By Professor Adekunle Oloyede and Richard Odusanya

The recent withdrawal of Chief Afe Babalola’s criminal defamation suit against barrister Dele Farotimi at the behest of Ekiti kings, led by the Ooni of Ife, Oba Ogunwusi Ojaja II, presents a troubling intersection between traditional Yoruba conflict resolution and the imperatives of a modern legal system. This occurrence should be of immense concern to all Yorubas and the Nigerian people at large, especially as false accusations, bearing false witness, and lying against others are unfortunately prevalent in our country. These acts can stem from personal vendettas, business rivalries, political schemes, or mere attempts to gain undue advantage. While the Yoruba culture highly values communal harmony and reconciliation, this intervention deprives our Nigerian society of a crucial opportunity to reinforce the sanctity of truth and accountability in public discourse, particularly in an age dominated by social media.

Undermining the Rule of Law

At the heart of any modern legal system is the principle that allegations of wrongdoing must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal defamation cases, in a judicious system where people of integrity adjudicate without fear or favour, offer the opportunity to clarify truth and hold either the defamer or the defamed accountable. Defamation, when unchecked or poorly handled, fosters a society where falsehood and manipulation thrive. In Nigeria, this issue becomes even more dangerous when compounded by a legal system that is vulnerable to misuse by the wealthy and influential. Criminal defamation suits often become tools wielded by the rich to silence critics, while genuine accusations of wrongdoing are swept under the rug by interventions from traditional rulers or political pressure.

When influential figures, such as traditional rulers, custodians of the law and political operatives, intervene to suppress such cases, they inadvertently weaken the legal framework meant to protect reputations and encourage responsible speech. In fact, the denial of this process sends a significant message to the whole world on our disregard for human dignity and respect for truth. A pertinent question at this juncture is that of whether our kings, legal luminaries and other potentates would intercede if this incident between barrister Farotimi and chief Babalola had been between a quiet high achieving Yoruba intellectual and the Chief!

Interventions like that of these kings create a dual-tier societal system where some of us are protected from accountability while the ordinary citizen is exposed to the full brunt of the law. By persuading Chief Afe Babalola to withdraw his case, the traditional rulers have reinforced the perception that certain individuals and groups can bypass the judicial system with ease if they are in favour with the influential quarters of Nigeria. This undermines the principles of equality before the law and weakens societal trust in both the traditional and legal systems.

The message sent here is clear: public figures can allege corruption without consequence, provided they are shielded by powerful communal appeals. Conversely, those wrongfully accused are denied a chance to clear their names through legal means – the alleging party providing evidence and submitting to cross-examination. This dangerous precedent erodes trust in the otherwise robust Yoruba culture and tradition and the judiciary, while weakening the deterrent effect that criminal defamation laws are meant to provide.

Consequences for Public Discourse and Social Accountability

The rise of social media has transformed every individual into a potential broadcaster. False and defamatory content can now spread at unprecedented speeds, damaging reputations irreparably. Furthermore, with the corruption in our security and justice system, some individuals falsely accuse others to settle personal scores, knowing that law enforcement officers may act without proper investigation. Without the rigour of judicial processes to test the veracity of allegations, society risks descending into a chaotic marketplace of baseless accusations and character assassinations.

For instance, imagine a scenario where professionals in fields like medicine, education, or finance are accused of corruption on social media without evidence. If such allegations are not subjected to legal scrutiny – provision of evidence and cross-examination, public trust in these institutions can be irreparably damaged. Similarly, societal potentates and political actors could weaponize defamation as a tool for character assassination, knowing that communal interventions, and/or corruption would protect them from accountability.

Dilution of Judicial Authority

The intervention of traditional rulers in legal matters also poses a threat to the independence and authority of the judiciary. When kings or communal leaders become arbiters in legal disputes, they inadvertently erode the separation between traditional and judicial systems. This undermines public confidence in the courts as the ultimate arbiters of justice in our adopted political, legal and governmental structure.

Balancing Tradition and Modernity

While it is essential to respect Yoruba traditions of conflict resolution, such interventions should not come at the expense of justice and accountability. Traditional leaders should be careful not to shield defamers from the consequences of their actions or prevent the accused from clearing their names. I argue that a more constructive approach would be to encourage peaceful reconciliation after the judicial process has run its course.

The Way Forward

To prevent future occurrences of this arguably dangerous precedent, the following steps should be considered:

1. Legal Education: There is a need for public education on the importance of the legal process in handling defamation cases and the responsibilities that come with free speech.
2. Judicial Integrity: The judiciary, police, states’ attorneys-general and other legal officers at all levels must resolutely and demonstratively reaffirm their independence and commitment to adjudicating defamation cases without fear or favour.
3. Cultural Sensitivity: Traditional rulers should be engaged in understanding their role in complementing rather than undermining the legal system.
4. Legislative Clarity: Clearer laws on defamation in the digital age are needed to hold individuals accountable for baseless accusations while protecting legitimate whistleblowing.
5. False Narratives Prevailing: By preventing the rigorous testing of evidence in court, society becomes vulnerable to falsehoods gaining traction.
6. Breakdown of Accountability: When accusations of corruption are not tested in court, corruption thrives unchecked, weakening governance and public trust.

Conclusion

The withdrawal of Chief Afe Babalola’s defamation suit at the behest of traditional rulers represents a missed opportunity to reinforce the rule of law and social responsibility in Nigeria. While Yoruba tradition values harmony, justice must not be sacrificed on its altar. A society where allegations are made without consequence is one where truth becomes elusive, reputations are easily destroyed, and the rule of law is weakened. For Nigeria to thrive, tradition and modernity must coexist without compromising justice and accountability.

The withdrawal of the criminal defamation suit cited here is an unfortunate example of the prospective tension between traditional conflict resolution mechanisms as we move further into the social media era, and our society must address this fact to preserve the sanctity of our adopted modern legal system. The rule of law must be given a chance! The seeming prioritisation of cultural reconciliation over judicial accountability, is tantamount to denying society the right of demanding that accusations, especially those involving corruption, are proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is even more important in a socio-political environment where the misuse of the legal system, and its associated functionaries, namely, police, state and federal law officers, is a hypothetical reality of the people.

By Sonnie Ekwowusi

It was H.G. Wells who said in 1901, “If the universe is non-ethical by our present standards, we must reconsider those standards and reconsider our ethics.” Implicit in Wells’ proposition is the idea that our common humanitarianism must be the starting point as we learn to live with multiple perceptions of truth in the pursuit of human progress. Common humanity demands that whatever detracts from human well-being must be questioned, regardless of its effects on economic growth, political power, or the stability of certain orders. Our first responsibility to our children is to ensure that they have a future by avoiding catastrophic policies that could jeopardize their well-being.

As President Donald Trump returns to the prestigious and powerful office of the White House for the second time, the logical questions arise: What will Trump’s second term look like? What does it hold for global politics? Should Trump restore the fundamental principles embedded in the words of the Declaration of American Independence (1776)—the bedrock of American democratic tradition? Amid increasing terrorism, armed conflicts, bombings, wars, and humanitarian crises ravaging different parts of the world—especially the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both of which threaten international peace—what common values should Trump embrace to help build a new international order where justice, service, peace, respect for human dignity, the intrinsic worth of the human person, and mutual understanding reign?

Closer to home, how will Africa, particularly Nigeria, fare under Trump’s second presidency? Considering that the United States wields substantial influence worldwide, President Trump should seek to foster a new international order where justice, service, peace, and respect for human dignity take precedence. He should champion an ethic of human solidarity that advances human flourishing and protects the weak.

Understandably, both in his first term and now in his second term, President Trump has focused on “making America great again.” No fair-minded person should begrudge him that. However, while striving to make America great again, he must ensure that his actions do not jeopardize the opportunities available to other nations to pursue growth, stability, and order. We have a collective responsibility to safeguard the future of our children and descendants, ensuring they have the chance to live fully and push forward the frontiers of knowledge and culture for the benefit of humankind.

Shortly after his inauguration—which was graced by foreign dignitaries, members of the diplomatic corps, the crème de la crème of the global elite, and powerful world leaders such as President Javier Milei of Argentina, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and China’s Vice President Han Zheng (representing President Xi Jinping)—tech moguls like Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his fiancée Lauren Sánchez, and Mark Zuckerberg were also in attendance. However, curiously, no African leader was present at the inauguration. It remains unclear whether they were not invited or whether they were invited and declined the invitation.

In keeping with his campaign promises, President Trump wasted no time in rolling out a flurry of executive orders, which included:

The mass deportation of illegal immigrants in the United States
Reinstating service members dismissed for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine
Declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border
Withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement
Halting federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs
Restricting federal recognition to two sexes: male and female
Prohibiting transgender women from participating in women’s sports
Reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which halts federal funding for abortion services
Declaring a national energy emergency
Reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy
In executing these executive orders, the Trump administration should be mindful of both the positive and negative impacts of its policies. First, these executive orders must adhere to constitutional principles, legal frameworks, and the rule of law. They should avoid executive overreach. Any order that contradicts laws passed by the U.S. Congress or violates constitutional rights is likely to be blocked or overturned by the courts. Additionally, these policies must not infringe on personal liberty, dignity, or privacy, as enshrined in the American Constitution.

President Trump’s mass deportation order is currently mired in controversy. Many immigrants living in the United States allege that they are facing threats and intimidation. Fear now dominates their daily lives, forcing many into hiding to avoid arrest and deportation. Granted, the United States has the right to deport criminals and undocumented immigrants from its territory. Former President Obama deported thousands of illegal immigrants, and former President Biden did the same. In fact, approximately 1.4 million illegal immigrants who were slated for deportation during the Biden administration remain in the U.S. for reasons that are not entirely clear. Thus, the deportation of illegal immigrants is legally justified under U.S. law.

However, such deportations should be handled lawfully, fairly, and humanely. The manner in which Trump’s deportation order is being enforced has raised ethical and legal concerns. Brazil and Colombia, in particular, have expressed outrage over the treatment of their deported citizens, many of whom were shackled and handcuffed during deportation. Colombian President Gustavo Petro has openly criticized Trump for the alleged mistreatment of Colombian migrants. In response, Trump threatened tariffs on Colombian goods, leading to escalating tensions between the two nations. However, the Trump administration later backtracked on its threats after the Colombian government accepted certain conditions for the deportation. While the United States is justified in deporting criminals and undocumented immigrants, such actions should be carried out with dignity and respect for human rights.

African immigrants in the United States have also voiced their distress over Trump’s deportation policies. Mauritania tops the list with 3,822 deportees, followed by Nigeria with 3,690 deportees. At the time of this writing thousands of undocumented Nigerians in the U.S. were reportedly living in perpetual fear of deportation. Many had stopped going to work, church, shopping malls, or other public places for fear of being arrested and deported. In protest, Nigerians in Philadelphia boycotted their jobs a few days ago. Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Removal Operations indicate that approximately 3,690 undocumented Nigerians face imminent deportation from the United States.

Therefore, the Trump administration is urged to give its deportation policy a humane face. We are all members of the same human family, and no one should be treated as a slave. Trump’s deportation orders should be carried out within the purview of the law. They should not be used to settle old scores, nor should they serve as a weapon of oppression or dictatorship. Deportation efforts should prioritize individuals involved in serious crimes rather than those contributing positively to American society. Special care should be given to children, asylum seekers, and individuals who may face persecution or danger in their home countries. Detainees should be treated with dignity and should not be subjected to inhumane detention conditions. Additionally, deportation policies should consider the impact on families, especially children who may be U.S. citizens.

However, beyond lamenting Trump’s hardened deportation policies targeting Nigerians and other Africans in the United States, these deportations should serve as a wake-up call for African leaders to address the poor governance, economic hardship, insecurity, and lack of job opportunities that force their citizens to flee their home countries in search of so-called greener pastures abroad. Instead of indulging in official corruption and amassing material wealth, African leaders should focus on job creation, quality education, and infrastructure development to reduce mass migration.

Recent U.S. Census data and statistics confirm that, in terms of educational achievement and professional success, Nigerians rank among the top immigrant groups in the United States. Nigerians in the U.S. are known for their entrepreneurial spirit, with many starting successful businesses. They are also among the most educated immigrant groups in America—over 60% of Nigerian-Americans hold at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to about 33% of the overall U.S. population. Nigerians excel despite challenges, demonstrating resilience and adaptability in their respective fields. If Nigeria were a more livable country, these highly skilled Nigerians, now facing humiliating deportation from the U.S., would have remained in Nigeria to thrive and contribute to various areas of national development.

A Nigerian journalist aptly summed up the issue, saying: “If everyone were asked to return to their countries, we would have no choice but to comply. It is their land. But if Nigeria were a better place, no one would have left Nigeria in the first place.”

Beyond Trump’s rigid deportation policies, he has signed other executive orders that align with the universal moral perspectives of many people. For example, President Trump has issued a sweeping executive order recognizing only two sexes—male and female—and directing federal agencies to cease promoting the concept of gender transition. This order is indeed significant. It is part of Trump’s broader campaign promise to rid America of what he calls “transgender insanity” and to reverse diversity and inclusion initiatives implemented by the Biden administration.

The executive order pledges to defend women from “gender ideology” and restore traditional biological and spiritual truths that recognize only two sexes—male and female. Trump has stated that, henceforth, the only term that should be used in the United States is “sex” rather than “gender,” a term associated with LGBTQ+ identities and same-sex marriage.

Under the Obama-Biden administration, female students who identified as male were allowed to compete in sports alongside their male counterparts, contrary to the constitutional right to privacy enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, any male or female student could use the bathroom or locker room of their choice, regardless of their biological sex or the gender listed on their educational records and identity documents. Consequently, male students who identified as female were allowed to enter female restrooms and shower alongside girls, while female students who identified as male could do the same in male restrooms.

Now, President Trump has issued an executive order declaring that there are only two genders—male and female—in the United States. This order defines sex based on biological anatomy and halts federal recognition of gender identities beyond male and female. Trump has also revoked the Obama-Biden bathroom directive and prohibited the practice of flying rainbow “pride” flags at U.S. embassies abroad.

Under former President Biden, American taxpayers were forced to fund abortion, regardless of their conscientious objections. However, President Trump has now issued an executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which blocks the use of American taxpayer money to fund abortions both in the U.S. and overseas, including in Nigeria and other African countries.

Commendably, President Trump has also shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). For decades, USAID has been functioning in Africa as a criminal organization. USAID has provided foreign aid to African countries, including Nigeria, to promote the legalization of abortion, sterilization, and population control.

Some Nigerians have reached to me almost regretting Trump’s stoppage of US funding coming to Nigeria for the so-called family planning and HIV Education and so forth.

I am very glad that President Trump has stopped the funding coming to Nigeria for so-called health issues. It is unfortunate that amid the collapse of the country’s primary healthcare system, the Federal Government, in partnership with some United Nations, U.S agencies and foreign institutions, is spending vast amounts of money every year on the procurement of contraceptive commodities (including hormonal and injectable contraceptives) in public health centers across Nigeria. This is seemingly aimed at reducing the country’s manpower. Shockingly, at a time when ordinary Nigerians are deprived of basic primary healthcare, the World Health Organization (WHO) is funding the Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja to issue and enforce the Guidelines on Self-Care for Sexual, Reproductive, and Maternal Health 2020 and the National Guidelines on Safe Termination of Pregnancy in violation of Nigerian laws.

Therefore, the Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja is in dire need of reform. We need a properly focused Ministry of Health that is committed to tackling the real health challenges affecting Nigerians, not one that appears to undermine the country’s human capital. To that end, the Reproductive Health Division of the Federal Ministry of Health should be scrapped. The National Contraceptive Logistics Management System (CLMS), adopted by Nigeria in 1995 without input from stakeholders, should also be scrapped. Similarly, the Guidelines on Self-Care for Sexual, Reproductive, and Maternal Health 2020 and the National Guidelines on Safe Termination of Pregnancy issued and enforced by the Federal Ministry of Health should be repealed.

Defunding U. S. agencies decapitating human capital in Africa and Nigeria serves as a wake-up call for African countries to abandon their reliance on foreign aid. Foreign aid is tantamount to foreign slavery. It is not the solution to Africa’s myriad socioeconomic and political problems but rather part of the problem. Why haven’t African leaders realized that the billions of dollars given to many African countries by Western development partners have failed to produce significant developmental progress? As a result, many aid-dependent African countries are poorer today than they were half a century ago.

Foreign aid often comes with numerous conditions. For example, the Samoa Agreement, which was recently signed by Nigeria and other African countries as a supposed post-Cotonou trade agreement, contains provisions related to LGBT rights and abortion. Why should an agreement focused on trade include clauses about LGBT rights and abortion?

Therefore, African countries must unite and summon the political will to reject foreign assistance that comes with a host of conditions—just as they once resisted slave traders during the transatlantic slave trade. There is a well-known adage: “Not everything that glitters is gold.” Africans should carefully scrutinize gifts, donations, and aid from the United Nations, the United States, and other foreign organizations to determine whether they are truly beneficial or come with hidden conditions.

President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This is also a welcome development. Formally founded on April 7, 1948, under the United Nations to promote international healthcare and improve access to essential medicines and health products worldwide, the WHO has enjoyed decades of success and global recognition.

Unfortunately, however, the WHO has become influenced by a narrow Western ideological perspective, prioritizing the funding and promotion of controversial issues such as vaccines allegedly causing infertility, LGBT rights, abortion, population control, teen sexual rights, teen masturbation, and transgender rights in Nigeria and other African countries. To achieve these objectives, the WHO receives significant funding from pro-LGBT and pro-abortion organizations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, Marie Stopes International, Rutgers, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. This has had a significant impact on the actual operations of the WHO, leading to a clear erosion of national sovereignty.

More importantly, President Trump has taken steps to intervene in the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both of which threaten international peace. Trump is exploring ways to end these carnages that continue to claim human lives. Already, a ceasefire has been announced in the Israeli-Palestinian war, with many believing that President Trump played a key role in pushing for the ceasefire and facilitating the recent hostage deal. Similarly, the end of the Russia-Ukraine war seems within reach, as President Trump has vowed to broker a peace deal. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed openness to holding talks with Trump to bring an end to the war. This is commendable since war poses a major threat to human existence. The United States should, therefore, stop fighting a proxy war by funding and supplying arms to Ukraine.

Finally, President Trump has promised to inaugurate what he calls America’s “Golden Age.” We look forward to the restoration of fundamental principles—the truth claims, practical wisdom, and constitutional insights of America’s founding fathers, as expressed in the Declaration of American Independence (1776). Given America’s influence in the world, these principles could serve as a superstructure to facilitate the building of a new international order—one where justice, service, peace, respect for human dignity, intrinsic human worth, and mutual understanding reign.

This is the only way to truly win the human race.

By Tonye Clinton Jaja

Between the years 2012 and 2022, I was a visiting law lecturer on their annual legislative drafting course at the School of Law, Kiit University, Orissa State, India.

Once every one of those years, I would fly Ethiopia airlines with a stopover at New Delhi. One one of those trips, I bought a book at the airport to read while waiting.

The title of the book is: “100 Speeches That Shaped The World” by Colin Slater (2019).

Amongst the 100 speeches are the “But It Moves” speech by Galileo Galilee; the “I Have A Dream” speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Sermon on The Mount by Jesus Christ, just to mention a few!!!

Perhaps in the second edition of this book, they should consider adding the recent speech by Nigeria’s National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.

It will be remembered and go down in history as short and direct, to the point: “They (Embassy of Canada) can Go To Hell”!!!

The circumstances and background to the said speech were recently reported as follows:

“The National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, has expressed outrage against the Canadian embassy for denying Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Christopher Musa, and other army chiefs visas.

Speaking at the maiden annual lecture of the National Association of the Institute for Security Studies (AANISS), in collaboration with the Department of State Service (DSS), Ribadu said the North American country “can go to hell”.

Contrary to his angst, the NSA is supposed to have expressed gratitude to the Embassy of Canada for denying visas to the said military officials and thereby saving Nigeria the total sum of over $200,000 which could have been spent on visa, hotel accommodation, airflght tickets and estacodes assuming that visas were granted to ten (10) top military officials at the rate of $20,000 per top military official!!!

What was the purpose of the proposed trip to Canada, it was not to undergo essential military training, it was for the purpose of attending a ceremony to honour military veterans (not specified whether they are Nigerian military veterans).

Is this a top priority for Nigeria right now?

The said $200,000 could be deployed to honour our Nigerian military veterans who since last year have been begging the federal government of Nigeria to increase their pensions.

Perhaps the NSA should write a letter of appreciation to the Embassy of Canada in Nigeria for saving funds for the federal government of Nigeria, (which ought to be deployed for our Nigerian military veterans) after he reads this below:

“It’s Sheer Peanuts,’ Ex-Army Officer Asks FG To Review Veterans’ Benefits

On the heels of Armed Forces Remembrance Day commemorated in Nigeria on Sunday, retired Col. Hassan Stan-Labo has called on the Federal Government to review the benefits and gratuities of military veterans.”

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