Home Blog Page 4

Botswana cuts power, shuts borders as xenophobia crisis rocks South Africa

© 2022 Mohamed Shiraaz/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Photo

A fast-escalating diplomatic standoff is rattling Southern Africa, after Duma Boko’s government took the extraordinary step of cutting electricity exports to parts of South Africa and sealing its borders, citing rising xenophobic attacks against its citizens.

The sweeping measures, unprecedented in the region’s post-apartheid history, mark a sharp break from decades of quiet diplomacy and regional solidarity.

Power Cut With Regional Consequences

Botswana’s reported suspension of electricity supply to several South African provinces threatens to deepen an already fragile energy situation in Africa’s most industrialized economy, where rolling blackouts have become routine.

While officials have yet to outline the full scope of the disruption, the move signals a willingness to weaponize economic leverage in response to what Gaborone describes as sustained hostility toward Batswana nationals.

Borders Closed, Citizens Recalled

In tandem, Botswana ordered the immediate closure of its borders with South Africa and called for the urgent return of its citizens, framing the directive as a protective measure amid growing unrest.

In a nationally televised address, President Boko struck a sharply emotional tone—invoking history as both warning and rebuke.

“We stood with you during your fight against oppression,” he said. “Today, our citizens are humiliated.”

The statement reflects mounting frustration among African governments over recurring waves of xenophobic violence in South Africa—long a magnet for migrants seeking economic opportunity.

A Region Reacts

Botswana’s actions appear to be triggering a broader diplomatic ripple effect across the continent.

Several countries are now reassessing their posture toward South Africa, with some reportedly issuing ultimatums to South African nationals and reviewing trade and travel arrangements. Others, meanwhile, are accelerating alternative regional partnerships—signalling a potential realignment in Southern African cooperation.

 Xenophobia, Politics, and Pressure

Driving the crisis is South Africa’s long-running struggle with xenophobia, periodically inflamed by economic hardship and political rhetoric.

Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, recently condemned anti-immigrant violence, questioning its economic logic:

“After chasing foreigners, how many jobs have you created?” he asked, criticizing those who scapegoat migrants without addressing structural unemployment.

But such voices compete with more hardline narratives. Figures linked to movements like uMkhonto weSizwe and traditional authorities—including Misuzulu kaZwelithini—have faced criticism for rhetoric widely seen as inflaming tensions against foreign nationals.

Grassroots groups such as Operation Dudula have also gained prominence, amplifying calls for the removal of undocumented migrants.

Old Debates, New Tensions

The unfolding crisis is also reviving a deeper, unresolved continental debate: whether African nations paid too high a price supporting South Africa’s liberation struggle.

Columnist Festus Adedayo recently argued that billions spent by countries like Nigeria might have been better invested domestically, potentially reducing outward migration.

But that view has drawn sharp rebuttal.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ikeazor Akaraiwe, SAN, countered bluntly:

“If that money had not been spent, it would not have made Nigeria better—it would have been stolen.”

A Turning Point for African Diplomacy?

Botswana’s actions signal a potential shift in how African states respond to internal crises spilling across borders—from dialogue to direct economic and political pressure.

What was once managed quietly through regional blocs may now be entering a more confrontational phase.

And as tensions rise, one question looms: Is this a temporary rupture, or the beginning of a deeper fracture in African unity?

Abanobi V the state and the evil of kidnapping (2)

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

The Ingredients of Offence of Kidnapping:

THE prosecution discharges its burden of proving the offence of kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt when the evidence adduced demonstrates the unlawful taking of the victim, against his or her wish. In order for the prosecution to succeed, it has to prove the following facts beyond reasonable doubt:

  • that the victim was seized and taken away by the accused person; and
  • that the victim was taken away against his consent or will;
  • and that the victim was taken away without lawful excuse or that the act was carried out without lawful justification.

The offence of kidnapping is complete when the victim is carried away against his wish. Therefore, the essential elements coalesce around the non-consensual deprivation of liberty through the physical removal of the person from his or her chosen location. The specific intention of the perpetrator is not a necessary element for the completion of the actus reus of kidnapping in all its forms. In the instant case, the kidnappers were intercepted by law enforcement officers before reaching their intended destination to demand ransom. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to prove an actual ransom demand in the light of the disruption of the crime by the police. The essential elements of kidnapping were sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt.

Read Also: Abanobi V the state and the evil of kidnapping (1)

The Standard of Proof of Crime and Meaning of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt:

For the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused person, evidence must be led to prove such guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Although proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt, it means the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused person with convincing, compelling and conclusive evidence.

How to Prove Criminal Intention:

A defendant’s intention can be inferred from his conduct, surrounding circumstances and intervening events within which he acts. It is from the manifestation of his conduct that his intention can be ascertained. The most direct and compelling avenue for establishing intention lies in the individual’s own articulation. A voluntary confession, freely and unequivocally made, wherein the defendant explicitly declares his purpose, offers the clearest insight into his state of mind at the material time. However, such explicit admissions are infrequent occurrences.

Read Also: Grounding Creativity: How Nigeria’s drone regulations prioritize control and revenue over safety and innovation

In the instant case, on a community consideration of the appellant’s conduct, coupled with the entire circumstances of the case as well as the events leading to the same, the making of the inference from his obvious conduct could not be speculative so as to cast any doubt on his intention. The appellant’s intention was in tandem with the particular “for purposes of payment of ransom kidnaps and takes another person hostage”.

Read Also: APC’s politics of consensus, By Lasisi Olagunju

The Proper Forum for Attack on Credibility of Witness:

The proper forum for an assault on the credibility of a witness is at the trial court, during the heat of the proceedings, and not in a written brief presented at an appellate court. In the instant case, despite the opportunity afforded, the appellant failed to meaningfully challenge the testimony of PW2. Under cross-examination, she remained steadfast in her assertion that she identified the appellant by the illumination provided by flashlights. The appellant’s attempt to discredit her in his brief of argument was a wrong tactic.

How to Establish Inconsistency in Evidence of Witness:

Inconsistency in evidence can only be established by comparing multiple pieces of evidence given by the same witness. In the instant case, the appellant contended that PW2’s testimony, relied upon by the trial court, was inconsistent. However, PW2’s extra-judicial statement, which the respondent sought to tender, was objected to by the appellant and consequently marked as rejected at the trial court. So, there was no second version of PW2’s statement on record against which her testimony before the trial court could be evaluated for contradictions. Thus, the appellant’s claim that PW2’s testimony was inconsistent lacked foundation.

The Effect of Document Marked Rejected:

Once a document is marked as rejected, it remains inadmissible for all purposes within the same trial and its defect cannot be cured in that proceeding.

The Primary Duty of Trial Court to Evaluate Evidence and Ascribe Probative Value Thereto:

A trial court, which has the opportunity to observe the demeanour of witnesses, is best suited to evaluate their credibility and ascribe probative value to their testimony. In the instant case, the trial court rightly held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of PW2’s eyewitness account and the testimony of PW4, who rescued the victim from the trunk of the Peugeot 406 wagon.

NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT:

On Serious Nature and Effect of Kidnapping the Old and Elderly and Duty on Court to Protect the Vulnerable, Uphold the Law and Preserve Values of Nigerian Society:

Per OKORO, J.S.C. at page 610, paras. A-D:

“Kidnapping, in any form, is a heinous offence, but the targeting of a 98-year-old woman, frail and vulnerable, for the purposes of ransom, reveals a depth of depravity that is shocking to the conscience.

It is particularly disturbing that the perpetrators of this crime are young men who have shown a complete disregard for the sanctity of age and the respect owed to our elders, ignoring the hallowed years, the elders sacred right! Kidnapping instills fear, erodes trust, and undermines the sense of security that should prevail in our communities. When the elderly, who are often the most vulnerable, are targeted, it sends a chilling message that no one is safe. It disrupts the social order and threatens to destroy the bonds of respect and care that hold us together. I hope that this conviction and the sentence imposed will serve as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to engage in such reprehensible acts. Let it be known that this court will not tolerate such crimes and will come down heavily on those who perpetrate them. It is our duty to protect the vulnerable, to uphold the law, and to preserve the values of our society.”

CONCLUSION

The state of crime in the country has become very alarming, especially when life itself has become a tool for commercial ventures. In most cases, kidnapping is seen as a means to enrich the perpetrators, at the expense of the lives of the victims. With the disturbing revelation that even the government has been paying ransom to kidnappers, citizens have become seriously helpless. Although many States have adjusted their criminal laws to make the offence of kidnapping punishable with death, this alone will not solve the monstrous problem.

Deployment of technology, funding of the law enforcement agencies, inter-agency collaborations between the relevant agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of crime, effective prosecution of suspected kidnappers and active engagement of the youth in the formal and informal sectors are viable solutions for consideration. There is an urgent need for a holistic overhaul of the entire security architecture of the nation to make it more effective and result oriented.

This is important and critical for national peace and development as a violence-free environment is a booster for rapid economic development. In addition, political office holders should stop arming youths for political engagements and contests. The danger in this is that such dastardly efforts always backfire after the main mission has been accomplished. Political thugs become an unwarranted liability on the masses, including their families. The backing provided by political heavy weights encourages the criminals to advance in their nefarious activities, knowing that even when they are caught, somebody somewhere will intervene to grant them soft landing.

This has always been the bane of effective war on crimes and criminals. At the stage of arrest, extraneous interventions work out in their favour to either secure their release or facilitate favourable prosecution through defective charges, poor investigation and lame prosecution, all meant to create loopholes for the accused person to lap upon to defeat the case against him. Added to this is the need for a central data regime that will capture the relevant particulars of all citizens. Accurate data is an effective tool in forensic investigation and analysis.

When justice fails…

For three decades he terrorized an entire town, and when someone finally shot him in broad daylight, fifty witnesses saw nothing.

Skidmore, Missouri. Population: 400.

For thirty years, Ken McElroy was the town bully. But “bully” doesn’t quite cover it. He was a one-man reign of terror.
McElroy was charged with assault, child molestation, statutory rape, arson, animal cruelty, burglary, and attempted murder over the course of three decades. He shot people. He burned down houses. He stole livestock. He intimidated witnesses. He married a 14-year-old girl he’d been abusing since she was even younger.
And he never spent a single day in jail.

Read Also: The Death of Ken McElroy, The Town Bully

Read Also: Echoes of Trauma: When justice becomes a wound

He had a lawyer who knew how to work the system. He intimidated witnesses into silence—sometimes with threats, sometimes with violence. He’d show up outside people’s homes with a rifle. He’d follow them. He’d make it clear what would happen if they testified against him.

The law couldn’t touch him. Or wouldn’t. The result was the same.
The final straw came when McElroy shot an elderly shopkeeper named Bo Bowenkamp in the neck with a shotgun. Bowenkamp survived, barely. McElroy was finally convicted of assault.

Read Also: Where is Dr. Akinwumi Adesina at this time?

But even then, he didn’t go to jail. He posted bond and walked free while awaiting sentencing. The people of Skidmore had had enough.

On July 10, 1981, the town held a meeting at the American Legion hall to discuss “the Ken McElroy problem.” Sixty people attended. They talked about what to do. How to protect themselves. How to stop a man the law couldn’t stop.

After the meeting, they walked out to the street. McElroy was sitting in his truck with his wife Trena, parked right outside. Then someone shot him. And then someone else shot him.

In broad daylight, on the main street of Skidmore, Missouri, with at least fifty witnesses standing nearby, Ken McElroy was shot twice—once in the back of the head, once in the neck. He died almost instantly.
His wife Trena was sitting right next to him. She saw the shooters. So did fifty other people.

No one called an ambulance. No one rushed to help. People just slowly dispersed and went about their day.
When police arrived and started interviewing witnesses, something remarkable happened.
No one saw anything. No one heard anything. No one remembered who was standing where or who might have had a gun.

Fifty people. Bright daylight. Main street of a tiny town where everyone knows everyone.
And not a single person could—or would—identify the shooter.
The investigation went nowhere. A grand jury was convened. They declined to indict anyone. The FBI got involved. They found nothing.

To this day, more than forty years later, no one has been charged with Ken McElroy’s murder.
Because in Skidmore, Missouri, on July 10, 1981, the social contract broke. The law had failed to protect people from a violent predator for three decades. So the people decided to protect themselves.

This isn’t a story about justice. It’s a story about what happens when justice fails for so long that a community decides to take matters into their own hands.

Ken McElroy terrorized Skidmore for thirty years. He hurt children. He shot people. He destroyed property. He threatened families. And when someone finally killed him, the entire town agreed on one thing: they didn’t see a thing.

That’s not the rule of law. That’s vigilante justice. And in Skidmore, Missouri, they’re fine with that.
Because Ken McElroy is dead, and no one’s been terrorizing their town since.

Credit: https://web.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1009698754948470&id=100077250631803&mibextid=wwXIfr&rdid=sJahfVNzDpEg205T#

Where is Dr. Akinwumi Adesina at this time?

By Martins Oloja

I was ruminating over the values, content, context and even competencies around ‘consensus building’ which dominates the ongoing leadership recruitment within the political parties in Nigeria when the question of the whereabouts of the immediate past President of African Development Bank, Dr Akinwumi Adesina came to the fore. The thought strayed quickly to some of the best brains that I had thought should be part of nominations when leadership recruitment of a great nation like this comes into focus.

I had also thought about some significant people who may not be prominent but significant within the political circles who may not contest but can be tapped and tipped at such a time like this. Don’t get it twisted, I believe some significant citizens, technocrats, professionals can be ‘headhunted’ at this time to be part of the dominant political parties without contesting elections. Elsewhere, even professors of significance, active students are encouraged to join good political parties that have development orientation and ideologies.

In 2013 I was on the team of National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) Study Team in Washington D.C when Professor Tijjani Muhammad-Bande who led the team was the DG of NIPSS. The theme for the year was “Management of Political Parties”. I was in a session addressed by two professors of political science from the department of political management of George Washington University, Washington D.C. The two resource persons, (one female and one male) introduced themselves to the NIPSS team as members of the two dominant political parties in the United States, the Republican and Democratic Parties.

They exchanged great banters while deconstructing how the party system works to shape politics and policies in the United States. We rose from their very constructive and robust colloquium to visit the physical offices of the National Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute created by congressional acts to shape policies for the parties.

Here is the thing, as we grope for democracy for development at this time, our leaders need to recruit good and knowledgeable citizens into the political parties’ platforms as no one can be elected without membership of any of the registered parties. No independent candidature provision in the organic laws of the land. What is more telling, a great author Robins Sharma’s classic addresses leaders who didn’t have titles. You don’t need titles to lead in well-governed systems.

Now to the brass tacks: I had wondered why the federal government didn’t bother to celebrate end of a very successful and impactful tenure of Dr. Adesina at the AfDB inside Nigeria. He was a worthy ambassador of Nigeria, celebrated all over Africa and the world.

I didn’t just read about the first class graduate of Agricultural Economics of the Obafemi Awolowo University and University of Purdue, United States where he bagged his doctorate with a distinction of the best doctoral thesis. I (as MD/Editor-in-Chief), wrote the front-page preface to cover at The Guardian in 2021 when the Great Editorial Board of The Guardian unanimously chose Dr. Adesina as the newspaper’s ‘Man of the Year’. The significant scholar and Nigeria’s former Minister of Agriculture also delivered The Guardian’s 40th birthday anniversary lecture titled, ‘For The World To Respect Africa’ on November 28, 2023. The classic lecture is still being shared.

Besides, I can also recall excellent brains from even Lagos such as Babatunde Raji Fashola and his successor, Akinwunmi Ambode who wasn’t allowed a second term as Governor of Lagos State. These are organic critical thinkers, philosopher-kings who should not be outside government system that would want to succeed. They are tested. Before my brother, Simon Kolawole would claim, “it all politics, after all”, I also wonder why excellent brains like Oby Ezekwesili can’t be attracted to represent her people in any organs of governance. She has served even at the World Bank as Vice President. Why would a tested scholar and administrator like Professor Attahiru Jega be restricted to a mere advisory role in Livestock Development? What kind of politics would have confined a former Vice Chancellor and a respected former Chairman of INEC to that corner piece as a Special Adviser where mediocrities are calling the shot?

I still continue to wonder why Citizen Placid Njoku, one of the best professors of Animal Science in Africa, pioneer Vice Chancellor of Mike Okpara University of Agriculture, and former Deputy Governor of Imo State can’t be nominated from Imo state as even an Ambassador as an APC member.

Have I mentioned one of the best brains in Nuclear Science in the world, Professor Anthony Adegbulugbe, a first class scholar who obtained 5.0 of 5.0 GPA in Electronic and Electrical Engineering in O.A.U, Ile-Ife in 1976 and completed his doctoral degree in Nuclear Material Engineering (IMT) with a distinction recognised by American Academy of Nuclear Engineers? Professor Adegbulugbe has even invested in two remarkable projects, Gas to Power Plant and Crude Oil Export Terminal in Andoni Local Government in Rivers State. The two hundreds of millions of dollars worth of projects were commissioned by the federal governments in 2024 and 2025.

Who is attracting that kind of genius to be part of even a functional Presidential Advisory Council? Does anyone remember Professor Suleiman Bogoro who was Executive Secretary of TertFund? He is one of the most reliable intellectuals in the North. Why can’t a good political party system court such a brain and others to help rebuild this broken country? I have also wondered why the biggest of the Lagos Big Boys, former Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo too hasn’t been visible at the governing political party and governance advisory level. When will the governing and opposition parties begin to run a merit-based and respectable government system that will openly attract even the Dangotes and intellectuals to the existing political parties in Nigeria?

Now let’s return to the focal point: Akinwumi Adesina, unarguably one of Nigeria’s Brand Ambassadors. He was honoured recently in some African countries including the Gambia where the University named the School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences after him. But prophet is yet to be honoued in his home country. Where is Dr Adesina at this time?

The former President of the African Development Bank (AfDB) was honoured the other day in Ghana for his decades-long contributions to agricultural innovation, economic transformation, and sustainable development across Africa. According to a report on Channels Tv, in a night that blended celebration with conviction, Adesina delivered a stirring message of African optimism after receiving the ‘African Lifetime Achievement Award’ in Accra, declaring emphatically that the continent is no longer a promise – but an “investable reality.” The honour, presented by Ghanaian President John Mahama at the 4th African Heritage Awards on April 11, 2026, recognised Adesina’s decades-long contributions to agricultural innovation, economic transformation, and sustainable development across Africa. Held at the Mövenpick Ambassador Hotel, the ceremony drew prominent African leaders and change makers, reinforcing the growing momentum behind a self-driven African development agenda.

Adesina, who recently concluded his decade-long tenure as President of the African Development Bank (AfDB), used the platform not just to reflect on past achievements, but to articulate a bold vision for Africa’s future – one driven by investment, not aid.

“I do not serve Africa for applause –I serve Africa as a mission. Serving Africa is a lifetime calling,” he said, drawing sustained applause from the audience.

In a speech rich with data, Adesina pushed back against long-held narratives that frame Africa as a continent of unrealised potential. Instead, he argued that Africa has entered a new phase – one of measurable growth and global relevance.

Citing projections from the International Monetary Fund, (IMF) he noted that Africa is expected to record approximately 4.2% GDP growth in 2026, positioning it as the fastest-growing region globally for multiple consecutive years.

“This is not cyclical recovery. This is structural revaluation,” Adesina said. “Africa is not just growing. Africa is compounding.”

He pointed to African corporate giants as proof of this transformation, referencing the rise of the Dangote Group, MTN Group, Safaricom, and Jumia as signals of scale, resilience, and readiness.

A recurring theme throughout the evening was the urgent need to reposition Africa in the global economic system – not as a recipient of aid, but as a destination for structured, large-scale investment.

Adesina highlighted the continent’s vast reserves of critical minerals – estimated at 30% of global supply – yet lamented that Africa attracts less than 5% of global investment flows in that sector. “That gap is not risk. It is mispricing,” he said.

To bridge this divide, Adesina spotlighted the Global Africa Investment Summit (GAIS), a platform he co-founded to connect African sovereign assets with institutional investors worldwide. According to him, the initiative aims to unlock long-term capital flows into infrastructure, energy, and digital systems across the continent. “This is not aid. This is not charity. This is alpha,” he declared.

Adesina’s recognition comes on the heels of a career marked by transformative reforms. As Nigeria’s former Minister of Agriculture, he spearheaded initiatives that reached over 15 million farmers and restructured the fertiliser sector to curb corruption. At the AfDB, he oversaw a historic increase in the bank’s capital – from less than a $100 billion to more than $300 billion – while driving projects that impacted over 500 million Africans, particularly in energy access, infrastructure, and food security.

His leadership has previously earned global acclaim, including the World Food Prize and recognition as African of the Decade in 2024.

The African Heritage Awards, now in its fourth edition, has honoured a distinguished list of African leaders, including Goodluck Jonathan and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, underscoring its growing stature as a platform celebrating African excellence.
 
In an emotional prologue, Adesina dedicated the award to Nigeria, describing it as the foundation of his journey and a constant force behind his achievements. .

“Nigeria gave me my beginning… it gave me opportunity when opportunity was not guaranteed,” he said. “This honour returns home – not as repayment, but as gratitude.” Yet his message extended beyond national borders, resonating with a broader continental identity.

“I will live as an African. I will die as an African… and I dedicate this honour to Africa – not as she was, but as she is destined to be.”

Perhaps the most defining takeaway from the evening was Adesina’s insistence that Africa’s rise is no longer a question of possibility – but of timing and global readiness. “The question is no longer whether Africa will ascend,” he said. “The question is whether the world is ready for the Africa that has already ascended.”

It was a statement that captured both the urgency and inevitability of Africa’s moment—one that Adesina believes has already begun.

This is just a wake-up call to the ruling and indeed the political class that they can’t rise beyond the quality of the people within the political party and governance systems.

In the main, the President of Nigeria and other opposition party leaders should begin to attract significant citizens like Dr. Adesina, to their parties and government. That is how to build a remarkable country and global brand and competitiveness.

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

Tinubu: Borrowing is leprosy, Suyi Ayodele

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.” William Shakespeare, Hamlet (Act 1, Scene 3)

Nigeria has shifted from incurring debt as an instrument of policy to embracing it as a condition of survival. It is a dangerous evolution—made worse when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appears to regard debt not as leprosy, but as ornament.

Greek philosopher, Plutarch (before AD50-after 120), wrote a piece titled: “That We Ought Not to Borrow.”   What the old Greek philosopher said in the piece, published in Vol. X of the Loeb Classical Library edition of the Moralia, 1936 (Pg. 315-339), shows that borrowing is worse than leprosy in all ramifications. Plutarch’s piece summarises the Greeks’ attitude to borrowing.

Incidentally, every argument he posted in the material aligns with the African’s philosophy of a borrower ending up a broke person. Our elders, right from the beginning of time, say:  Àì l’ówó l’ówó kìí jé ká ní owó l’ówó (being broke makes one to be more broke).

They say this because the broke man goes a-borrowing and ends up using the little he has to service his debts thus ending up without money. A man without money is a sad man. That confirms the age-long axiom of he who goes a-borrowing goes a-sorrowing.

President Tinubu, on Tuesday last week, at an engagement with all the movers and shakers of events from Plateau State, said to those critical about the rate of borrowing by his administration that “borrowing is not leprosy.” He added that whenever the occasion arose for him to borrow, he would not hesitate to do so.

Maybe we should allow Tinubu to speak: “If we have to borrow money, we will, because borrowing is not leprosy; we just have to work hard to be able to repay it.” To the President, going by these uttered words, what matters is the ability to pay. And to pay back the countless debts incurred by his administration, Nigeria and Nigerians must work hard.

It is not what Tinubu said that worries me. My concern is the metaphor he deployed – “leprosy”. That is the worst of all contagious diseases. Anyone who contracts leprosy is usually isolated. Leprosaria, in ancient days, were built in the deep forest. This is why it is said that: A kìí kó ilé adétè sí ìgboro; inú igbó ni adétè ńgbé (no one builds the house of a leper in the city; lepers live in the forest).

The idea of the forest in this ancient saying itself depicts graphic metaphors of a pariah, isolation, and of an individual who lives with ultimate shame. So, when our President deployed that metaphor, its meaning goes beyond the theatrical message his audience thought they heard and clapped for. What Tinubu told his audience is that Nigeria had not borrowed to that level when it would become an isolated nation, a leprous entity that nobody would dare touch with a 10-feet pole! We may soon get there, anyway! Back to ancient Greek.

Ancient Greek philosophy never supports borrowing. Rather, it considers borrowing, which usually comes with heavy interest, as another form of servitude. The borrower, in the Greek mindset, is not just a slave to the lender; he is equally considered a weakling and one with the base of all moral values. Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient philosophers believed that a borrower, especially a reckless one, is an ‘unnatural and socially corrosive” individual. Any borrowing that imposes heavy interest on the borrower, they said, is ‘predatory.’ (See: “Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens,” by Paul Millett, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022).

This is the summary of Plutarch’s work, where he argues that taking loans comes with its own degree of disgrace and leads to “a voluntary loss of freedom and a sign of folly.” A simple review of Plutarch’s essay says: “That We Ought Not to Borrow” (Greek: De vitando aere alieno) is a famous essay….that argues against debt, describing it as a form of slavery to lenders that causes stress and ruins financial freedom. Plutarch advises avoiding loans, whether rich or poor, arguing it is either unnecessary or impossible to repay.”

In an October 5, 2021, piece on this page with the title: “Buhari and the chronic debtor-wife of Osin”, I expressed worry at the rate at which the administration of General Muhammad Buhari was taking loans. I warned that Nigerians would be left in pain and sorrow at the end of the day. The introductory paragraph of the said article is worth repeating here:

Read Also:  Tales My Patients Told Me: When Fathers mess up

Read Also: Built for Greatness, Now Breeding Survival: The tragedy of UNN

“Permit me to call this Buhari regime Onígbèsè Aya Osin (The chronic debtor-wife of Osin). Osin is the Yoruba deity of royalty. According to the legend, Osin married a shameless woman who owed virtually everyone in the community. In our tradition, once a person’s behaviour is off the mark of our acceptable mores, norms and traditions, we give such a person a descriptive name. This wife’s reputation followed her everywhere she went. ‘Onigbese’ is the Yoruba word for chronic debtor; ‘Aya’ is wife. Her cognomen is an exercise in character portrayal. She is known as Onigbese Aya Osin, who buys pangolin without paying, and buys porcupine on credit. She sees the woman hawking a hedgehog; she runs after her empty-handed. She uses the money from antelope to pay for deer. Yet, she fries neither for her husband nor cooks for her concubine. Her first child is sold into slavery to service her debts; her lastborn is pawned off for her indebtedness. When she talks, she accuses her husband of not covering her shame whereas, she neither informs the husband nor takes permission from him before buying bush meat on credit.”

Whatever we saw in the Buhari administration that informed the above has since paled into insignificance in the administration of Tinubu. This government borrows with reckless abandon! That is troubling. And unlike Buhari, who was decent about it, the current set of Onígbèsè in the Aso Rock Villa adds arrogance to the charade. This is why, when he had nothing more to tell us all, Tinubu said that our level of indebtedness had not reached the leprosy stage where no nation would want to touch us.

Whatever Tinubu said during the encounter, his spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, further amplified. In his criticism of the borrowing spree of this government, Peter Obi, the 2023 Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate, said that “Borrowing is not only leprosy, but a killer cancer when it is borrowed for consumption and not production as it is in Nigeria today.” He further lamented the nation’s “Debt that is not tied to measurable economic value; debt that does not translate into jobs, growth, or improved living standards for the Nigerian people.”

Onanuga, responding to Obi, said that the opposition politician was “bringing up the same old arguments again with your sensationalist approach.” Like his master, Onanuga stressed that “…Every sovereign nation borrows money, and as President Tinubu correctly pointed out, borrowing is not a disease. If you really want to know, the government has been taking loans to pay for important infrastructure projects, not to spend on everyday things. The fact that we are getting money and have lenders who are willing to lend shows that our country is trustworthy and able to pay back the money.”

I read Onanuga’s position, and I wondered if ‘silence is no longer golden’, as we were told, especially when one does not have something intelligent to say! How can borrowing become an ornament that a government should wear like a medal, the way Onanuga deodorised it? So, if every nation of the world wants to lend us money, we should take all the loans with reckless abandon, the way the government, the ‘old activist’, is defending does? And, if we may ask: what are the “important infrastructure projects” Onanuga is talking about?

Do they include the $2.7 billion borrowed from the World Bank by this administration in 2023, part of which is the $700 million loan taken for adolescent girls’ secondary education that we have nothing to show for except the daily kidnapping of our school boys and girls up North? Or the preposterous $750 million loan for power sector recovery, only for the Aso Rock Villa to detach itself from the National Grid?

Can we also ask Onanuga if his “important infrastructure projects” for which this government took a World Bank loan of $4.25 billion in 2024, include the $1.57 billion loan to strengthen human capital, improve health for women and children, and build climate resilience, without anything to show for it? What about the $357 million, $57 million, and $86 million loans for rural road access and agricultural marketing projects, in a country where bandits, herdsmen and terrorists don’t allow farmers to go to their farms?

Is the 2025 World Bank loan of $2.695 billion, part of which $500 million was said to have been for education under the HOPE Education loan, or the $253 million and $247 million for NG-CARES, also part of Onanuga’s “important infrastructure projects?” What sort of awkward reasoning governs this nation?

Can someone please help tell those in power and their defenders that figures don’t lie! According to the Debt Management Office (DMO), Nigeria’s total public debt in 2015 was approximately N12.12 trillion to N12.6 trillion ($63–$64 billion). Various independent reports confirmed that figure, which is said to include both domestic and external debt stocks, representing the total liability at the time the administration of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan ended in May 2015.

But by December 31, 2023, according to the DMO, the nation’s total public debt was N97.34 trillion (US$108.23 billion). Again, the figure includes the external and domestic debt of the Federal Government, the 36 state governments, and the Federal Capital Territory.

Fast forward to the three-year-old administration of President Tinubu, Nigeria’s total public debt is projected to exceed N159 trillion (approx. $110 billion, “driven by a N68.32 trillion budget that relies heavily on borrowing. The government has allocated roughly ₦15.81 trillion for debt servicing (interest and fees) in 2026 alone, highlighting a severe debt service burden on the economy.”

Pray, what do you call a disease that makes a government spend over 80% of its revenue to service debt, if not ACUTE LEPROSY? What can be more cancerous than a government which borrows to satisfy the President’s fantasies at the expense of good living conditions for the citizenry?  How do you describe a government which goes a-borrowing to finance its own budgets if not a leprous and cancerous government?

And since Onanuga has deliberately chosen not to understand why the government he defends has “lenders who are willing to lend” as he posted in response to Obi, I suggest, and very strongly too, that he takes a simple tutorial in Plutarch, who posits that “…the Persians regard lying as the second among wrong-doings and being in debt as the first; for lying is often practiced by debtors; but money-lenders lie more than debtors and cheat in their ledgers, when they write that they give so-and‑so much to so-and‑so, though they really give less…” This is why Onanuga and his ilk will be eternally wrong in their celebration of “lenders who are willing to lend.”

The Greek philosopher adds in the piece that, while he had “not declared war against the money-lenders”, he must point it out “to those who are ready to become borrowers how much disgrace and servility there is in the practice and that borrowing is an act of extreme folly and weakness.”

In concluding the piece, “That We Ought Not to Borrow”, Plutarch cautions thus: “Have you money? Do not borrow because you are not in need. Have you no money? Do not borrow, for you will not be able to pay….therefore in your own case do not heap up upon poverty, which has many attendant evils, the perplexities which arise from borrowing and owing, and do not deprive poverty of the only advantage which it possesses over wealth, namely freedom from care; since by doing so you will incur the derision of the proverb: I am unable to carry the goat, put the ox then upon me.” May the cosmos give us the grace to learn from ancient wisdom!

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

Tales My Patients Told Me: When Fathers mess up

Madeline came to see me on January 2, 2019. For all the trauma she has been through, Madeline was very vivacious and cheerful.

I was very happy to see Madeline. As a matter of fact, my medical practice has been looking for her for almost two years, because she needed to come in for her medical checkup, but she is nowhere to be found. Our phone calls went to voice mail, which were never returned. We wrote her letters of appointment and reminder of need for medical services, and those too elicited no response. I was wondering what has happened to Madeline — until that morning.

Madeline was the older child in a family of four: she has a brother who is two years younger. Madeline’s parents were born again Christians and were very active in their local church. Both parents had good jobs and doted on their children. All the members of the family were registered patients of my medical practice, and you can see the joy radiating from them.

Read Also: Rejected, Confused, He Left Nigeria With Questions—Now he’s solving a global health crisis

Read Also: Faith: Giving child adoption a bad name, By Punch Editorial Board

That was about 19 years ago. Everything was fine for about six years after they enrolled in my medical practice, and then the bottom seemed to fall out. Esther, Madeline’s mom, came to the office on a fateful afternoon, and in a grim tone informed me that she had filed for divorce from her husband. I almost fell from my seat. “You have filed for what?” I asked incredulously. “Yes, divorce”, came the sad reply. “I have thrown Andrew out of the house.”

Madeline, then fifteen years old, was a straight A extremely cheerful student. Then she started beIng moody; became angry easily and started using foul language, Esther knew something was wrong. Then she didn’t want to do her homework from school, didn’t want to attend school, which was very unusual for her, and her grades became bad. We suspected that something was wrong, but we were all shocked when Madeline revealed to her Counselor that her father had been sexually abusing her for a while. Esther felt a deep sense of betrayal, and vowed never to talk to Andrew again. Esther could not stop crying and I felt really sorry for her.

About a year after the incident, Madeline came back to the practice. She was doing much better with counseling. But Esther and her son did not come back to us. I saw that Esther had a deep sense of shame, and great embarrassment about what has happened to her family. She took it very hard. Sometime ago, a friend told me that she had run into Esther on the New York Subway train in Manhattan, and they had a conversation. Esther, knowing the person was a Nigerian, had mentioned casually that her Doctor is a Nigerian. She was surprised that the fella knew me very well, and asked the friend to greet me, which she did. I have not seen Esther since that time.

Madeline came to the office periodically over the years, either for her annual physical, or for the occasional flareup of her asthma. As the years went by, you could notice that she was getting better and putting the problems behind her. She said the mom was doing fine, and the dad was in prison for a while, after pleading guilty to the assault on her. 

Madeline was her usual ebullient self that January morning. It reminded me of her when she was about twelve, thirteen years of age and was always very cheerful and full of life. Madeline did an Associate Degree in Mass Communications, but she does not fancy life as a journalist, so she has enrolled in a University in Upstate New York to study Education. She now wants to be a teacher. She explained that the mom and the brother are doing fine.

I was almost afraid to ask about the dad, but my curiosity got the better of me. I wanted to know what happened to him. “Are you hearing from your dad? How is he doing?”I finally asked her. “Yes, I am hearing from him. My dad has been sick. He is still in hospital. His aorta blew up and was rupturing. He felt numb in the right side of his body. He had to have an extensive operation to repair his aorta. He could not eat for a long time because they had to shift his intestines, but they are allowing him to take some fluids now”. Wow! I exclaimed.

I wanted to know Esther’s reaction to Andrew’s illness, whether seeing him on the verge of death had prompted her to forgive him. “Did your mom visit Andrew in the hospital?”, I asked Madeline. “Nope,” came the sad reply. “She came to the hospital to support my brother and I, and she talked to the nurses, but refused to see him.” Whoa, it appears that Esther’s wounds still run very deep. Madeline seems to have done remarkably well.

I asked her whether she still loves her dad despite what he did to her. “Yes, I love my dad very much”, came the spontaneous reply. “Did your dad apologize to you for his bad conduct towards you?” “Yes,” she replied, “he apologized to my brother and I, and to my grandmom”. I don’t know which grandmom she was referring to, but I noticed that she left Esther out of her list.

Madeline however, said that her mum and Andrew had a brief interaction during her graduation for her Associate Degree, and that was all. Esther has vowed never to talk to Andrew again, and it appears that she has stuck to her guns, even when Andrew was a whisker away from death. When Fathers mess up!

Emmanuel O. Fashakin, M.D.,FMCS(Nig), FWACS, FRCS(Ed), FAAFP, Esq.
Attorney at Law & Medical Director,
Abbydek Family Medical Practice, P.C.
web address: http://www.abbydek.com
Cell phone: +1-347-217-6175

UK refineries asked to maximise jet fuel production amid supply fears

British refineries have been asked to maximise jet fuel supply as part of government contingency planning, amid growing fears the Iran war will force planes to be grounded.

The energy minister Michael Shanks said the government is closely monitoring UK jet fuel stocks and working with airlines, airports, fuel suppliers and other governments, as carriers face rocketing fuel costs as a result of the conflict.

Normal flows of fossil fuels from the Gulf have effectively been at a standstill since the war broke out, after the de facto closure of the important shipping channel, the strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas flows.

“UK airlines typically buy fuel months in advance, and aviation fuel suppliers hold bunkered stocks. The UK imports jet fuel supplies from a range of countries not reliant on the strait, including the United States,” wrote Shanks in a ministerial statement.

“Airlines UK have stated that ‘UK airlines continue to operate normally and are not experiencing issues with jet fuel supply.’ The government continues to work with partners to monitor and mitigate potential disruptions,” Shanks added.

There are now only four remaining refineries in the UK, after closures at the Grangemouth and Lindsey refineries in 2025.

The remaining UK refineries are: Fawley in Hampshire owned by ExxonMobil; Humber in Lincolnshire owned by Phillips 66; Valero’s Pembroke refinery in Wales; and Essar’s Stanlow site in Cheshire.

These sites produce a range of refined products including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and fuel oil to meet domestic demand and for export. The number of UK refineries has fallen from a peak of 18 in the 1970s, as has the UK’s output of petrol and diesel.

It came as global jet fuel shipments fell to the lowest recorded level last week. Just under 2.3m tonnes of jet fuel and kerosene were transported on ships in the seven days to 26 April, according to initial analysis by the data company Kpler, which first began tracking shipments in 2017. The figure represents less than half the average weekly volume shipped before the war.

Airlines have insisted there are now no supply problems expected during their typical four-to-six-week horizon, although some carriers have already announced flight cancellations and have been lobbying for government help amid rising fuel prices and a possible supply crisis.

Airlines that cancel flights because of a lack of fuel will not lose their rights to valuable takeoff and landing slots at busy airports, which can be forfeited when flights fail to operate over a period.

It was announced on Friday that exemptions to the “use-it-or-lose-it” rule can be granted during shortages by Airport Coordination Ltd, the independent body that manages slots at UK airports, in an attempt to minimise disruption and prevent airlines from flying to protect slots.

The budget travel carrier Jet2 said on Wednesday it remained in contact with its fuel suppliers and airports.

The group said it had hedged 87% of its fuel requirement for the peak summer season, at an average price of $707 a metric tonne, giving it “a high degree of cost certainty”.

Jet2 said “current geopolitical uncertainty” over the Middle East conflict meant holidaymakers were booking trips closer to departure, making it difficult to predict bookings for the peak summer season and beyond.

Heathrow airport also told investors it was facing an “uncertain outlook” as a result of the conflict despite reporting a short-term boost in the number of passengers travelling through the airport to change planes because of airspace closures in the Middle East.

Almost 19 million passengers travelled through the airport during the first three months of the year, an increase of 3.7% compared with a year earlier.

Heathrow said it had “temporarily absorbed demand from elsewhere” but did not expect this to continue for the rest of the year, given “significant uncertainty” in the region.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/29/uk-refineries-asked-to-maximise-jet-fuel-production-amid-growing-supply-fears

Faith: Giving child adoption a bad name, By Punch Editorial Board

On April 24, the life of an adopted girl-child was cut short in the most brutal and avoidable way in the Igando area of Lagos. Faith, 12, who should have been nurtured, protected, and given the chance to dream, instead died at the hands of those who were meant to be her guardians.

Adopted at the age of 10, she entered what should have been a safe home. What she found instead was cruelty. Faith’s brutal minders have given child adoption a bad name.

The accounts of her final months are deeply disturbing. Faith was reportedly overburdened with chores and errands, treated like a slave, rather than a daughter. She was beaten frequently and severely.

Eventually, the sustained physical assaults took their toll. She fell ill. Even then, she was denied care. No effort was made to treat her worsening condition until it was far too late.

When she finally died, her adoptive parents rushed her to the hospital, where she was declared dead on arrival. This is reprehensible.

Faith did not deserve to die that way. Her life, like every child’s, carried promise and potential. She deserved care, education, laughter, and protection.

She deserved a future. Instead, she departed most horribly, failed by her adopters, the systems meant to safeguard her, and a society that did not intervene in time.

Faith’s ordeal risks casting a long shadow over adoption as a whole. Adoption is supposed to be a pathway to hope, especially for children whose biological parents are deceased or unable to care for them.

It is also designed to bring succour to those who are unable to have children. But when stories like this emerge, they instil fear. Who would willingly entrust children to strangers if such horrors are possible? Faith’s death may discourage many from considering adoption at all.

The very system designed to protect vulnerable children and bring joy to needy couples could be undermined by the actions of a few who abuse it. That is the tragedy within the tragedy: one child’s suffering could slam the adoption door shut for many.

This is why justice must be swift, decisive, and visible. The couple responsible for Faith’s death has been arrested. They must face the maximum punishment under the law as a necessary deterrent.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Anything less may send the wrong signal: that the abuse of children, even to the point of death, can go with a slap on the wrist.

It is sheer wickedness and utterly reprehensible to maltreat a defenceless minor. It is an even greater evil to persist in that cruelty until it results in death. Such acts must be confronted with the full force of the law. Society owes that much to Faith, and to every child who depends on adults for survival.

Yet, Faith’s case is not isolated. Across Nigeria, reports of child abuse continue to surface with alarming regularity. The forms of torture inflicted on minors are often extreme. Some children have been starved as punishment, others slashed with blades or burned with hot irons. There are even accounts of pepper being forced into their private parts. This is inhuman.

In November 2022, Margaret Joshua, 11, was found in an uncompleted building in Jos, Plateau State. She was unable to walk, talk, or even eat due to the severity of her injuries. The wounds were the result of repeated beatings by her guardian.

Margaret was rushed to the hospital by a public-spirited woman, but like Faith, she did not survive. She died at the hospital, another victim of unchecked cruelty.

These are not just stories; they are warnings. They point to a systemic failure to protect the most vulnerable members of society. They demand urgent action and justice.

Globally, adoption systems are structured to minimise such risks. In the United Kingdom, prospective adoptive parents undergo rigorous assessments, including detailed background checks, home studies, and continuous monitoring even after the adoption is finalised. The goal is not merely to place a child in a home, but to ensure that the home remains safe over time.

Similarly, in the United States, adoption processes involve multiple layers of scrutiny. Social workers evaluate prospective parents extensively, and post-adoption supervision is often mandatory.

The system is designed to detect and address potential risks early. The court and law enforcement also weigh in.

In Ghana, adoption is also tightly regulated. Court approvals, social welfare investigations, and mandatory checks are integral parts of the process. These measures aim to safeguard the child’s best interests at every stage.

Lagos is not without similar frameworks. Adoption procedures in the state are, on paper, stringent. They include legal requirements, screening processes, and official oversight intended to ensure that only qualified individuals are approved to adopt.

What appears to be lacking, however, is enforcement.

Laws and procedures are only as effective as their implementation. Without consistent monitoring and accountability, even the most robust systems can fail.

Safeguarding must go beyond the initial approval. It must include regular follow-ups, accessible reporting mechanisms, and swift intervention when signs of abuse emerge.

Civil society organisations have a critical role to play. They must not allow Faith’s case to fade into obscurity. They should track it diligently, ensuring that justice is pursued to its logical conclusion.

Advocacy groups, child protection agencies, and the media must keep the spotlight on this case, not for sensationalism, but for accountability and reform.

The community also has an equally vital role to play. In many African cultures, there is a long-standing belief that raising a child is a collective responsibility. Parenting is not confined to biological or adoptive parents alone; it is a shared duty. Neighbours, therefore, must not shirk their responsibility.

Reports indicate that those living around Faith’s home were aware of the abuse she endured. They heard the cries. They saw the signs. Yet, intervention either did not happen or was insufficient. This silence is costly. It can be the difference between life and death.

If you see something, say something. If you suspect a child is being abused, act. Report it to authorities, alert community leaders, or involve organisations equipped to respond. Silence enables abuse; action can stop it.

Faith’s death must mark a turning point. It must galvanise action—legal, institutional, and societal. The systems meant to protect children must be strengthened and enforced.

Communities must embrace their role as protectors. And those who harm children must face consequences that reflect the gravity of their actions.

The couple who adopted Faith only to subject her to suffering and ultimate death must face the music. Their punishment must serve as a clear warning: society will not tolerate cruelty against children.

Faith’s fate must be the last of its kind.

No other child should endure what Faith endured. No other life should be extinguished in such a cruel and senseless manner. Adoption must not become a source of fear; it must remain a beacon of hope.

To achieve this, justice must be done. Safeguards must be enforced. And society must refuse to look away.

Faith deserved better. So do the children who come after her. Adoption need not be given a bad name.

Punch Editorial Board

Grounding Creativity: How Nigeria’s drone regulations prioritize control and revenue over safety and innovation

By Folarinwa M. Aluko

The overwhelming majority of drone users are law- abiding. They are creators, professionals, and hobbyists with every incentive to operate within the law. Those who intend to misuse drones, whether for criminal or otherwise unlawful purposes, are unlikely to register, seek permits


Economists describe the Cobra Effect as a policy failure where an intervention, designed
to solve a problem, ends up worsening it. To reduce the population of dangerous snakes,
the Colonial Government in India once paid bounties for dead cobras. Soon,
enterprising citizens responded by breeding cobras to claim the reward. Seeing the
abuse, the Colonial government discontinued the policy and the now-worthless snakes
were released by the breeders into the wild, leaving the country with more cobras than
before.

Nigeria’s current drone regulatory framework risks producing a similar outcome. The
Regulations are a mixture of control provisions built with layered approvals, high-level
security vetting, and significant fees. It is a regime that burdens those already inclined to
obey the law thereby discouraging lawful compliance, reducing access to technology and
externalizing the cost of regulation onto the public.

The Civil Aviation Act 2006 constitutes the primary legislative framework governing
civil aviation in Nigeria. It establishes the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority as the
statutory regulator of civil aviation and vests in it the responsibility for the regulation of
air navigation, aircraft operations, and aviation safety within Nigerian airspace. The
Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations (Nig.CARs) are made pursuant to this statutory
authority and derive their validity from it.

The regulatory regime governing Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) in Nigeria is
expressly set out in Part 21 of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations, 2023, reflects a
safety-oriented system concerned with airspace management, operational risk, and
accountability of operators.

NigCARs Part 21 provides a comprehensive framework for certification, registration,
operations, internal security safeguards and surveillance of RPAS including provisions
on applicability (21.1.1), registration and marking (21.3), operational limitations
(21.1.1.5), and operator certification. The scope of this framework is clearly defined. It
regulates the classification of RPAS, mandates registration and marking requirements,
prescribes operational standards, and establishes certification obligations such as the
RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC). While these features mirror elements found in other
jurisdictions, the introduction of the Nigerian Effect creates outcomes that are worse
than the problems sought to be addressed.

The difficulty lies in the philosophy and architecture of the Regulations. While Part 21
incorporates security requirements within the aviation safety framework, these
provisions are limited to operational and system-level safeguards. They do not extend to
the imposition of external national security clearance as a universal precondition for
civilian drone operations.

The Civil Aviation Act establishes the Authority as a safety
regulator. The Regulations can only elaborate and not extend that mandate by
converting or transforming routine civilian drone operation into a matter requiring
security vetting.

The involvement of ONSA in routine drone operations suggests a system that has drifted
from safety oversight into generalized control without a clearly articulated legal basis.
This raises a familiar question in administrative law: whether the creation of regulatory
requirements outside the scope of or without clear statutory grounding is an exercise of
lawful authority or executive overreach? Where such requirements lack clear statutory
foundation, they risk being declared ultra vires and of no effect as subsidiary legislation
and administrative practices must remain within the scope of the enabling statute.

Moreover, the conflation of Aviation Safety Regulations with National Security
Oversight raises questions of institutional competence. Aviation regulators are designed
to assess operational risk, airspace management, and safety compliance. Security
agencies, by contrast, are structured to address threats of a fundamentally different
nature. Collapsing these functions into a single approval process risks weakening both
objectives.

The implications of this structural misalignment extend beyond administrative law and
into constitutional territory. Drone technology is no longer an exotic tool. It is
embedded in everyday creative and commercial activity. Filmmakers, journalists,
content creators, surveyors, and entrepreneurs rely on it to produce, document, and
communicate. A regulatory regime that converts daily interactions into a high-level
security matter risks crossing the threshold from regulation to infringement.

Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right to Freedom of Expression.
A framework that treats low-risk creative use as a matter of national security imposes a
practical restraint on expression. It operates as a practical restraint with effects
comparable to a formal restriction. Delays, costs, and uncertainty combine to reduce
activity, particularly among independent creators who lack the institutional capacity to
navigate complex approval systems. While no right is absolute, restrictions on rights
must be legal and justified. The constitutional validity of such restrictions ultimately
turns on proportionality, whether the regulatory burden imposed is reasonably justified
by the risk it seeks to address

Another source of conflict is with the right to own property, provided in Section 44 of
the Constitution but better articulated in Article 14 African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights. A drone is, at its core, personal property. While generally speaking,
airspace is regulated and cannot be privately appropriated, the right to use one’s
property for lawful purposes is fundamental. Regulation conditions that limit the use of
private property, especially in the absence of clear statutory grounding, operate as a
constructive limitation on property rights. A regulation that introduces disproportionate
measures relative to the risk sought to be redressed is a limitation on the rights of the
citizen.

The economic implications follow naturally. Drone technology supports entire segments
of Nigeria’s emerging economy. It is central to digital content creation, film production,
real estate marketing, agricultural mapping, and a range of other services. When entry
into this ecosystem is conditioned on high fees, extended processing timelines, and
security clearance, the regulatory framework effectively raises barriers to trade. Larger
entities may absorb these costs; smaller operators cannot. The result is a market skewed
against the very actors driving innovation.

The issuance of operational clearances for ordinary drone use by a national security
institution reflects a misallocation of regulatory function. It diverts security
infrastructure toward low-risk civilian activity, while simultaneously introducing delay,
cost, and uncertainty into sectors that depend on speed and accessibility.

Privacy is often invoked to justify such restrictions, but the argument is less persuasive
than it appears. In Nigerian law, expectations of privacy in public spaces are generally
limited. Where privacy concerns arise, they are already addressed through existing legal
mechanisms, tort law, criminal provisions, and sector-specific regulations. The attempt
to regulate privacy indirectly through aviation controls conflates distinct legal domains,
leading once again to executive overreach.

Privacy, in many respects, is residual and context-specific. The creation of expansive
regulatory bodies with compliance fees risks shifting the focus from protection to
administration, and from safety to revenue generation. Drone regulation, layered on top
of this, becomes part of a broader pattern of regulatory expansion without clear
boundaries.

Against this backdrop, the Nigerian approach stands in contrast to the dominant
philosophy in other jurisdictions. In the United States, the Federal Aviation
Administration has adopted a system built around identification and accountability.
Registration is inexpensive, and mechanisms such as Remote ID ensure that operators

can be traced. The emphasis is not on preventing operation, but on ensuring that those
who operate can be held responsible if necessary.

In the United Kingdom, the Civil Aviation Authority has taken a risk-based approach.
Regulation is calibrated to the level of risk posed by the activity. Low-risk operations are
lightly regulated; higher-risk operations attract more stringent requirements. The
system distinguishes between context and conduct, rather than imposing uniform
constraints.

Nigeria’s framework, by contrast, leans toward permission-based control. It asks
whether an operator should be allowed to fly, rather than ensuring that operators are
identifiable within a system of accountability. Where compliance is simple and
affordable, most users comply. Where compliance is complex and costly, many opt out.
This leads us to a central paradox.

The overwhelming majority of drone users are law- abiding. They are creators, professionals, and hobbyists with every incentive to operate within the law. Those who intend to misuse drones, whether for criminal or otherwise unlawful purposes, are unlikely to register, seek permits, or submit to regulatory oversight. A system that imposes heavy burdens on compliant users while offering little deterrence to non-compliant actors is regulating the wrong population.

The cost structure reinforces this problem. Layered fees covering registration,
certification, and operational permits turn compliance into a financial calculation. For
many small operators, particularly in the creative sector, the costs are prohibitive. The
predictable outcome is regulatory inefficiency not compliance. Regulation, in this
context, has become a barrier to entry and not a mere administrative tool.

Unfortunately, the reliance on weight as a primary regulatory trigger illustrates the
limits of the current approach. While a 250-gram threshold aligns superficially with
international standards, weight alone is an imperfect proxy for risk. A lightweight drone
equipped with advanced imaging capabilities may raise concerns comparable to heavier
equipment. Conversely, a heavier drone operated in a controlled environment may pose
minimal risk.

A framework that relies heavily on weight without incorporating contextual factors such as location, proximity to people, and purpose of use, will inevitably produce blunt and irrational outcomes. A classification that is not rationally connected to the risk it seeks to regulate raises questions of proportionality within administrative law.

The cumulative effect is most visible in the creative industry. Drone technology has
democratized visual storytelling. It allows independent creators to produce high-quality
content, compete globally, and tell local stories with global reach. A regulatory environment that introduces friction at every stage: cost, approval, uncertainty, undermines this progress. Creativity depends on immediacy and experimentation. This bureaucratic system erodes both.

Nigeria needs a more coherent framework that treats registration as a tool of
identification and authentication rather than control. Low-risk, private use at limited
altitudes could be accommodated through free or minimal registration, encouraging
compliance rather than deterring it. Oversight would remain within the NCAA, with
security agencies engaged only where specific and demonstrable risks arise. Regulation
should shift from a weight-based model towards a risk-based model consistent with
principles of proportionality and rational classification in administrative law, taking into
account the context of operation rather than relying on a single metric.

Such an approach would align with our legal jurisprudence and practical reality. It
would respect Constitutional Guarantees while maintaining safety. The regulations
would also support economic activity while preserving accountability. The objective is to
regulate behavior rather than suppress it.

The moral of the Cobra Effect is that poorly designed regulation does not eliminate
problems. It reshapes them and creates worse problems. Nigeria’s current drone
framework is doing precisely that. By making lawful compliance difficult, it may
encourage the very institutional disruption it seeks to prevent, while constraining a
sector that should be allowed to grow.

A regulatory system should not seek to control a technology. It should seek to enable its
safe and productive use. Until that shift occurs, Nigeria’s approach will remain a
solution in search of a problem and a constraint on innovation in a world that is rapidly
moving forward.

Folarinwa Aluko is a Legal Practitioner and Partner in the Firm of Trumann Rockwood
Solicitors. He can be reached at [email protected]

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

“That $60bn Would Have Been Stolen”: Ikeazor Akaraiwe fires back at Festus Adedayo on Nigeria’s role in South Africa

The debate over Nigeria’s historic support for South Africa’s liberation has taken an interesting turn, with Ikeazor Akaraiwe, SAN, dismissing criticism of the country’s estimated $60 billion contribution as misplaced.

Responding directly to Festus Adedayo, Akaraiwe argued that the funds—had they been retained—might never have benefited Nigerians at all, but instead disappeared into the country’s long-troubled system of public accountability.

In his artice Why South Africans murder Nigerians in cold blood, Festus Adedayo sugested that: [I]f Nigerian governments, from independence to 1994, had spent the estimated $60b frittered on South Africa on the future of Nigerians, their offspring would not be hibernating in South Africa today. South Africans may also jolly well still be in captivity. We owe it a duty to both ourselves and country to make Nigeria too a pleasant country, a country which, travelling out of it would be for mere sightseeing, rather than for economic liberation. The hopelessness at home and the serial plunder of our country by our own kin, the notoriety of which is a tale told in all the four corners of the globe, are reasons we weigh little in the estimation of the world. Again, the criminal lifestyles, drug-pushing and excessive self-underscore that our nationals live abroad cannot but make us objects of xenophobia.”

But Akaraiwe, SAN, insists that “If the approximately $60 (sixty) billion dollars Nigeria spent on the South African liberation had not been so utilised, the money would not have made Nigeria better. It would have been stolen.”

1...345...1,397Page 4 of 1,397

TIPS

Load more