BY Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, LL.D

1. INTRODUCTION

My chambers makes this intervention  in the public domain as Solicitors to Diezani Alison-Madueke ( DAM ),the former Honourable Minister of Petroleum Resources (HMPR). As her Solicitors, we are fully versed in and conversant with her present ordeal and the entire facts surrounding her matters both here in Nigeria and abroad. So, we write from the vantage position of one that is aware of the cocktail of lies that have been spurned around her cases in the last ten years. Many of the narratives are outrightly false; some others sheer outlandish speculations; and most, simply bizzare stories cooked up by her traducers to extract a Shylock’s pound of flesh from her for reasons she does not know and cannot even fathom. This intervention therefore seeks to correct this skewed narrative and set the records straight for purposes of history. Many Nigerians often talk about wanting ‘technocrats’ to be involved in governance. They desire that people with character and integrity should join politics. We agree with them. However and regrettably too, now and again and many a time, the same people not only allow, but  but actually join the bandwagon to mob-lynch those who chose to serve the nation. And we often do this insidiously, covertly and overtly, even when there is no concrete or even any iota of proof that such public officers ever abused their offices or stole from public coffers. It is therefore surprising and of great concern to us, to see the level of sustained vilification of an innocent Nigerian citizen who has not yet been tried and found guilty of any offence known to law by any court of law whether in Nigeria or abroad. The person at the receiving end is Citizen Diezani Alison-Madueke (“DAM”).

2. THE GALACTICA YACHT AND THE FALSE NARRATIVE

We note with concern the recent deliberate attempt to link her with what has been described as a civil forfeiture of a yacht Galactica, the sale of which was said to have yielded $52.8m to the US government; which sum has since been repatriated to Nigeria. This is a clear example of the mischievous and cruel sport of tarnishing the image of the lady through a bouquet of consistent, persistent and unrelenting cocktail of falsehoods and misinformation. The purveyors of this line of misinformation term it “name-and-shame”. To sell the storyline, the architects ensured they attached Diezani’s name to a recovered yacht which is not in any way linked to her. They now falsely termed it “Diezani loot”. Nothing of the sort ever happened. She was never involved in the purchase, use and sale of the said yacht. The yacht Galactica, from information readily available in the public domain and in open sources, was purchased by Mr Kola Aluko who had used the vessel until he agreed to its forfeiture to the United States of America. The yacht Galactica was neither owned nor ever used by our client. DAM has in fact never set her eyes on the yacht. Kola Aluko is an experienced businessman who had been in business well before DAM came into office as HMPR. The only tenuous basis for deliberately linking DAM to the said yacht is the false narrative that the Strategic Alliance Agreements (SAAs) which were entered into between Kola Aluko & Jide Omokore’s Atlantic Energy companies and NNPC, were allegedly corruptly awarded to the said companies by DAM. DAM was not the GMD of the NNPC as so did not and could not have awarded the said contracts.

3. THE GALACTICA YACHT SPIN AND THE ALLEGED CORRUPT AWARD OF THE CONTRACT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED BY A COMPETENT COURT OF LAW IN NIGERIA.

The fallacy of DAM’s involvement in an alleged corrupt contract which gave birth to proceeds with which the Galactica was supposedly purchased has long been debunked and laid to rest by a Nigerian competent court of law in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2016: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs Olajide Omokore & Others.In that case, the Federal High Court, coram Hon.Justice Nnamdi Dimgba (now of the Court of Appeal), held that the Strategic Alliance Agreements (SAAs) between NNPC and the Atlantic Companies were validly entered into between the said companies and the NNPC.  Furthermore, the said companies and their chairman were discharged and acquitted of any offence howsoever in relation to allegedly obtaining the contract or monies realized from it through false representations. They were also exonerated and freed of the offence of money laundering in relation to the said contracts with which they were also charged.The judgement in the case clearly established that the said contracts were properly awarded by NNPC and that the said award followed due process.

To characterize such a forfeiture of a yacht allegedly bought with proceeds of the valid contracts as being linked to DAM simply on account of the legitimate SAAs, which have since been adjudged and held by the court to have been validly entered into between the NNPC and the said companies, is completely preposterous, if not outrightly bizzare.

4. DAM WAS NEVER A PARTY TO THE SAAs

Even at that, DAM was never a party to the contract process or contract negotiations, or contract selection for the award of the Strategic Alliance Agreements (SAAs) between the NNPC and Atlantic Energy Ltd. That contract process, like all others before and after it, was handled solely by the NNPC which followed its usual contract award due process to the letter. It did not involve DAM in any way or manner.

There was therefore nothing untoward, opaque or illegal whatsoever and howsoever about the SAA award process. As a matter of fact, the terms of the Atlantic Energy SAAs were made even more stringent for the Atlantic companies and constituted a much better deal for Nigeria than the SSAs which were entered into a few years earlier between the NNPC and the ENI-AGIP Multinational.

5. DAM MERELY ACTED AND DISCHARGED HER DUTIES WITHIN HER STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

It was our client’s statutory duty as the HMPR at the final stage of any contract process, to make final signatory and approval on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum Resources (MPR). However, NNPC would, as always, have first vetted and carried out all due diligence which include necessary operational and contractual checks and procedures. That would not have involved and did not infact did not involve DAM as the HMPR.

In line with due process and as statutorily required, DAM merely appended her signature to the final approval request letter which was forwarded to the office of the HMPR by the GMD, NNPC. As due process had already been observed and followed, the SAAs were signed off by her as required of her by law. DAM in the usual course of her duties did exactly the same thing every month for each of the hundreds of contracts that she had to sign-off on without any preferential treatment. And that is because it was an integral part of her statutory responsibilities as HMPR. DAM thus merely followed due process to the letter. She never engaged in the operational process of negotiating those contracts as this process was entirely and without exception, within the remit of the NNPC which was an independent entity from her office as HMPR.

6. DAM WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE NON-PAYMENT OF CASH CALLS

Let us be very clear about this: the issues of non-payment of the cash-calls that subsequently arose in the Atlantic Energy SAAs had nothing whatsoever to do with the initial contract award which followed due process and was properly made. Those issues arose as a direct result of the manner of operational implementation and supervision and had nothing whatsoever to do with DAM. She was never involved in any way or manner. As a matter of fact in April 2014, as soon as she was brought to her attention by an external multinational head that there were some issues regarding the Atlantic Energy SAAs, she immediately took strong and direct action by promptly alerting Mr. President, the Permanent Secretary (PS), of MPR and the GMD-NNPC, in writing, and directed that an immediate two-week investigation be carried out. Following the resulting investigative report, DAM again directed in writing to the PS, MPR and the GMD-NNPC, with Mr. President’s knowledge and approval, that a process for the recovery of the unpaid cash-call be immediately put in place.

7. DAM NEVER SOLD OFF OIL BLOCKS CONTAINED IN THE SAAs

It must therefore be emphasized that although a portion of the media severally unfairly vilified and accused DAM of purportedly selling off the oil blocks contained in the SAAs to Atlantic Energy, she never gave such a directive or approval.

8. EARLIER WILD ALLEGATIONS AND THE PET PHRASE, “DIEZANI-LOOT”

This is not the first time this genre of outlandish allegations have been levelled against DAM. Sometime ago, she was widely but falsely accused of owning a diamond-studded bikini underwear allegedly valued at $12,000,000!. Incredible!! The allegation was so unnatural, wild and baseless that the then Executive Chairman of the EFCC, Abdulrasheed Bawa, was compelled to publicly deny and denounce the vile allegation as being not only false, but preposterous. Similarly, when certain people were accused of bribing INEC officials, the bribe sums  were unjustifiably linked to DAM and labelled, as is always mischievously done, ‘Diezani-loot’. Yet, all that she did was to merely coordinate the raising of campaign funds for the then ruling political party that controlled the government she served under at that material time. She readily handed over the raised funds to the party which then determined how the said funds were disbursed without involving her. She was not in any way a beneficiary of the funds realized.

9. DAM WAS NAMED IN A CRIMINAL CHARGE WITHOUT ANY LINKAGE WHATSOEVER

DAM was gleefully named many times on the face of a charge filed against Atlantic Energy in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2016: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs Olajide Omokore & Others. In the said charge preferred by the EFCC in respect of an alleged bribing of some INEC officials, DAM was never made a party or Defendant to the said charge such as to enable her defend herself. Yet they mentioned her name severally. She was forced to apply to be joined as a Defendant to the said counts in the charge to enable her clear her name. Surprisingly and curiously, the application for joinder was strangely and fiercely opposed by the same EFCC that filed the charge, leading to the striking out of her name from the said charge sheet.

10. HOW THE WORD “ DIEZANI LOOT” EXCITES MANY, EVEN THOUGH PATENTLY FALSE

In spite of these clear verifiable facts which are available in the public domain, DAM has continued to be the subject of dersion and grave unproven allegations that are demonstrably false and patently ill-motivated. This traducing notwithstanding, the harrowing experience of cancer-related health challenges she has been going through in the last ten years of her life would not allow her a breathing space. It appears that nothing excites the purveyors and peddlers of these orchestrated misinformation and falsehood more than spinning and heaping all forms of false allegations on her, no matter how palpably false, baseless, disingenuous and unbelievable. It satiates their over- bloated egos to tar her with the paintbrush of shame.

11. DAM HAS ALWAYS BEEN UPRIGHT IN THE DISCHARGE OF HER DUTIES

DAM worked conscientiously and discharged her duties diligently to the best of her ability in service to her fatherland. She remains the only Petroleum Minister to have left behind, a staggering sum of over

$4Billion in the NLNG Account representing Gas Sector Investment Funds. She did this to steady the incoming administration of former president, Muhammadu Buhari, at the end of her tenure in May, 2015. She did this in the hope of ensuring continuity in the development of the critical Gas sector). This sum which was saved for the development of the important Gas Sector was summarily spent and disbursed immediately by the Buhari administration upon assumption of office. No one appears interested in this foresight or patriotic inclination.

12. THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE POSITION OF HMPR

It should be appreciated by all that DAM’S position as the Federal Minister of Petroleum Resources was an extremely sensitive one that required careful navigation. This is a position which had before then and till now been mostly reserved for and been occupied  by the ruling Presidents of Nigeria in their personal capacities. This position came not only with its burdens, but also with special legitimate privileges which have since formed the linchpin and cornerstone of the underlying sundry accusations levied against her, but without any proof of having committed any offence known to law.

13. DAM HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED FOR 10 YEARS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION

For the avoidance of doubt, DAM remains the only former minister who has been kept under full focus and investigation in the United Kingdom by the UK authorities, in collaboration with the Nigerian authorities, since 2nd October, 2015. This is almost 10 years ago; and just barely one week after she completed and survived a grueling 8- month serial chemotherapy treatments for Triple Negative breast cancer. During this agonizing time, she went into a coma, escaping death by the whiskers.  It could only have been God at work that is alive today!

14. CONFIRMATION BY THE PAST EFCC CHAIRMAN THAT DAM IS INNOCENT OF THESE VILE ALLEGATIONS

It is of interest to note that on two separate occasions, the immediate past Executive Chairman of the EFCC, Abdulrasheed Bawa, confirmed to DAM’s other lawyers that no funds from the coffers of the Federal Government of Nigeria have been found ever stolen by her; and that no such funds had ever been traced to her.

15. DAM’S TRAVAILS ARE DRIVEN BY WILD SPECULATIONS AND PUBLIC LYNCHING MINDSET

DAM’s travails over these years have been founded solely on baseless and unfounded speculations and allegations which wrongly alleged that she obtained unlawful gifts and favours from operators within the petroleum industry. She had never been accosted or charged with stealing or pilfering government money. These matters of obtaining unlawful gifts and favours are now subject of proceedings against DAM in the United Kingdom.

16. DAM HAS BEEN DEPENDING ONLY ON GOODWILL FOR HER SURVIVAL

It is only recently that DAM was actually charged to court in the UK on the 2nd of October, 2023. She had prior to that date  been held in the UK for a prolonged period of over eight years whilst the UK’s authorities conducted their investigation on her. As she had no work papers, she was not permitted to work to fend for herself. She has not even been permitted to leave the UK since the 2nd of October, 2015, till date. Thus, for nearly ten years, DAM has had to depend for her survival, solely and entirely on the goodwill of a few friends and family members to survive.

17. SALIENT FACTS TO NOTE ABOUT DAM BUT WHICH HER TRADUCERS WILL WANT BURIED

The following facts are worth noting about DAM for the sake of history and posterity:

a. DAM was the most senior black woman ever in the African Oil and Gas Public Sector (between 2010 & 2015).

b. DAM was the first female Executive Director of Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria, in its entire history in Nigeria; a position she did not lobby for. She was identified, recognised and appointed, through her sheer dint of hard work and sense of professionalism by the relevant Global Heads of Shell in the Hague, Netherlands,

c. DAM has so far been the first and only female Petroleum Minister in Nigeria’s history. She never lobbied for this position. She was actually initially nominated without her knowledge.

d. DAM has been the first and only female President of OPEC in the organization’s entire history since its founding in 1960. She also did not lobby for this lofty position.

e. DAM was nominated for and served in various federal ministerial positions under two separate Presidents; positions she never sought nor lobbied for.

OUR PLEA TO ALL

We plead, as her lawyers, with all and sundry that she ge accorded fair hearing and that the process of these UK court proceedings be allowed to take their natural course to avoid prejudice to her in the ongoing subjudice UK proceedings against  her. Those purveyors and peddlers who habitually spin these outrightly false, unfounded, defamatory, unintelligent and indefensible narratives to denigrate and humiliate her should please find better use of their time and leave DAM alone. Let the law take its natural course without interference. We humbly pray.

The unfortunate and, I venture to say, unwise obfuscation of the distinction between the two great branches of our profession (litigation and transactional law) is the principal cause of the most appalling confusion and misapplication of principles for our professional conduct.

We copy almost blindly, sometimes without recourse to the institutional and societal guardrails that insulate the UK and the US from the negative consequences of latter-day forays outside the tested and trusted institutional practices that for centuries have upheld us and sustained the integrity of our judicial process and of our legal system.

Read Also: BOSAN cannot re-write the Rules of Professional Conduct on advertisement

Advertisement might be tolerable for the work of solicitors and for other transactional aspects of our noble profession. It is a totally different and potentially destructive thing for the legal system when courtroom lawyers purport to employ the same thing.

Look at America!
And, except for the larger restraints in England, look at what is slowly also becoming of that most coherent, predictable and respectable jurisdiction.

It’s not every innovation that we should blindly copy!

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

Colonial occupation and domination prospered by abducting and liquidating the most vocal Africans. Those whom it drove into exile were lucky. Sir Evelyn Baring invented the manual on this form of predation as governor of colonial Kenya for seven years until 1959. Six decades after independence, the man who rode to power in Nairobi two years ago by promising to make Kenya great again is unapologetically reprising Sir Evelyn’s manual minus the internment camps.

In June 2021, Abubakar Malami, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and Nigeria’s federal Attorney-General, announced with some relish that Nnamdi Kanu – self-proclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) – had been returned to Nigeria after being “intercepted” in an un-named location. Malami had initiated the prosecution of Mr. Kanu in 2015 for treason. In April 2017, the courts granted bail to Kanu. Five months later, he disappeared from public view after soldiers reportedly raided his country home in Abia State in south-east Nigeria leading to scores of fatalities. The following month, he was reportedly sighted in Jerusalem.

The circumstances of Mr. Kanu’s return to Nigeria in 2021 degenerated quickly from mystery to controversy. The International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL), whom Nigeria initially credited with assistance in the “interception”, firmly denied any involvement in the operation.

When he announced the “interception” of Mr. Kanu, Attorney-General Malami claimed that it was accomplished by the “collaborative efforts of Nigerian intelligence and security services.” In October 2022, however, Nigeria’s Court of Appeal found as a fact that Mr. Kanu “was in Kenya, was abducted therefrom and there were no extradition proceedings undertaken prior to his forcible abduction.”

Kenya unconvincingly denied involvement in the abduction. Very importantly, however, the Government of Kenya (GOK) offered no protest against what was clearly a spectacular violation of its sovereignty. The conclusion had to be that the GOK authorized Mr. Kanu’s abduction from its territory. Prior and subsequent conduct by the GOK provide ample evidence to support this.

On 2 February 2018, operatives of Kenya’s security services used explosives to gain entrance into the premises of former student leader and lawyer, Miguna Miguna, from where they abducted him into detention incommunicado. After several days of keeping him out of circulation, they drove Dr. Miguna to the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi, where they declared him a “prohibited immigrant” and deported him to Canada.

As a prominent student leader during the regime of President Daniel Arap Moi in the 1980s, Miguna was exiled to Canada. From there, he sought several times without success to renew his Kenyan nationality documents. Canada eventually granted him refugee status and he traveled initially under documentation provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees before eventually being forced to acquire Canadian nationality.

Upon returning to Kenya in 2007, Dr. Miguna enrolled as a lawyer, served as senior adviser to the Prime Minister and subsequently ran for high public office. It was not in dispute that both of his parents were Kenyans or that he was Kenyan by birth and by descent. In a decision on 14 December 2018, the High Court of Kenya found that the government of Kenya abducted and deported Dr. Miguna “despite court orders directing that he be produced in court” and lamented the fact that “it is inconceivable that the state can deport its own citizen to a second country without due regard to the constitution and the law.”

William Ruto was Kenya’s Vice-President when Mr. Kanu and Dr. Miguna were abducted. In 2022, he became president.

On 16 November 2024, leading Ugandan opposition politician, Dr. Kiiza Besigye, who was in Nairobi to attend the launch of a book by former Kenyan Justice Minister and senior lawyer, Martha Karua, disappeared. Five days later, he surfaced before a military tribunal in the custody of the Uganda Peoples Defence Force (UPDF) on fanciful charges of illegal possession of firearms. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed shock at “the abduction of Ugandan opposition politician Kizza Besigye on 16 November 2024 in Kenya and his forcible return to Uganda.”

Dr. Besigye’s experience was not the first abduction of Ugandan opposition in Kenya. In July 2024, Kenya’s security services similarly snatched 36 members of Dr. Besigye’s Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) who were in the country for a meeting and expelled them to Uganda into the arms of the UPDF, who promptly charged them with “terrorism” before a military tribunal. The United Nations later expressed concern that President Museveni’s practice in Uganda of charging civilians before military tribunals was “in contravention of the country’s obligations under international human rights law.”

In October 2024, Kenyan authorities similarly abducted seven Turkish refugees and refouled them back to Turkey into the arms of the government that had exiled them.

In the period since the anti-Finance Bill protests in the country between June to December 2024, Kenya’s National Human Rights Commission has reported the abduction and disappearance of at least 82 persons. Some of the abducted have turned up dead. When young people in Nigeria protested two months after their colleagues in Kenya, the Nigerian government decided to borrow a leaf from President Ruto’s playbook.

Back in Nairobi, one of the victims of these abductions by the GOK was Leslie Muturi. His father, Justin Bedan Muturi, happens to be the Cabinet Secretary (Minister) for Public Service in the government President Ruto. Around June 22, 2024, Leslie Muturi was disappeared. At the time, his father, Justin, was the Attorney-General of Kenya and sat in the National Security Council with the Director of National Intelligence Service, Noordin Haji.

In the past week, Justin Muturi has narrated how his effort to locate his son took him through the entrails of the high command of Kenya’s deep state to the presence of his boss, President Ruto, who ordered Noordin Haji to release Leslie. Less than an hour thereafter., Leslie returned to his family.

Justin Muturi’s clinical account of what transpired in the disappearance of his son clearly establishes the culpability of Kenya’s president and security high command under him in resuscitating a culture of state-sponsored abductions redolent of the worst excesses of Sir Evelyn Baring’s colonial era abuses.

After denying culpability last November, President Ruto promised on 28 December 2024 to end the abductions, in effect admitting state complicity. Two days later, the continental human rights body of the African Union expressed “profound alarm over reports of abductions and enforced disappearances in Kenya.”

Less than a fortnight into the New Year, Tanzania’s leading independent journalist, Maria Sarungi Tsehai, survived an abduction from a shopping mall in Nairobi. Ms. Tsehai and her family have been exiled in Kenya for over four years. Maria was lucky. Two years earlier, Kenyan police officers murdered exiled Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif, in Nairobi. Despite a court order and appeals by the United Nations, his killers continue to escape accountability.

When they re-established the East African Community in 1999, the original partner states in East Africa – Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda – desired to advance transactional life and spaces in the region. Under current leadership, however, these states are now using regional integration to advance the expendability of African civic and transactional life. They are collaborating across inter-state borders to liquidate critics and perceived enemies and make their lives precarious.

It seems clear that these abductions in Kenya are taking place under the direct command of government or, even more frightening, have been outsourced to non-state actors acting under the authority and protection of the State. The latter may explain the intractable nature of the abductions and the inability of Ruto’s GOK to bring it under control despite the assurances of the President and the escalating diplomatic costs and investment runs.

This was hardly what Kenyans or the rest of Africa hoped for when the people chose President Ruto’s vision of a “hustler” nation over the other options on offer in Kenya’s 2022 presidential election. The only hustle presently taking place under his watch is the hustling of innocent citizens and visitors into enforced disappearance and exile. From the comfort of his grave, Sir Evelyn must feel exceedingly proud of William Ruto.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

By Tonye Clinton Jaja, PhD

It was reported that the Anambra State Government of Nigeria has enacted a law entitled: Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025. It is reported that the said law comes in effect on 17th January 2025.

A summary of the said law is stated as follows:

“This law establishes Agunechemba, a structured state security outfit designed to complement and support existing law enforcement agencies in preventing crime, detecting criminal activities, and preserving law and order across all communities, local governments, and urban centers in Anambra State.”

As laudable as the said law may appear on paper, both the interpretation and implementation of certain provisions of the said law could result in unintended consequences which both the legislators and the drafters of the said law did not envisage.

This problem of unintended consequences of legislation is a common problem that afflicts both the law-making and legislative drafting process in Nigeria and other third world countries.

In my over fifteen years of teaching and practice as a legislative drafting lawyer, I have identified the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and robust consultations with the users of the legislation as the major culprit.

Whereas in industrialised countries like the United Kingdom, under it’s Regulatory and Legislative Reform Act, 2006, it is a mandatory requirement that consultations must be held prior to submitting a Bill to the Parliament of United Kingdom. The purpose of the said consultations is to obtain first-hand information and documentation to ascertain the number of citizens who are supposed beneficiaries or otherwise of the proposed law.

Based on the consultation documents which are attached to the Bills and submitted to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the legislators would know the prevailing thoughts of their citizens on any Bill.

In contrast, in Nigeria, even though the holding of public hearings by both the National Assembly of Nigeria and State Houses of Assembly appears to be the equivalent of holding consultations, in actual practice, such public hearings do not translate into legislators voting to favour the members of the public who submitted their written and oral submissions during such public hearings.

The end result, (as is the case with this Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025) is that the legislators end up enacting a legislation which they assume (with all the best of intentions) is valuable for their constituents, but which in actual practice produces negative consequences upon the said citizens when the said legislation is interpreted or implemented.

In other words, such a legislation ends up fulfilling the cliche:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

The meaning of this statement is as follows:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is a proverb that means good intentions are not enough, one must also take action.

It can also mean that good intentions can lead to bad consequences.

Explanation

The proverb emphasizes that people must act in accordance with their intentions, or they may face problems or punishment.

It can also be used to describe situations where someone promises to do something but doesn’t follow through.
For example, someone might promise to bring bread to a community event to raise money for a playground, but then doesn’t show up.

Examples:
Introducing Asian carp into the United States in the 1970s to control algae blooms was an action that had good intentions, but led to bad consequences.”

This Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025 appears to fall into this category.

As well-intentioned as it may appear to be, certain Sections of the said legislation are capable of producing unintended consequences.

Although there are many Sections that are capable of producing unintended consequences, I shall focus on only Section 18, which is reproduced below as follows:

“Section 18: 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬.

1. Any person who under the practice of “𝑶𝒌𝒆𝒊𝒕𝒆” or “𝑬𝒛𝒆 𝑵𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒊” or under any other guise, administers any substance or charm on or for any other person for the purpose of commission of any offence or for the purpose of accumulation of wealth by supernatural means other than by any known lawful means of livelihood or who publicly propagates the accumulation of such wealth other than by any known lawful means of livelihood, commits and offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of 6 years with an option of fine of 20 million naira or both.
2. Any person who performs any sacrifice or dumps on any road or thrown into any water body in the state, any charms, substance or items of sacrifice in foregrance of the commission of any offense under subsection 1 of this section, commits and offense and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of 6 years with an option of fine of 20 million Naira or both.
3. Any person who misleads the public by purporting to wield any Supernatural powers which he is found not to possess or who obtains any reward from any person in furtherance thereof, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of 6 years with an option of fine of 20 million naira or both.
4. For the purpose of ascertaining whether or not a person possesses the natural powers under subsection 3 of this section, any such person suspected of misleading the public under subsection 3 of this section shall at the stage of investigation, be subjected to proof that he possesses such powers.
5. An investigation made by the police in respect of any offence under this section shall be forwarded to the Attorney General of the State for review and advice before the prosecution of any person suspected of having committed the offence.”

One of the problems with this legislation is that it has singled out the worshippers or adherents of a particular brand of Indigenous African religion namely:
“Any person who under the practice of “𝑶𝒌𝒆𝒊𝒕𝒆” or “𝑬𝒛𝒆 𝑵𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒊” while leaving the worshippers of other deities such as “Amadi-Oha” or “Okija Shrine”.

Also, the legislation does not provide a scientific criteria about how the legislators decided to classify the two forms of traditional African religion (namely “𝑶𝒌𝒆𝒊𝒕𝒆” or “𝑬𝒛𝒆 𝑵𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒊”) as illegal.

The unintended consequence that may arise is that previous adherents of “𝑶𝒌𝒆𝒊𝒕𝒆” or “𝑬𝒛𝒆 𝑵𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒊” may now switch their adulation to other deities, therefore, the Anambra State Homeland Security may be left with no one to arrest under this Section.

Another unintended consequence of this particular Section is that it does not stipulate the scientifically verifiable criteria that would be applied to determine when an offender is guilty of using a charm or other means to use supernatural powers on another person.

I could go on and on.

It just highlights one of the problems that arises when non-professional legislative drafting lawyers are engaged to draft legislation.

Sometime last year or the year earlier, a government official of another South-Eastern had contacted me to serve as a consultant for the same Homeland Security in a different State of the South Estate.

I declined for two reasons: they wanted it as a pro bono service and morally and ethically I did not believe in the concept behind the said legislation.

It was promoted by a certain Special Adviser to the Governor of the said South Eastern State.

The said Special Adviser was previously resident in the United States of America, wherein they have the Department of Homeland Security. Nothing on earth was going to dissuade the said Special Adviser from not using the name: “Department of Homeand Security”

By Tonye Clinton Jaja

“Alacrity” is defined as “brisk or cheerful readiness”.

A lot of suscipion has been raised, regarding the alacrity with which the Inspector-General of Police announced that the Nigerian Police would commence implementation of the motor vehicle (third party) insurance policy as from 1st February 2025.

This is not the same alacrity that we hear when the Nigerian Police is confronting other forms of crimes which are of a more serious nature.

For example, we are yet to hear any announcements from the Inspector-General of Police that as from 1st February 2025, all Boko Haram terrorists who disturb travellers on federal highways in Borno State would be arrested and prosecuted.

Neither, have we witnessed any such alacrity from the Inspector-General of Police that all kidnappers will be arrested as from 1st February 2025. We expected such announcement when the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) published a report that says that kidnapping for ransom payments is draining the Nigerian economy of an estimated total of ₦2.3 trillion naira annually as of the year 2024.

Any right thinking person would have expected that PRIORITY would be given by the Nigerian Police to the more serious crimes such as kidnapping for ransom payments and Boko Haram lawlessness.

Or is it a case of the Nigerian Police choosing to cherry pick the “low-hanging fruits”.

It is easier to enforce the laws against the law-abiding citizens rather than go after the gun-toting kidnappers and Boko Haram bandits. Although, at the point of recruitment, it is assumed that every police officer is adequately trained on how to tackle gun-toting criminals.

Apart from the concerns about the alacrity of the Nigerian Police, there are legal obstacles on why the Nigerian Police cannot be enforcing the legislation that was enacted in the year 1945 namely the Motor Vehicle (Third Party) Insurance Policy Act.

The reason is that the Insurance Act, 2004 is a later legislation. Specifically, Section 68 of the said law names the National Insurance Commission as the agency of the federal government that is responsible for administering the Motor Vehicle Third Party Insurance Policy in Nigeria. And this agency has been performing it’s duty in this regard through its collaboration with both the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) and Vehicle Inspectorate Offices within the various states of Nigeria.

For purposes of clarity, the Rule of Law is that when there are two legislation (the Motor Vehicle (Third Party) Insurance Policy Act, 1945 and the Insurance Act, 2004) that deal with a specific subject matter, it is the later law (Insurance Act, 2004) that would prevail.

Below is a reproduction of a summary of the relevant Rules pertaining to legislation as follows:

“Yes, later legislation usually prevails over earlier legislation. This is known as the principle of leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant, which means “later laws abrogate earlier laws”.

Explanation

Conflicting statutes
When two statutes conflict, the later statute prevails unless the earlier statute is clearer.

Conflicting statutes and treaties
When a statute and a treaty conflict, the last expression of the sovereign will prevails.

Implied repeal
When the provisions of two statutes cannot stand together, the later statute prevails and the earlier statute is impliedly repealed.

Non obstante clauses
When two statutory provisions conflict, the provision with a non obstante clause prevails.”

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