this is contested when actions involve criminal intent outside legitimate legislative duties.

Practical Implications
Budget padding can be prosecuted under laws addressing corruption, fraud, or abuse of office, but the absence of a specific statute makes enforcement challenging. For example:
Inserting non-existent projects for personal gain could be prosecuted under the ICPC Act or EFCC Act.

Unauthorized budget alterations post-passage may constitute conspiracy or fraud, as argued by legal analysts.

The 2025 budget controversy, where 11,122 projects worth N6.93 trillion were allegedly inserted, highlights ongoing transparency issues, with critics like Peter Obi calling it a “crime scene” of corruption.

Conclusion
While budget padding is not explicitly named as a crime in Nigerian law, it can be prosecuted under existing anti-corruption and financial crime laws, such as the ICPC Act, EFCC Act, or Criminal Code, depending on the specifics (e.g., intent, personal gain, or unauthorized alterations). The lack of a dedicated law and rare prosecutions contribute to its persistence, but judicial rulings and legal provisions suggest it is actionable as an economic crime. For further clarity, a Supreme Court ruling could define the legislature’s role and the legality of budget padding more precisely.

Third and Final Letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP): It is not too late to save your reputation by withdrawing the charges against Senator Natasha because of the fundamental flaws of not charging Obinna Oparaku Akuwudike and the list of tainted witnesses (Akpabio, Yahaya Bello, Dr. Sandra Duru and the two police officers from the IGP monitoring unit)

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

Dear Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sir,

I promise you that this is the third and final letter that I am going to write to you on this matter.

As I said in my previous letter, my interest in providing these pieces of free legal advisory is because I am a legal author and commentator on current legal issues that affect the public interests of Nigerians.

Without much ado, let me delve straight to the point.

The major fundamental flaw in the charge sheet is that a crucial and necessary witness is not included namely Obinna Oparaku Akuwudike.

Recall that in my previous letter I cited different case law to establish the principle that any right-minded DPP is guided by OVER-RIDING PUBLIC INTEREST in the decision to initiate or terminate prosecution. This principle of OVER-RIDING PUBLIC INTEREST also applies in the choice of prosecution witnesses.

In other to be seen as doing justice in the interest of OVER-RIDING PUBLIC INTEREST, the DPP ought to include as prosecution witnesses persons that can shed light on Senator Natasha’s side of the story and there is no other better person than Obinna Oparaku Akuwudike.

Obinna Oparaku Akuwudike is a witness that is essential to prove the allegation that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan uttered statements that are injurious to the reputation of the Senate President, His Excellency Godswill Obot Akpabio-GOA.

It is reported by Vanguard newspaper of 22nd May 2025, that “a journalist and media activist, Maazi Obinna Oparaku Akuwudike, has been arrested by the Nigerian police.

Obinna was reportedly arrested at 3:00 a.m. on Thursday in Owerri, Imo State, in what sources believe is connected to a recent explosive interview he granted to journalist Adeola Fayehun on her YouTube channel.

During the interview, Obinna revealed that Sandra Duru, also known as Prof Mgbeke, paid him a significant sum of money to produce defamatory content aimed at discrediting Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.” See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanguardngr.com/2025/05/akpabio-vs-natasha-police-arrest-whistleblower/amp/

As a senior lawyer yourself, you are no doubt familiar with the expression: “He who alleges must prove”.

You are also aware that the standard of proof required in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of this, your good self and your team of lawyers and the prosecution witnesses are facing an uphill task to provide evidence to substantiate the three charges against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

As an example, I shall focus on just one of the three charges.

The prosecution (DPP) must prove that the Senate President, His Excellency Godswill Obot Akpabio-GOA, CURRENTLY enjoys a good public reputation in the first place before such a reputation or public image can be ALLEGEDLY damaged by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s utterances of 3rd April 2025 as alleged by the DPP.

The Prosecution has to provide concrete evidence to substantiate this such as a public opinion poll of the reputation of the Senate President before 3rd April 2025 and thereafter. The said poll must have been conducted by a credible organisation. It will even be more reliable if the said poll is conducted amongst the constituents of the Akwa Ibom North-West, which is the senatorial district represented by the Senate President, His Excellency Godswill Obot Akpabio-GOA.

For example, contrary to the prosecution’s claim, Senator Natasha’s allegations as allegedly uttered by Senator Natasha on 3rd April 2025 as alleged by the DPP did not prevent the immigration authorities of the Vatican City or Italy from denying Senate President visa to attend on 26th April 2025, the late Pope’s funeral.

So in the eyes of the immigration authorities of both the Vatican City and Italy (which are high ranking within the top ten industrialised countries of the world) the reputation of the Senate President did not suffer any negative consequences as a result of the 3rd April 2025 utterances of Senator Natasha as alleged by the DPP in the charges. See the report by the State House website: https://statehouse.gov.ng/press-releases/senate-president-akpabio-leads-nigerias-delegation-to-pope-francis-funeral/

Another line of argument, is that within Nigeria, the Senate President Akpabio’s reputation is at an all time low amongst right-thinking members of the public.

This low reputation is a self-inflicted consequence of Akpabio’s own words and actions.

For example, in the year 2016, the Senate President made a public statement which he published online, the statement is as follows: “If a Senator defects, he loses his seat”.

The majority of members of the public have now lost respect for Akpabio because in recent times he has turned around to endorse defection of senators. This incident is reported in Daily Post newspaper available online at: https://dailypost.ng/2025/05/23/if-a-senator-defects-he-loses-his-seat-akpabios-old-post-resurfaces-as-defections-rock-senate/

Another incident that has greatly diminished the reputation of Senate President Akpabio is the recent conviction by the Court of Appeal of a professor who is alleged to have rigged elections in his favour.

Based on this court judgement, the majority of Nigerian citizens and civil society organisations have issued a public statement calling for resignation of the Senate President. The public statement is published online at:https://dailypost.ng/2025/05/05/headline-csos-demand-senate-president-akpabios-resignation-after-electoral-fraud-conviction-of-returning-officer/

In addition, a non-profit, Non-governmental Organisation (NGO) has gone as far as filing a petition against the Senate President asking the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to investigate the Senate President’s action in this regard since the Senate President is also a lawyer.

In the light of this current lowest ebb of his reputation in Nigeria, it is logical to conclude that since the Senate President Akpabio no longer enjoys any reputation in the eyes (due to his own self-inflicted words and actions), it is logically impossible for Senator Natasha’s statements of 3rd April 2025 to be the direct cause of any damage to the reputation of the Senate President as alleged by the DPP.

The general rule of law of defamation and analogy is that it is impossible to damage what does not exist in the first place.

In this regard there is an unreported case suit number,THC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, in March 2025, a Federal High Court Abuja held in a judgment that prostitutes have no legal rights to reputation which can be protected by either the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 or any other laws for that matter. See the online report at: https://dailypost.ng/2025/03/12/court-dismisses-suit-seeking-to-legalize-prostitution-in-nigeria/

As Lord Denning aptly puts it, in his judgment in the case of U.A.C. vs. MacFoy (1962). You cannot put something upon nothing and expect it to stand.

On a final note, another fundamental flaw as contained in your charge sheet is that the six (6) prosecution witnesses are all TAINTED WITNESSES.

“A tainted witness is a person either an accomplice or having some purpose of his own to serve – RV ENAHORO 1964 NMLR 65; IFEJRIKA V STATE 1999 3 NWLR Pt.

In Nigerian law, a “tainted witness” is a witness whose testimony is viewed with suspicion due to a potential bias or hidden purpose, often stemming from their involvement in or connection to the case”

As you are a very senior lawyer, I would not lecture you on this.

Let me just give you an example, do a simple online search on the name of one of the prosecution witnesses, Prof. Mgbeke otherwise known as Dr. Sandra C. Duru. In one of her most recent online publications she referred to Senator Natasha as “Lie-tasha”, so the court of law would treat her evidence with not just a pinch of salt (but a truckload of bags of salt) because she definitely has an axe to grind against Senator Natasha!!!

On the website of the Nigerian Police, it is clearly stated that the major duty of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Monitoring Unit, is as follows:

“focuses on internal oversight and accountability. This unit is responsible for monitoring the performance of police officers, addressing complaints of misconduct, and ensuring adherence to ethical standards within the force. The current IGP, Kayode Egbetokun, has emphasized the importance of this unit in maintaining public trust and combating corruption.”.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the two police officers whom you as DPP have listed as prosecution witnesses are completely inappropriate and tainted witnesses because this is not a case of internal affairs investigation of accusations against police officers.

It raises a lot of suscipions in the minds of any right-thinking persons and confirms the fears voiced by Senator Natasha that this prosecution is a witch-hunt considering that her own previous petition submitted to the Nigerian Police authorities was never investigated talk less of prosecuting the persons that she alleged were threatening her life and assassinating her character on the internet and social media.

At this point, I rest my case!!!

Yours faithfully,
Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja,
24th May 2025.

AWLA bags positive impact award

In appreciation of her collaboration with the Lagos State Ministry of Education, District 1, and her positive impact on students, the Association of Women Lawyers in Nigeria (AWLA) received an award for outstanding performance.

The award was presented by the Hon. Commissioner, Lagos State Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education, Mr. Jamiu Ali-Balogun, and the Tutor General/ Permanent Secretary, Education District 1, Mr. Adeoye Adebowale.

Independent Judiciary: An essential ingredient in free, fair elections

  • Watch a video of Odinkalu speaking about the new book

BOOK SERIAL

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

Today

In this first installment on the opening chapter, the author lays the groundwork for his central thesis that judges, whom he calls “the selectorate”, have toppled the people in deciding who rules them – both a travesty of justice and of democracy.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu is Professor of Practice in International Human Rights Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at the Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, USA. He is also Pro-Chancellor and Chair of the Governing Council of the Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu University in Igbariam, Anambra State, Nigeria. Odinkalu received his Ph.D. in law from the London School of Economics and Political Science.   

Judging Democracy

The colonial power established a dual legal system…. There was no separation of powers or institutional protection for judicial independence. ‘Traditional’ courts were merged with executive power and formed part of the colonial administration. The formal judiciary was only provided proper security for their tenure on the eve of independence.

In 1930, the Colonial Service appointed Mr Terrell as a judge of the Supreme Court of (colonial) Malaya in the Straits Settlements. Prior to his appointment, Mr Terrell had exchanged correspondence with the Colonial Office, which informed him that he would be liable to retire compulsorily on attainment of the age of sixty-two. In 1942, Japan overran and occupied the Straits Settlements and the Secretary of State for the Colonies informed Mr Terrell that they could find no suitable post for him elsewhere in the Colonial Service. When Mr Terrell declined to retire, the Secretary of State terminated his appointment on 7 July 1942. This happened 17 months before he was due to retire in February 1944 under the original terms of his exchange with the Colonial Office.

Mr Terrell took the case to an arbitrator and lost. He appealed to the High Court, arguing that under section 12 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, which superseded the Act of Settlement (1701), judges in England held office during good behaviour and could only be removed on an address by both Houses of Parliament, none of which conditions had been fulfilled in this case. Upholding the award of the arbitrator, Lord Chief Justice Rayner Goddard decided that the enactment relied on was “wholly inapplicable to a colonial judge” and that Mr Terrell held office at the pleasure of the Crown. Reminded that Mr Terrell’s contract appended the undertaking by the Colonial Office that he would not be required to retire before the age of 62, the court decided that the undertaking did not constitute an agreement and that even if it did, it was ineffective to constrain the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss him at will or pleasure.

Writing in the immediate aftermath of this judgment, Stanley Alexander de Smith, the influential public law scholar who in later life became the principal draftsman of the independence constitution of Mauritius, conceded that the import of Terrell’s case was that “a superior judge in a colony was removable at the pleasure of Crown.” The natural logic of this admission would be that colonial rule was incompatible with the idea of independent institutions in a colony. Solomon Ukhuegbe points out that courts under colonial rule were largely “also institutions for the consolidation and legitimatisation of colonial rule.” The corollary is that only independent peoples can build independent or democratic institutions founded on the rule of law.

Yet, a mere decade after the above admission, Professor de Smith argued the opposite, claiming that the design of the post-colonial constitutions of former British territories was premised on a recognition of the need to insulate “sensitive areas of public activity from direct political influence” in order to render government accountable.” These sensitive areas included the judiciary, judicial appointments and the police service. Addressing the essential constitutional features of territories that won their independence from the United Kingdom, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Emeka Anyaoku, appears to reinforce this with the claim that notions of democracy and independent institutions of the rule of law “have always been a key attribute of the Commonwealth.” Egbert Udo Udoma, the first African Chief Justice of post-colonial Uganda joined in celebrating “that great current of the British system of administration of justice according to law, a tradition enshrined in and exemplified by the doctrine of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.”

Rule of Law – A Colonial Myth

Colonial self-adulation of this kind was formulated in Roberts Wray’s proclamation that “[B]ritish administration in overseas countries has conferred no greater benefit than English law and justice.” It is difficult to understand where this idea could have come from because colonial rule was the very opposite of this proposition and incompatible with any habits of law, justice or sustainable institutions. Contrary to received lore, colony did not respect human rights, was not democratic and did not pretend to be an advertisement of the rule of law or judicial independence. Indeed, in the case of Nigeria, as recently as seven years before independence, the proposal for the creation of a Supreme Court for the country was anchored on the understanding that far from being tenured, Justices of the court “shall hold office during the pleasure of the Crown.”

This leads to an important insight. Denied the benefit of relevant experience or practice, it was impossible for colonised peoples to suddenly attain independence with habits, processes or institutions adapted for upholding notions that were alien to their consciousness. It was, therefore, entirely predictable that most of the post-colonial constitutions prescribing ideas approximating to or supportive of freedom or independent institutions were quickly ransacked in the aftermath of independence because the habits to nurture those institutions simply did not exist. Journalist, Patrick Gathara concludes rightly that, in the post-colonial period, “judicial independence has been a myth.”

However, in the Harare Declaration adopted in 1991, the Heads of State and Government of the Commonwealth committed themselves and their countries to a belief in “the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief, and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live.” This commitment was based on their recognition that “the special strength of the Commonwealth lies in the combination of the diversity of its members with their shared inheritance in language, culture and the rule of law.” However, the same document called attention to the need to strengthen “the capacity of the Commonwealth to respond to requests from members for assistance in entrenching the practices of democracy, accountable administration and the rule of law,” which points to a contradiction between the reality of the Commonwealth and the claims made on its behalf. Far from being inherent in postcolonial arrangements, this contradiction is an acknowledgement that colonial rule did not prepare its subjects or victims for an aftermath founded on popular will or independent institutions in support thereof.

Therefore, any association between colonial legacy on the one hand and norms of the rule of law, independent institutions and legitimate governance on the other is at best accidental or mythical. Instead, it seems more agreeable to think of the rule of law and democracy in the transitional context of most countries that emerged from British colonial rule, especially in Africa, in terms of phases as follows:

•The first phase was the immediate post-colonial era. That did not last long because of the antecedents just recalled above.

•The second phase or the period of constitutional instability following the collapse of the post-colonial constitutions. This period produced a considerable body of jurisprudence on military law, military rule, coups d’etat, one-party rule and life presidencies, especially following the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in Southern Rhodesia in 1965″; In places like Kenya, the courts declared the Bill of Rights under the constitution both “inoperative and unenforceable”; in Nigeria, the military criminalized going to court, making it a felony.”

•The onset of the third phase approximates the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Independence of Namibia around 1989 to 1990, and the rise in political pluralism that followed thereafter. Courts and legality took centre stage when many countries of the Commonwealth returned to elective government in the decade of the 1990s. For instance, in many parts of Africa, a significant body of opinion took a sanguine view of this, suggesting that it embodied “hope for those concerned about the success of new African democracies.” In its aftermath, Edwin Abuya, for instance, could assert that the independent judiciary is “an essential ingredient in free and fair elections.”

Much of the progress during that period has suffered recent reversal with the rise of populist authoritarianism and the politics of the “indispensable man” since the end of the first decade of the present millennium. These reversals have been enabled by a dismantling of institutions of the rule of law as essential guardrails for their protection, such as the judiciary, which has suffered capture in many countries. This book focuses on this last phase. Using Nigeria as a case study, this book sets out to explore and illustrate how electoral politics affects or alters what judges do, how they do it, and how the public perceives the role of courts and judges.

TOMORROW…

The author will examine the concept of rule of law, the judiciary and their relationships to elective government, beginning with Albert Venn Dicey’s Victorian notions of the concept.

Watch the video below.

Ibadan-Oyo war of supremacy over obas council

By Lasisi Olagunju

At the Alaafin’s Garden Hall in Oyo on 6 November 1934, Alaafin Siyanbola Ladigbolu held a storming meeting with the Resident of Oyo Province, the Honourable Mr. H. L. Ward-Price. The Resident was the equivalent of today’s governor; the Province equated today’s state. That meeting was called to discuss the news filtering out that the white man was moving the capital of Oyo Province from Oyo town to Ibadan.

The meeting was held in a very tense atmosphere. The Lagos Daily News of 13 November 1934 carried the proceedings verbatim. There is an excerpt here:

The Aláàfin: I summoned this meeting with a view to ascertaining whether the ugly rumour of your impending removal from Ộyó to Ibadan was true or not, as I have not been authoritatively informed by you.

The Resident: Who told you that I am removing to Ìbàdàn?

The Aláàfin: No one did but it is a general talk among my people that you are packing up.

The Resident: But who told you that? The Aláàfin should not believe foolish talks and rumours.

The Aláàfin: If you want to prove the veracity of my statement, just give three pence to a small boy in the street with the request to bring in as many persons as he can find talking on this subject. You will be surprised at the crowd that will throng this place in a minute. It is a common saying everywhere.

The Resident: Anybody can say what he or she likes but I do not think the Aláàfin believes everything he hears.

The Alâàfin: I do not believe everything but this is too general to be a lie. I and my people do not want you to go. But if you say that you are not leaving Oyó, I am satisfied.

The Resident: I am transferring my Provincial Office to Ibàdàn. That is, my clerks are going to Ibàdàn and I am going to make Ibàdàn my business place. But I shall be living in Ộyộ.

The Aláàfin: How is it then that you say just now that you are not leaving Ộyó? This is rather suspicious. I do not like it.

The Resident: But can’t the Aláàfin see the difference between the Resident and his staff? I am not removing from Ộyộ; my clerks are.

The Aláàfin: I do not want you or your staff to leave Ộyó. Why? I am not pleased at the mere suggestion of it.

The Resident: You see, at Ộyó I have so much work to do through my mails coming in in great abundance. The mails are received twice weekly. Replies to some letters are sometimes delayed through that cause. Whilst at Ibàdàn I can get my mails every day and writing can be reduced or facilitated by the use of phone messages. Letters come from Forestry Department, Agricultural Department, etc., etc. which can be answered at once.

The Aláàfin: But you are not the first Resident to experience the difficulties of which you now complain. How is it that your predecessors never complained of this and were able to satisfy all concerned? Besides, these difficulties can be easily adjusted. I am not pleased that you should go to Ibàdàn for that reason.

The Resident: As I have said, while my office remains at Oyó, I shall never have to know the people of Oyó very well. Even some of the chiefs before me now (referring to the Ộyó chiefs present) are not well known to me because I am constantly engaged upon my work at the Residency. But if I go to İbàdàn, then my work is over. I can come to Ộyo two or three days. I shall then be able to devote more time to Oyo affairs than I have hitherto done.

The Aláàfin: This sounds strange! But you are known and addressed as the Resident of Oyo not of Ibàdàn.

The Resident: I am also Resident for Ibàdàn, Saki, Ifè, etc., etc. as well.

The Aláàfin: Exactly so by virtue of my position as the overlord of the places cited. But Oyó is your home. You are my Resident.

The Resident: Yes, I admit that Ộyo is my headquarters and I shall continue to reside there when I finish my work at Ibàdàn. At least I wish to try it; if not successful, I shall bring back my office. I have no mind of changing my headquarters. Do you think I can change that without the sanction of the Governor?

The Aláàfin: All right. But I am not pleased.

The Resident: Yes, the Aláàfin and the chiefs need not entertain any fear as I shall continue to carry on my work as usual.

The Aláàfin : All right, let us hope so.

It happened. If Ibàdàn was the capital of the old Western Region and the old Western State and is the capital of Oyo State today, the above is the story as told by J. A. Atanda in his ‘The Divisional Power Structure in the New Oyo Empire, 1914 – 1934’. The article deals with so many issues including the troublous Ibadan-Oyo relations.

As it turned out, the Resident moved the capital from Oyo to Ibadan without approval from Lagos. And he got away with it. The Aláàfin believed he did it because ‘rebellious’ Ibadan had won him over. The truth was that the Aláàfin had become too hot for everyone to handle and relate with. Ward-Price did it because he thought the Aláàfin was behaving as if he was the boss of everyone – including even the Resident. A month earlier (October 1934), the Aláàfin had reportedly declared that “I know that there is no (one) else besides me but God.” The Resident was supposed to be Alaafin’s boss; he was today’s governor. The man had powers and he used it to teach some lessons in power relations.

Earlier still in 1934, that same Resident had told Oba Aromolaran I, the Owa Obokun of Ijesaland, in his palace in Ilesa that “white ants are eating the legs of the Aláàfin ‘s chair without his knowing.” It was interpreted in Yoruba to the Owa who did not ask the white man to explain what he meant. The oba knew that it was an official acknowledgement of a gradual setting of the sun of what historians call the New Oyo Empire which started with the founding of a new Oyo town in about 1830. Mr. Emmanuel Adedeji Kayode was the orderly (asojú) to the Owa Obokun from 1920 to 1942. He listened to that conversation between Ward-Price and Owa. He retold it to Professor J. A. Atanda in an interview held at his Ereja Quarters residence in Ilesa on 13 June, 1966.

I do not know in person the present Aláàfin of Oyo, Oba Akeem Owoade. I have not met him but the first and the only newspaper interview he has granted since his choice as the Aláàfin was conducted by me – on the phone. He sounded calm and humble throughout that interview engagement. He spoke on his expectations and laid out his plans for his people. I think I was impressed. Although I know that like an aircraft, the take-off is always difficult, still I feel there are already too many negative vibes since this oba’s coronation. I am writing this today as my own incision in his occiput on how he flies his plane, particularly his handling of the current crisis over the composition and chairmanship of the Oyo State Council of Obas.

The contentious Oyo State Council of Obas bill was passed some days ago. The new Aláàfin and his townspeople are not happy with that bill. But the authors of the bill originally proposed making Aláàfin the permanent chairman; in his absence, Olubadan and Soun were to serve as concurrent chairmen in that order of ranking. Very loud protests by Aláàfin’s people that their king would not share the seat with anyone even when he is absent woke up the other side – Ibadan and Ogbomoso. They reacted by rejecting the bill as originally drafted, and demanded a rotation of the chairmanship. They will share the seat two years apiece. Now, they’ve won.

They would win. In particular, the Ibadan would win. They have so much resistance and activism in their checkered history to guide them. Besides, they are brave and daring in reaching for whatever they covet. Their ancestors had it. At the beginning of the Ibadan-Ijaye war in 1861, an Ibadan General who later in life became famously known as Basorun Ogunmola, was reported to have boasted a promise that: “After shaving the crown of the head (Ijaye), he would shave the occiput (Abeokuta).” That was the Ibadan warlord’s way of promising to destroy one enemy after the other. He did not mention Oyo and its king, the Alaafin, but it is there in history that when it was his time to be Baale of Ibadan, Ogunmola told the Alaafin that the title he wanted was that of Basorun, Oyo’s prime minister. And he had it even while someone was holding the title in Oyo.

Professor Bolanle Awe in a 1965 piece wrote that Ogunmola and, much later, Aare Latosa while establishing an Ibadan empire stretching over the whole of Yorubaland “openly discarded the support and friendship of the Alaafin of Oyo. Of the two leaders, however, Ogunmola was the wiser, in that he replaced the Aláàfin’s friendship with that of the British government…” (See Awe’s ‘The end of an experiment: The Collapse of the Ibadan Empire, 1877-1893’). The effect of that foundational friendship with the new power, the British, is what we see later in the colonial government acknowledging Ibadan over Oyo as the new power centre.

Potshots aimed at Oyo are Ibadan’s regular bugle songs of freedom. A conference of Yoruba Chiefs was to be held in Ibadan in May 1939. Then a storm ensued over a custom-made damask cloth for the conference. The cloth had the photograph of Olubadan Abasi Alesinloye holding a tiger on a leash. The Aláàfin protested vehemently and the government banned the cloth from being sold and worn throughout the province. Why did the Aláàfin protest? Ruth Watson explains in her ‘Civil Disturbance is the Disease of Ibadan’ (2003, page 159) quoting Olubadan’s driver: “Abasi was holding a tiger, that signifies Oyo under Ibadan because that tiger sign (symbol) belongs to Alaafin. He had rope tied around that tiger’s neck, it was pulled tight.” Between that time, 1939 and now, so many events have occurred which have served to relive that experience of a tiger on a leash. Many more will happen.

The present Ibadan-Oyo crisis over the chairmanship of Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs I find very vexatious and unnecessary. The new Aláàfin should shake off suffocating creepers from his orange tree and own himself. He should move closer to his ancestor, Atiba, and ask him how he used diplomacy to make the Ibadan serve his purpose; how his son, Adelu, got the Ibadan fight his wars, particularly the decisive one against Kurunmi of Ijaye in 1861-1862. The Aláàfin needs Ibadan and other Yoruba towns more than they need him. I pray for his success but the current noise so early in his reign is very distracting and unnecessary. In fact, if I were the Aláàfin, I would call a strategic, unilateral ceasefire on this council of obas thing; I would withdraw my troops while I reach out to rival kingdoms. There are greater things ahead to do together.

“Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others” (Jonathan Swift). Yoruba ancestors saw today and made it a rule of behaviour that obas must never leave their kingdoms. They also decreed it a taboo for obas to meet face to face. Throughout the period of obedience, no oba compared his height with another and none talked down on another. But the British broke the pot, first in 1886 to sign a treaty; second in 1925 at a durbar for the visiting Prince of Wales. The really bad one was in 1937 when the British called and held a Conference of Obas of Western Province. Since then, intrigues and fights over who sits where have combined to ruin the family.

What do our obas really do with the present so-called council of obas? What will happen if a state does not have that council? I do not want to ask what will happen if there really is no oba in a town. Should custodians of culture be found fighting over a council that is practically powerless and of no developmental value to the society? Besides, and this is important: Is there an oba today whose kingly arms reach out beyond his kingdom? There was an Oyo Empire at a time when there was no Ibadan. There was an Ibadan Empire which succeeded Oyo Empire at the demise of Oyo and its powers. Today, neither exists.

From the epochal 1934 to date, Ibadan has not stopped insisting that the present Oyo is not the Old Oyo to which their ancestors belonged and which they served. The British in the 1920s set up a court of appeal for Oyo province and made the Aláàfin its chairman. What was the reaction from Ibadan? Ibadan people refused to take their cases to that court. I got an interesting paragraph from Professor Toyin Falola: “The Aláàfin ‘s Appeals.”

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

Chief of Naval Staff advocates spiritual solution to combat insecurity in Nigeria

Vice Admiral Emmanuel Ogalla
  • As Reps warn of citizens’ revolt

Nigeria’s Chief of Naval Staff (CNS), Vice Admiral Emmanuel Ogalla, has said that a “spiritual solution” is part of what Nigeria needs to overcome the growing wave of insecurity across the country.

Vice Admiral Ogalla spoke on Thursday at Navy Town, Asokoro, Abuja, while commissioning three newly completed places of worship as part of activities marking the 69th anniversary of the Nigerian Navy.

Addressing officers, personnel, and guests, the Naval Chief emphasised the role of spiritual fortitude in combating national threats such as insurgency and terrorism.

“We recognise that the challenges of insurgency, terrorism, and other forms of irregular threats that are facing us today are challenges that require a whole of society approach,” he said.

“So, while we look for the military solutions, we also believe that the spiritual solution is part of what we need to be able to surmount them,” he added.

He further noted that the new religious centres, designed to serve both Christian and Muslim personnel, are essential for building moral strength and national unity.

“And these places of worship are key to shaping the minds and shaping the characters of not only our personnel but other Nigerians who use it,” Ogalla said.

Also, Commander, Naval Unit Abuja, Commodore Oluseyi Oladipo disclosed that the new facilities—the Catholic Church, the Church of Redemption, and the Central Mosque—would serve residents of Navy Town, Admiralty and Lakeview Estates, and function as the hub for the Directorate of Naval Chaplain Services and the Directorate of Islamic Affairs.

The Naval Chief’s comments come as the country continues to grapple with rising insecurity. Recently, Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum raised the alarm over fresh insurgent activity and the capture of some communities in the northeast state.

Weeks ago, the House of Representatives warned of citizens revolt, if the Federal Government failed to address insecurity in the country, which has been on the upswing in the last few weeks.

This came on a day Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, told his colleagues that the insecurity and parlous state of the nation’s economy are stretching the patience and resilience of Nigerians to the limit, and asked them to respond with legislative actions.

Lawmakers from areas ravaged by insurgency and killings by herdsmen in the country, who led the debate on the issue at plenary, also accused the Presidency of not doing enough to resolve the insecurity problem in the country, despite the over N19.7 trillion spent on security.

The debate in the House was sparked by a motion of urgent public importance moved by Ahmed Satomi on the recent fire at the armoury at Giwa Barracks and the escalating attacks on military formations in Borno and Yobe states, respectively.

The motion soon snowballed into emotional testimonies and dire warnings, with some lawmakers declaring that if urgent steps are not taken by government to solve the problem, Nigerians might turn on their elected representatives.

In his contribution, Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau) rebuked those downplaying the severity of the crisis, saying “when the governor is crying and someone within the comfort of his zone says the governor is raising an unnecessary alarm, we are rascals. Nigerians are being killed. This is unacceptable.

“Until the right thing is done by us here, until government responds with action, not just media statements, don’t bet that any member of the National Assembly is safe. We may be attacked not by Boko Haram, but by the people that elected you and I.

‘’Time will come when, if action is not taken, Nigerians will take their destinies in their own hands.

“Mr. Speaker, we must stand up and find a way of bringing this issue of insecurity to a halt, otherwise, you and I are not safe. No matter how Nigerians respect us, we are moving to a level that they will fight us the way they fight criminals and the way they fight Boko Haram.

On his part, Ahmed Jaha (APC, Borno), whose constituency includes Chibok, gave a chilling account of Boko Haram’s exploits in his area.

He said: “10 farmers were slaughtered in Pulka; 14 in Chibok, and military officers at Izge and Kampu. In Wajiboko, Boko Haram used weaponised drones. The Nigerian Army is outgunned and undermanned. I have seen it, nobody told me, I was there.”

Jaha warned the House not to be complacent, saying “between 2015 and 2019, the government spent N19.7 trillion on security, yet Boko Haram is resurging, worse than ever. We must do proper oversight.

“Mr. Speaker, I am talking as a victim of the recent resurgence of Boko Haram insurgence. I went to my constituency on Saturday to sympathise, to condone with the people that lost their lives as a result of this sporadic, uninterrupted attack.

“In my constituency in Pulka, 10 peasant farmers went out to scavenge for what we call ‘sawroot.’ They were slaughtered by Boko Haram members and five are still missing, while three are critically ill in the hospital. In Chibok, 14 peasant farmers were attacked in their community.
“In the twinkle of an eye, they (insurgents) reduced 14 people to nothing. People were cut down while running for their lives by insurgents firing new AK-47 rifles. I lost two military officers as a result of the attack.

‘’In Kampu, I lost two men and one military officer. This will be on record. They (Boko Haram) are using armed drones, weaponised drones, which the Nigerian Army is not using. In other words, they are more sophisticated and advanced than the Nigerian Army.

“Boko Haram is coming back worse than what we had in the past. Take it or leave it. Boko Haram are coming back. Let us do something serious in order not to go back to the days 22 local governments out of 27 were occupied by Boko Haram.

“We shouldn’t be complacent with this. I align with the Deputy Speaker by saying we should do our part by doing proper oversight as expected, because between 2015 and 2019, Nigerian government spent N19.7 trillion on security issues. I have the record with me. So we shouldn’t be complacent.’’

In her contribution, Zainab Gimba (APC, Borno) corroborated the use of drones and foreign fighters in recent attacks.

She said: “In my constituency, 20 soldiers were killed in a Boko Haram ambush on a multinational force base. The commander told me that among the insurgents were several white men; there is foreign influence here.’’

She condemned the positioning of military formations within cities, citing the Giwa Barracks fire in Maiduguri, which led to explosion of military bombs.

“Before the public knew what was happening, panic had already spread. These formations should be outside city centres. Our lives should not be politicised.

“Mr. Speaker, another issue of concern for this House is that the exit of Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali from ECOWAS has also posed a lot of threat, especially at the border of Mali and other Nigerian borders.

‘’If there is no synergy, this insurgency will pose several threats to the country, not only to the state.

“We are giving the impression that the fire in Maiduguri came as a result of either a fire source or whatever within the barracks. On that particular day, there wasn’t any Boko Haram attack.

“In my own constituency, in Mungo, Mr. Speaker, there has been a Boko Haram attack on military formation of the multinational joint task force where more than 20 soldiers were killed.

“It will interest you to know that I visited that formation and the commander told me that out of about 100 soldiers in that formation, we have only six Nigerian soldiers. And it is a multinational joint task force where we expect to have, if not equal number, at least substantive number of Nigerian military men.

‘’Again, Mr. Speaker, the commanding officer of that formation revealed that it wasn’t the first or the second time the formation has been attacked, but on that very day, March 24, 2025, the attack was unprecedented.’’

‘Let citizens defend themselves’

Also contributing, Shettima Ali (APC, Yobe) called for legislative reform to allow citizens defend themselves.

He said: “Let this House create a law that permits our people to protect themselves. The security forces are not enough and don’t know the terrain.

“Our people are being killed by the day. I want this House to come up with another idea to deal with our people, we have to think of how to create a law that will allow our people protect themselves; we just need this thing.

“Like Jaha said, our security personnel are inadequate, they don’t know the terrain of our communities, though they are trying their best.’’

In a more sober tone, Babajimi Benson (APC, Lagos) said the Federal Government’s security spending is not yielding results.

He said: “The presidency has spent so much on the military without commensurate outcomes. We need drastic measures.

The House, however, resolved to investigate the cause of the fire at Giwa Barracks armoury in Maiduguri to prevent a recurrence.

It also resolved to conduct a thorough review of security measures in military installations to prevent similar incidents, ask the Federal Government to strengthen security operations in Borno and Yobe states to protect military personnel and civilians, and provide support as well as compensation to families of soldiers affected by the incidents.

The House also mandated the Committee on Army, Defence and National Security to investigate and report back within weeks.

Fidelity Bank’s Onyeali-Ikpe’s share acquisition signals strong confidence in tier-one lender

In a decisive move underscoring unwavering confidence in Fidelity Bank Plc’s resilience, Managing Director and CEO, Dr. Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe has acquired an additional 18 million shares of the bank, valued at approximately ₦366 million.

According to a regulatory filing posted on the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) Disclosures portal, this strategic investment was executed at ₦20.35 per share on May 19, 2025, the same day an online platform published an unsubstantiated report on a Supreme Court ruling in a decades-long case that the bank inherited from the defunct FSB International Bank that it absorbed in 2005.

Dr. Onyeali-Ikpe’s latest acquisition is not an isolated gesture. Between November 21 and 22, 2024, she purchased 15 million shares worth ₦239.4 million, and subsequently added another 10 million shares valued at ₦157.9 million on November 26 and 27, 2024. These cumulative investments reflect a consistent pattern of personal commitment to the bank’s long-term success.

The CEO’s substantial personal investments serve as a powerful testament to her confidence in Fidelity Bank’s strategic direction and financial health. By increasing her stake during a period of legal scrutiny, Dr. Onyeali-Ikpe sends a clear message of stability and trust in the institution’s governance and operational integrity.

Fidelity Bank’s financial results further validate this confidence. In the first quarter of 2025, the bank reported a Profit Before Tax of ₦105.8 billion, marking a 167.8% increase compared to the same period in 2024. Gross earnings rose by 64.2% year-on-year to ₦315.4 billion, driven by significant growth in interest income and non-interest revenue.

The tier-one lender’s balance sheet remains solid, with total deposits increasing by 11.1% year-to-date to ₦6.6 trillion, and net loans and advances growing by 5.0% to ₦4.6 trillion. These figures highlight Fidelity Bank’s strong liquidity position and its capacity to support large-scale projects and absorb financial shocks.

Despite the rash of malicious publications on the bank that has been debunked by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Fidelity Bank’s share price has demonstrated resilience. After reaching ₦21.00 on May 13, 2025, the stock experienced a modest decline, closing at ₦20.00, a 3.8% decrease. This stability suggests that investors remain confident in the bank’s fundamentals and leadership.

Dr. Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe’s continued investment in Fidelity Bank during a period of legal scrutiny exemplifies strategic leadership and personal commitment.

Money Watch

How did it get there? From teenage Arsenal prodigy to convicted drug smuggler

As a footballer, Jay Emmanuel-Thomas seemed destined for greatness. But a drug-smuggling conviction has left his career and reputation in tatters. How did things unravel so dramatically for a player once tipped for the top?

Hailed by legendary Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger as a footballer who could “play anywhere”, Emmanuel-Thomas was marked out early on as having elite potential.

Imposing, technically gifted and surprisingly agile, the striker appeared to have the world at his feet.

But a career that promised so much at Arsenal faltered and saw him spend years flitting between the second and third tiers of English football.

In 2020 he moved to play in Scotland and was still plying his trade north of the border when, on 18 September, he was arrested at his home in Gourock, near Glasgow.

Sixteen days earlier, Border Force officers had stopped two women at London Stansted Airport and found drugs in their cases.

It was not a minor haul; they were staring at cannabis with a street value of £600,000.

How did it get there? The evidence soon led detectives to Emmanuel-Thomas.

Wind back a decade and a half, and things were very different.

It is 26 May 2009, and Arsenal’s latest batch of academy talents can barely contain their excitement.

The young prospects, including Jack Wilshere and Francis Coquelin, have just won the FA Youth Cup.

One player in particular has stood out: their 16-year-old captain, Emmanuel-Thomas, who has scored in every round of the competition.

“These young men have a very bright future indeed,” remarked one commentator.

But despite going on to make five first-team appearances, it was not quite to be for Emmanuel-Thomas.

He was shipped out on several loans before leaving the north London club for Ipswich Town.

It was a move that excited supporters in Suffolk, who were keen to see what the former Arsenal starlet could produce.

However, 71 games and eight goals later, Emmanuel-Thomas had not quite made the mark fans hoped for, and he moved to Bristol City in a player exchange deal.

Here, he helped the Robins secure promotion to the Championship and became something of a cult hero, scoring 21 goals in his first season.

A move to Queens Park Rangers followed, with subsequent loan spells at MK Dons and Gillingham.

But in 2019, Emmanuel-Thomas accepted a transfer to a Thai-based team that would alter the course of his life.

It is believed he was tempted into the country’s drugs underworld while playing for PTT Rayong, a club that folded in the same year.

Despite later moves to an Indian side and several Scottish outfits, including Aberdeen, Emmanuel-Thomas never shook off the criminal connections he made.

By the time he took a six-month contract at Greenock Morton, a 40-minute drive from Glasgow, the game was almost up.

As he lined up for them against Queens Park on 14 September, he would have surely known the law was about to catch up with him.

The women arrested at Stansted were his 33-year-old girlfriend, Yasmin Piotrowska, and her friend Rosie Rowland, 28.

Emmanuel Thomas, by then 33, appeared in court charged with orchestrating the attempted importation of drugs, and was sacked by his club.

Detectives discovered he had duped Ms Piotrowska, from north-west London, and Ms Rowland, from Chelmsford, into travelling to Thailand with the promise of £2,500 in cash and an all-expenses-paid trip.

Their job? To bring home two suitcases each, filled with what they were assured was gold, Chelmsford Crown Court heard.

‘I feel sorry for the girls’

They flew business class from Bangkok, landing in Essex via Dubai.

Unknown to them, they were smuggling in cannabis with a street value of £600,000, vacuum-packed inside the four cases.

The pair were stopped and arrested by Border Force officers, before being charged with drug importation offences.

With the pair in custody, and Emmanuel-Thomas later remanded, police probed how the drugs made it to the UK.

They soon found the player was the intermediary between suppliers in Thailand and dealers in the UK, according to the National Crime Agency (NCA).

With the footballer’s encouragement, the women had also made a near-identical trip in July, having been made similar promises of cash and a lavish holiday.

On his way to custody, Emmanuel-Thomas even told NCA officers: “I just feel sorry for the girls.”

His first court hearing in September was told he carried out “extensive research” into flights and directions, including which airports the women had been going to.

David Philips, a senior NCA investigator, said “organised criminals like Emmanuel-Thomas” used persuasion and payment to get people to do their dirty work.

“But the risk of getting caught is very high and it simply isn’t worth it,” he added.

During several court appearances, Emmanuel-Thomas, of Cardwell Road, Gourock, strenuously denied attempting to import cannabis.

However, he changed his plea to guilty at the start of May and restrictions on reporting this were lifted on Wednesday.

Charges against both Ms Piotrowska and Ms Rowland were dropped after the prosecution revealed they had been tricked by Emmanuel-Thomas.

It followed what David Josse KC described as a “very thorough investigation”.

Emmanuel-Thomas appeared via video link from HMP Chelmsford at his latest court hearing.

When he returns to court for sentencing, on a date still to be confirmed, it will not be his first time in the spotlight.

But it will be for very different reasons to the day he lifted that trophy aloft in 2009.

Credit: BBC

TIPS