Home Blog Page 52

How India plans to count 1.4 billion people

A man speaks on a mobile phone as he walks across a crowded market in Varanasi, India, on October 25, 2025. Niharika Kulkarni/AFP/Getty Images

India has kicked off a mammoth exercise to count its entire population – all 1.4 billion of them, give or take a few, in a census initially delayed by the pandemic then administrative issues.

Over the next year, more than three million people will go door-to-door, traveling through megacities and remote villages, to tally up every household and resident of India – and collect data on their social and economic characteristics.

For the first time in almost 100 years, the survey will include caste – a controversial decision that some say could further entrench divisions.

The final count will not be known until next year, underscoring the vast scale of an exercise that seeks to capture the contours of one of the world’s most diverse and complex societies.

Here’s what to know.

Click here to continue reading.

Too much screen time could harm your child—experts issue stark warning to parents

New government guidance suggests "screen swaps" to encourage more reading together or playing games

Children under the age of five should be limited to one hour of screen time a day, while under-twos should not be watching screens alone, new government guidance says.

It advises parents to steer clear of fast-paced videos and use screens together where possible. The guidance also suggests “screen swaps” – taking screens away to read stories together or playing simple games at mealtimes.

The guidance is the first evidence-backed, practical advice issued by the government, but ministers say it will be kept under review as more evidence emerges.

“This is still quite an unknown area in lots of respects and we’ve taken a precautionary approach,” Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said.

Children’s commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza and Russell Viner, professor of paediatrics and adolescent health at University College London, have reviewed the latest evidence, finding that long periods of time spent on screens alone can affect children’s sleep and physical activity, which are key to their development.

Click here to continue readling.

HRM Akpomudje, SAN becomes chairman of Body of Benchers

HRM Albert Akpomudje, SAN, FCIArb, Eyavwie-Alakal I, the Ohworode of Olomu has stepped in as Chairman of Nigeria’s Body of Benchers (BoB).

A revered traditional ruler and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Akpomudje brings to the role a rare blend of intellectual depth, cultural wisdom, and unwavering commitment to justice.

As former Vice Chairman, his appointment signals a renewed hope for discipline, ethical rebirth, and institutional strength within the legal profession.

At a time when the Nigerian judiciary faces intense scrutiny and growing public demand for accountability, his leadership is expected to usher in a new era defined by courage, reform, and zero tolerance for professional misconduct.

Lawyers across the Country widely regard his emergence as a decisive step toward restoring confidence in the Body of Benchers—the apex institution responsible for the call to the Bar and the regulation of legal practitioners.

Akpomudje’s track record speaks for itself. As a legal luminary, he has distinguished himself through decades of impeccable service, shaping legal thought and mentoring generations of lawyers.

As the Ohworode of Olomu, he has demonstrated exemplary leadership rooted in justice, fairness, and community advancement since his coronation on 15th November 2025.

These dual roles uniquely position him to bridge tradition and modernity in steering the Body of Benchers toward a more credible and impactful future.

His chairmanship is expected to confront long-standing challenges within the legal profession head-on—ranging from declining ethical standards to procedural inefficiencies.

There is widespread anticipation across the Bench and Bar that he will enforce stricter disciplinary measures while promoting merit, transparency, and professionalism at all levels.

According to Akpomudje, “My emergence is more than a personal achievement; it is a call to action for the entire legal community.

“It underscores the urgent need for reform and the collective responsibility to uphold the sanctity of the legal profession.

“Under my stewardship, the Body of Benchers must rise to meet the expectations of Nigerians who look to the law as the last hope of the common man.” He said.

In HRM Albert Akpomudje, many see not just a chairman, but a reformer, a stabilizing force, and a symbol of what the Nigerian legal system can and should represent. His tenure begins with high expectations—and an even higher responsibility to deliver lasting change.

Olomu Kingdom in a signed congratulatory message signed by Dr. Folunsho F. Abudu, President General of Olomu described the Ohworode emergence as another great achievement for Olomu kingdom.

‘Can Being a Woman or a Christian Disqualify a Judge in Shari’a Appeals?’ –Mai-Jega v. Haruna (2026) 4 NWLR (Pt. 2033) 47, By Isah Bala Garba

Although the facts of this case are not violent, they are quite telling, as it involves family dispute; that reminds us that even blood relations are not immune from conflict, especially when land is involved

It was an extended family of late Alhaji Haruna III, a traditional ruler (Sarkin Kabi Jega) of the Jega Emirate in Kebbi State, Nigeria. Sarkin Kabi Jega, as he then was, had 4 wives, 25 male children, and 13 female children.Upon his demise in 2006, issues now ensued among the children as to a specific parcel of land.

ALHAJI HARUNA HARUNA MAI-JEGA, who could be inferred to be the eldest son, was the Appellant in this case. He was called upon by his brothers: ALHAJI GARBA HARUNA, MUSLIM HARUNA, JUNAIDU HARUNA, and ABDUSSALAM HARUNA, who are the Respondents, to share their father’s land among the children as their joint inheritance, including the one being used by the Appellant as farmland.

The Appellant, in response, vehemently protested and denied the joint ownership of the land. He contended that the said farmland belonged to him alone, as it was given to him as a gift by their deceased father since 1983. He further claimed that all the Respondents and the father’s surviving wives were very much aware of the said gift.

The Respondents (Alhaji Garba Haruna & 3 others), in a bid to ensure the distribution of the said land without hesitation, instituted an action at the Upper Shari’a Court, Jega, Kebbi State, for the court’s determination on 14/4/2016.

Trial began!

The Appellant maintained his ground that the property was a gift to him and informed the trial court that his witnesses were his three stepmothers, as the purported gift was made in their presence. He vigorously urged the court to summon them to appear and testify. They appeared; however, to his dismay, not in his favour as they all testified that they did not know of the purported gift.

At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court held that the Appellant had no case. He could not establish the purported gift, and the court consequently held that the farmland belonged to their late father and ordered that it be shared among all heirs.

The Respondents were happy, such victory is certainly worth being happy about. I would also be happy; if it were you, wouldn’t you be happy? Of course, everyone would be happy. But the Appellant was not happy. He believed the trial court erred and proceeded to the Shari’a Court of Appeal. There the entire decision of the trial court was quashed and the gift purportedly claimed to be made in his favour by their father was affirmed. It’s then the turn of the Appellant to be equally happy, while the Respondents would not.

And indeed, they were not. That explains why they further appealed to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the judgment of the Shari’a Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the trial court (judgment delivered on 7th December 2018). Imagine their smiling faces once again. Looks like a back-and-forth movement, like a pendulum, right? That’s litigation for you; very uncertain making parties never to settle until it is finally settled.

He (the Appellant) therefore, being aggrieved, found his way to the Supreme Court; the final box stop of every litigant. This is where the case takes an interesting turn, as the Appellant took a new dimension in his argument. Not just any argument, but one on jurisdiction; the lifeblood of every suit. He contended inter alia that the members of the panel that sat over the appeal in the Court of Appeal were not qualified to do so.

Put differently, it was his contention that Hon. Justice Fredrick O. Oho, J.C.A., one of the panellists at the Court of Appeal, was not learned in Islamic Personal Law, while Hon. Justice Amina A. Wambai, J.C.A., being of the female gender, was not qualified to be a judge based on the principles of Islamic Law. As such, there was a flagrant defilement of the provision of section 247(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the principles of Islamic Law, thereby rendering the entire proceedings before the Court of Appeal null and void.

At first reading, one may be tempted to pause and feel like applauding learned counsel for the Appellant, as the argument sounds brilliant. But is that actually the law? Can the argument be said to be potent and capable of disclosing any hostility to the judgement of the lower court, considering the prevailing practice of constitutionalism in Nigeria?

The Supreme Court, per J.Y. TUKUR, J.S.C. (who read the leading judgment), eruditely addressed the above questions. His Lordship acknowledged that under classical Islamic jurisprudence, it’s settled and beyond contention that a judge must be male not female, muslim not christian, Son not servant and sane not insane making reference to authorities such as Asalul Madari, Vol. 3 p.196; Tuhfa (Ihkamul Ahkam); and Qawa Ninul Fiqhiyy, p.228. Therefore, the argument of counsel to the Appellant was indeed rooted in the toga of Islamic principles.

HOWEVER, when viewed through the lens of constitutional validity, section 247 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that:

‘The Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted… if it consists of not less than THREE JUSTICES… LEARNED IN ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW.[Capitalizations mine, for emphasis]’

A sober and meticulous reading of this unambiguous Provision reveals that the only requirement is that not less than three Justices must be learned in Islamic Personal Law. Nothing more, nothing less. No single word therein suggests ‘Gender’ or ‘Religion’ whatsoever.

Regrettably, My Lord observed that: that’s the state of things as реr the рrоvisions of the Constitution. This lacunae саn only bе filled bу аn amendment of the relevant provisions of the Constitution bу inserting where nесеssаrу the provision that the ‘JUSTICES LEARNED IN ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW MUST ALSO BE MALE MUSLIM JUSTICES’ to bring same in line with the principles of Islamic Law, and that саn only bе done by the legislature not the Court, because to import such requirements into the provision, by the court, would be to legislate from the bench, something the judiciary must never do.

Furthermore, the contention that Hon. Justice Fredrick O. Oho, J.C.A., being a Christian, was not qualified remained mere conjecture in the realm of speculation, as there was no evidence assembled by the appellant before the court that the learned Justice lacked the requisite qualification. After all, legal knowledge is acquired, not inherited. Who says a Christian judge cannot be learned in Islamic law?

In addition, the court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the matter was one of title to land falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. The court held that, from the Plaintiffs’ claim at the trial court, the issue was one of inheritance, which squarely falls within Islamic personal law.

In drawing the curtain, the Supreme Court also gave due consideration to the argument on the unsigned document purported to evidence the gift. The court agreed with the Appellant that, unlike under common law, the requirement of signing a document for it to be valid and binding is not known to Islamic law. In Islamic law, the validity of a document depends inter alia on the presence of witnesses, the conduct of the parties, and the fulfilment of contractual conditions, not the mere presence of a signature. Consequently, the Supreme Court was not persuaded, therefore, refused the invitation to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.

And the farmland remained part of the estate.

Lastly, it is gleanable from the phraseology and tenor of the analysis above that this decision of the Supreme Court was not only legally sound but also in alignment with the spirit and tenet of constitutional provisions. Particularly on the issue of the competency of Justices based on gender and religion, the court could be said to have stood firmly on the supremacy of the Constitution. However, this propels me to observe that the assertion that Islamic law is a distinct legal system in Nigeria may, to some extent, be overstated, because when its principles conflict with constitutional provisions, it is the Constitution that stands tall, and Islamic principles bow or kowtow to the sovereign nature of the constitutional provisions. In this case, it did. And perhaps it must always do. As therefore, suggested by My Lord J.Y Tukur, until the Constitution is amended to expressly incorporate such requirements ‘Justices learned in Islamic Personal Law must also bе male Muslim Justices’, that remains the law, and, as always, we say: as the court pleases.In the light of this brief juridical survey, I say no more.

-Isah Bala Garba is a Level 400 student of Common and Islamic Law and a Senior Advocate of Bayero University, Kano,(SABUK).He has authored numerous legal articles and analyzed many cases in clear, plain language. He can be reached for comments or corrections via: Email: [email protected] Tel: 08100129131

Mr President, the fundamental issue you seek to present as one of professional accountability is, in reality, one that is presently sub judice, By M.D. Idris Esq.

Dear Mr. President,

I have read your response with keen interest. However, with the greatest respect, the fundamental issue you seek to present as one of professional accountability is, in reality, one that is presently sub judice.

The question whether there was non-disclosure of material facts in Suit No. I/221/2026 is not one to be determined in the court of public opinion or through a petition, but one squarely within the province of the court before which the ex parte application was made. It is the court, upon full presentation of the facts and arguments by all parties, that is competent to determine whether there was suppression, misrepresentation, or breach of the duty of candour.

To elevate that same issue simultaneously before the LPDC, while the substantive matter remains pending before a court of law, raises serious concerns. It risks pre-empting the court’s decision and, more importantly, may amount to an interference with the administration of justice.

The doctrine of sub judice exists to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings and to prevent parallel processes from reaching, or appearing to reach, conflicting conclusions on the same subject matter. Respectfully, this is a principle that should guide all of us, particularly at this level of the profession.

It is therefore a legitimate question whether, in these circumstances, the LPDC ought to entertain such a petition at all, when the issues underpinning it are directly in issue before a competent court of law. The safer and more principled course would be to allow the court first determine whether any non-disclosure occurred and its legal consequences.

Furthermore, with respect, the step taken by the Association—especially in linking the petition to consequential decisions affecting professional standing—may itself raise questions as to propriety. Actions taken in the shadow of a pending judicial proceeding must be carefully measured to avoid any perception of institutional pressure or premature judgment.

This is not to diminish the importance of professional discipline. Rather, it is to insist that due process must be respected in its proper sequence. The court must first be allowed to perform its constitutional role without parallel adjudicatory processes running alongside it on the same facts.

In the circumstances, I respectfully urge that restraint be exercised and that full confidence be reposed in the court to determine the issues presently before it.
I reserve the right to make a more detailed response as events unfold.

Yours faithfully

You Are Wrong Mr President: It is not about issues of professional accountability, you are abusing your power and violating Nigeria’s constitution — Okutepa

Dear Mr Afam Osigwe, SAN, President NBA,

I read your reply to my write-up about the information I got that you wrote petition against me to LPDC or the Body of Benchers because of the cases I was briefed to lead the legal teams of the Claimants to file against the Incorporated Trustees of NBA and yourself which cases are pending before the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting in Ibadan and the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan.

In your reply to the concerns I raised, you admitted the facts of the allegations in my write-up and you then arrogantly in an infamous manner in professional respect, justified your misconduct for taking such unprofessional and unprecedented actions not only against me but against the administration of justice and due process of law. Mr President you know that facts admitted need no further proof. I will visit this your misconduct before the appropriate forum. Rather than justifying your misconduct, it is more honourable to resign as President of NBA to prevent further damages being done to the NBA and the nobility of the legal profession under your watch.

As you rightly admitted in your reply to me, the issues upon which you sat in the comfort of your office to act as the accuser, the prosecutor and judge all rolled in one to cause my name to be removed from the list of those to be re-appointed to the Body of Benchers under section 3(1)(l) of Legal Practitioners Act 2004 as amended are issues currently not only pending before the High Court of justice of Oyo State but before the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting in Ibadan Oyo State.

Perhaps in your hasty and unprecedented professional misconduct in an infamous manner to unjustifiably witch-hunt me, you forgot that you have the professional duties and responsibilities not to do anything in the form of self-help as you have done, to adjudicate on these issues and pass judgement on me unheard, by the unjust removal of my name from the list of those to be re-appointed to BOB as aforementioned, not as a Representative of NBA but as an appointee of BOB and at the instance of BOB itself under section 3(1)(l) of LPA.

Mr President of NBA, you are not just a lawyer; you are a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. You swore to an oath when you were admitted to the Inner Bar to protect and defend the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the laws of Nigeria. Perhaps in your haste to pass judgement against me and condemn me unheard, you arrogantly admitted to have been responsible for the removal of my name from the list of those to be re-appointed to the Body of Benchers under section 3(1)(l) of LPA, based on your petition, which petition before it was heard, you had already subjected to adjudication and found me guilty and then removed my name as punishment.

So, Mr President, you forgot your famous theory of presumption of innocence which you propounded when one of the NBA Presidents was being tried for alleged criminal offence in the court of law then. You also forgot to hold others who have pending professional misconduct allegations guilty as you have done to me. Because it involves me, I must be guilty before my guilt is decided. Your actions to remove my name on the basis of your petition before I could be served and heard is an extraordinary breach not only of the rule of natural justice but a gross breach of the Constitution of Nigeria that gives me the right to fair hearing by a Court or Tribunal that is constituted in such a manner as to ensure its impartiality and to be manned by people who are not biased.

Mr President you also failed in your duty to respect not only the processes pending before the High Court of Oyo State but the appeal which you caused to be filed before the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan. More worrisome to me is not the removal of my name from re-appointment by BOB at your behest, but your hasty and baseless claims and conclusions that I procured Ex-Parte orders based on suppression of facts which are issues you have already submitted for adjudication before the High Court of Oyo State. You do not have respect for Court Sir! If you do, you should have waited. That you did not wait, but decided to be judgmental and did what you admitted to have done, shows how low you treat our courts as President of NBA and yet you want Nigerians to respect our courts.

Be that as it may, let me be clear: I did not procure the orders in the cases before the High Court in Ibadan. I do not engage in such sharp practices. I have not and will not engage professional misconduct. The orders you claimed were procured were granted based on facts including your admission in your presidential address to lawyers in NBA NEC meetings in Benin where you already had nominated and appointed those to serve on ECNBA without regard to NBA constitution that vests the power of appointment of members of ECNBA on NBA NEC. Mr President, you are not NBA NEC. NBA NEC is not you. The communique you referred to in your reply to me, spoke of ratification of the appointment you already made in your Presidential address. As a lawyer Mr President, you know that “ratification” is not the same thing as “appointment”. Perhaps you did not know this.

Just note that the pending litigations raise fundamental constitutional issues that seek to challenge the arrogance of naked power in the face of NBA constitution. It is a suit aimed at institutional accountability and holding NBA to follow its constitution. It is not about your personal ego and I have the duty to ensure that NBA is run according to due process and not whimsical powers of the President. Mr President, perhaps you have forgotten that your conduct since these cases were filed against NBA and you in Ibadan demonstrated clearly how NBA under your watch has no respect for judicial processes and even the courts.

You know it. You cannot pretend not to know it. For instance, the matters you decided to take me to LPDC for, are matters currently pending before High Court and the Court of Appeal. Perhaps you forgot that while I was leading you as one of the prosecutors before the LPDC when I was the Chief Prosecutor of NBA, there are established precedents well embodied in decisions of LPDC that matters whose subject matters are in issue before the regular courts cannot be the basis for LPDC to assume jurisdiction. Did you forget? Perhaps you forgot or out of deliberate obstruction of justice, you decided to put pen to paper to write your petition against me and to use the said petition as a basis of witch-hunt as you have done.

If truly your objective was for professional accountability and not the issue of witch hunts, why did you leave other eminent members of the legal team in the cases pending against you before the High Court and the Court of Appeal out of your petition. There are not less than seven other Senior Advocates of Nigeria that are members of the legal team whose names are there for even the blind to see. Let me be clear and state again; I am not afraid of your petition! I am equally not bothered about your witch hunts. I am only extremely worried and concerned about the manner you are abusing your power. I am worried that as President of the largest Bar in Africa your conduct has become worse than those you have duties and responsibilities to hold accountable.

NBA is not your fiefdom and you are not the king that does no wrong. Your conduct is undermining the existence of NBA. Just know it.

Mr President of NBA, as you rightly pointed in your reply to me, I was in NBA NEC meeting in Benin. You did not allow anyone to take objection to your appointment of ECNBA which was done without consultation and which was also done in gross violation of NBA constitution. It is the violation of NBA constitution that I was briefed to challenge and this issue has been submitted to the court of law for adjudication. I owe greater duty to professional ethics to accept the brief. I have no regrets in one second to lead the legal team. Mr President, I think your conduct is likely to destroy not only NBA but the rule of law and the integrity of the legal profession.

Mr president let me conclude that my performances during my tenure both as representative of NBA, 2017-2020 and under section 3(1)(l) of LPA from 2023-2026, was exceptional as can be confirmed from the Secretariat of the Hon body of Benchers wherein I scored 87% grade of attendance and performances of other functions as a Bencher.
I was appointed by the Hon Body of Benchers in my own right as an eminent legal practitioner and I was not appointed or nominated by NBA as its representative at the Body of Benchers. It is only the Hon Body of Benchers who has the duty and responsibility to evaluate my conduct and performance as both a Bencher of the Body and Legal Practitioner. Your objection as president of NBA and your subsequent decision to remove name from being re-appointed as a Bencher under section 3(1)(l) of LPA based on your petition was not only made in bad faith, it was an abuse of power rooted in political vendetta, self serving and partisanship vindictiveness.

As you admitted and it is a well known fact in the NBA, I am the lead counsel to those who are opposed to your inappropriate use of office as NBA president to campaign for one of the aspirants in the forthcoming 2026 NBA elections and your unconstitutional composition of ECNBA which you had constituted to rig the 2026 NBA election in favour of your preferred and anointed aspirant and or candidate. It is pursuant to this that I was denied the right to be reappointed as a member of BOB under section 3(1)(l) of LPA and punished on the basis of the objection; your objection as NBA president because I accepted to lead the team and not play sycophantic role in aid of your unconstitutional composition of ECNBA. You used your office in BOB to remove my name without me been afforded the opportunity of a hearing not to talk of even the fairness of the hearing, even though I was eminently qualified for the renewal of my appointment in accordance with the decision of the BOB to give those of us appointed under section 3(1)(l) of LPA automatic renewal if we performed our duties creditably well.

The reports available at the Secretariat of the BOB, shows that my performances were excellent, scoring 87%. Despite this I was discriminated and singled out for punishment in non-renewal of my membership based on allegations upon which I was not heard. Sir, it is important to draw your attention to the fact that I have distinguished myself in the service of the legal profession and served the bar selflessly over the years. I was a member of the BOB from 2017 to 2020 representing NBA and I served with commendable admiration as can be seen from my records of service at BOB Secretariat and NBA. I was the Chief Prosecutor for NBA at LPDC from 2012 to 2017 before I resigned my appointment. In all these positions, I served with diligence commitment and dedication without compromising ethical standards.

Based on the foregoing Mr. President, you were certainly not motivated by the best interests of the Bar and the ethics of the legal profession in your petition. You are arrogantly abusing your power to undermine judicial process and in contempt of court. You are intimidating me as lead counsel. You are obstructing the cause and course of justice by your conduct and your petition. I say no more. I wish you the best in your misguided ventures.

Chief Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN (Bencher 2017-2020 and 2023-2026).
7th day of April 2026

Identities of worshippers killed, abducted at Kaduna Church revealed

Fresh details have emerged on the attack at a branch of The Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA) in Arikon community, Kachia Local Government Area of Kaduna State.

Daily Trust had reported how bandits invaded the church during Easter service, killing five persons and abducting 29 worshipers.

A security source who spoke to our reporter through the telephone on Sunday night said the bandits invaded the community on over 20 motorcycles and surrounded the church when service was still ongoing.

He said as some the bandits alighted from the motorcycle, they opened fire in different different directions, leading to the killing of five people who tried to escape.

Read Also: Carnage and Confusion: Nigeria reels after deadly Easter attacks across four states

Read Also: Soldiers Made Us Pay for a Cow—Who pays for the lives we lost?” Plateau community cries out after three killed

According to him, some worshipers who were at a nearby Catholic Church, took to their heels when they heard gunshots.

“Actually, the bandits first attacked the ECWA church. And while they were shooting, worshipers at the Catholic Church started running out of the church but the bandits killed one of them,” he said.

He identified those killed at ECWA Church as Tanko Haruna, Waziri Agunu, Aminu Soba, Joseph Audu and Adamu Jatau, adding that they were killed while trying to escape.

He also gave names of some the abducted worshipers as Garba Tanko, alongside with his wife Lami Garba, and one of their daughters, Rachel Garba as well as a grand child, Moses Yakubu.

Others are Rahab Usman, and his daughter, Victoria Rahab. Sunday Ayuba, Dantani Alhaji alongside his wife, Mrs Mary Dantani, including their three daughters all identified as Helen, Rejoice and Ahmadu, were among those kidnapped.

The security source, however, disclosed that the Kaduna state Police Commissioner, CP Rabiu Mohammed, alongside the Sector 4 Commander of the Nigerian Army, Col. IR ADOM led convoy of over 30 vehicles to the community to access the situation in the area.

Our reporter gathered that the entire community has been deserted.

After the attack, some villagers reportedly fled to neighboring Katari, Jere and Kachia towns.

Spokesperson of the Kaduna State Police Command, DSP Hassan Mansur, had not commented about the incident as at the time of filling the report.

We are all Àmúpìtàn, By Suyi Ayodele

Àmúpìtàn – the one whose deeds will be retold in history. If you answer this name, wisdom dictates that you should be conscious of what history holds for you in future. Every human being is an Àmúpìtàn; there is no exception.

Names are significant in the African worldview. Every child is what his name denotes. The wise men of my native land posit that Ìbí ni a únmo iràn (one’s birth denotes one’s ancestry). That axiom remains valid to date because a child sired in the home of wisdom will never go to the house of the foolish to learn

I know of a great Àmúpìtàn. He died about 39 years ago. However, his many deeds while on this side of the planet are celebrated in stories about the greatness of mankind.

I will tell just one of the many deeds of Oba Òjó Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè Òjoyèbugiòtèwó (he who ascends the throne and uproots the tree of conspiracy) Amélilájetùotùo (he who eats the cow alongside its horns). He was the penultimate Onísè of Odò Orò Èkìtì. The following narrative is presented from the perspective of a narrator as a minor participant.

Odò Orò Èkìtì in the early 70s witnessed a fierce battle between two cousins who jostled for the chieftaincy title of Olókòjú (head of the community’s traditional army). From ancient times, the two cousins have rotated the title. At one point, one of the cousins wanted to make the title his permanent inheritance.

The other cousin kicked against the idea. So, when the title became vacant following the demise of the occupier from the other homestead, the cousin who insisted that the rotational tradition must be respected presented a candidate. The other side, which produced the immediate past Olókòjú, also presented a candidate.

The matter got to a head, and the Onísè-in-Council stepped in. Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè ruled that the tradition must be sustained. The influence of the other cousin paled into insignificance as the Onísè stood his ground and installed a new Olókòjú from the rightful family according to the rotation history. While the animosity between the two cousins remained, Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè was at peace with himself and the ancestors because he did the right thing.

Fast forward to the 1981 masquerade festival in the town. As young folks, we were following our favourite masquerade known as Aao (diviner), dancing and soliciting money from townsmen and women, who generously gave to us.

As we moved from one quarter to another, the masquerade party ran into one of the elites of the town. He was working in Gboko, the traditional headquarters of Tiv, Benue State. The man just returned from Western Germany, where he studied.

We stopped his brand-new Peugeot 504 SR salon car, as we were wont to do. We sang and danced. The man would not budge. After a few minutes, we left him. The party moved a few metres away from him and someone raised one of the songs of the elders, to wit: Sékésekè mu (let the handcuffs hamper him)/Àbà mumùmu, àbà (let the pin-it-on-a-spot hinder him)/Kó má le lo (may he not be able to move)/Àbà mumùmu, àbà.

For whatever reason, the car stopped working. The man alighted, did all he could, but the car went dead. We kept dancing. And after about five minutes, another person raised another song of the elders, a derisive but potentially esoteric song, asking the bird to take flight.

Probably, that song did the magic as the man entered the car, started the ignition and the car roared to life. Now, the man in question happened to be a younger brother of one of the influential leaders of the other family that lost the early 70s Olókòjú chieftaincy contest.

We were just about leaving the masquerade groove, when policemen arrived. All the adults in the masquerade party were arrested. Among those arrested was a cousin, who happened to be the son of the leader of the family that won the chieftaincy contest a decade earlier.

The community stepped in and ordered the complainant to withdraw the matter from the police. All parties were taken to the palace; a sizable crowd gathered to watch the adjudication. The man was called to state his case.

He alleged that the masquerade party used an object to touch his car, giving the onomatopoeic sound of: “Ò fi ikàn kan bí ìwo kan okò mi kekeke (he used a horn-like object to tap my car), láti ígbá yen ni orí ti ùn fó mi kekeke (ever since, I have been having a nagging headache). The crowd giggled!

One of the palace chiefs asked the elderly fellow to shut his trap. He added that the man should be ashamed of himself if mere children would be the ones to mesmerize him with a ‘horn-like object at his age!

When asked to state our case, the one who spoke on behalf of the masquerade party narrated exactly what happened. The elders asked us to sing the two songs we sang while the encounter happened. We did. Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè and his chiefs exchanged glances, whispered among themselves, and appointed the chief who spoke earlier to speak on behalf of the throne.

The chief upbraided the complainant for behaving as if he did not know the tradition as it related to the masquerade festival. He added that the town would have punished him for the sacrilege of calling the police on children observing tradition but would allow it to slide because he had never been found flouting the tradition of the people.

As for the young folks, they were cautioned to know who to ask for money next time. And for the two songs, the chief dismissed them as mere “eré omode” (a child’s play), with no esoteric connotations, and asked us to apologise to the man for showing disrespect to him. We did instantly by prostrating, chorusing: “E má bínú sir” (Don’t be offended). The entire crowd chorused Kàbìyèsí, thinking that the matter was over. That was not to be.

As the king made to leave, the influential elder brother of the complainant stepped forward. He told the sitting that he had something to say. The chief, who spoke earlier, asked him to table whatever he had to say. The influential man shocked the gathering. Hear him:

“Kàbìyèsí,” he said, “mo ti dáríji gbogbo àwon omode wòn yí àfi omo Luku.” (I have forgiven all the children except the son of Luke) There was pin-drop silence. The king sighed, the town chorused kàbìyèsí. A chief rose and chanted the panegyrics of the king. Then Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè took over. It was traditional jurisprudence at its best, when the Oba spoke.

Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè asked all the arrested youths to step forward. They did. He asked the influential man to point out the one he had not forgiven. He did, pointing at my late cousin and mentor. The king asked the others to go back to the crowd. They did, leaving ‘Omo Luku’ and the elderly man. Attention shifted to them. Silence!

Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè broke the silence. Pointing his horsetail at the influential man, he said, mentioning the man’s name: “Omo Luku le hìí (this is Luke’s son), ó yá, wí sí ha uhun kò se yàtò sí hì han egbé rè (now tell us the offence he committed that is different from that of his mates). Stalemate! A chief chanted: Òdio (another praise name), and the town answered: Kábíyèsí.

The influential man knew there was a problem. He blabbed about ‘Omo Luku’ being the most aggressive of the masquerade party that day. The king asked anything more, and the elderly man kept quiet. Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè shook his head, his chiefs hailed Ajìwàjiwa ìlèkè (the one who dangles like expensive coral beads).

Who was the never-to-be-forgiven ‘Omo Luku’? He was no other person than the first son of Baba Luke, one of the leaders of the family that won the aforementioned chieftaincy contest of the early 70s!

When the king spoke again, he was direct; no prevarication. He told the influential man to be ashamed of himself for resurrecting an old grievance over a chieftaincy title that occurred over a decade ago. He asked him what type of elder he intended to be.

The upbraiding was greeted intermittently with the King’s panegyrics: “Igirabatalókun” (the big tree that sprouts from the ocean), “Ukú” (Death), and “Èkejì Òrìsà” (the second-in-command to the deity). The king waved his horsetail. The praise chants stopped.

Then he continued. Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè said that he was tempted to revisit the sacrilege committed with the invitation of the police by the influential man. The man sensed danger. He went on all fours. His younger brother and other members of his lineage present followed. The king kept silent. His praises rent the air once more. He raised the horsetail, the third time and silence followed.

He pronounced that he would let go but warned that never should anybody ever raise the issue of the Olókòjú chieftaincy matter because it was dead and forgotten. Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè rose. His chiefs followed him to the inner recess.

The town chorused Kàbìyèsí. The youths broke into a jubilant party, singing: “Ta ló so pé a Ò ní baba” (who says we have no father)/”káì a ní baba” (stop it, we have a father)/Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè baba wa (Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè is our father)/Káì a ní baba (stop it, we have a father).

This particular story brought out the finest in Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè. This particular adjudication stands out among the many other good deeds of the late king. At the most critical moment, he spotted where mischief lay. He knew the implications of allowing the influential man to revisit old wounds that had the tendency to divide the community.

At his coronation, Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè picked the appellation, Òjoyèbugiòtèwó (he who ascends the throne and uproots the tree of conspiracy). At birth, he was named Àmúpìtàn (he whose deeds will be retold in history). Our elders say a child’s name is a pointer to his character (Orúko omo ni ro omo). Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè knew he could not act contrary to the connotative and denotative nuances of his name.

When duty called, he placed fairness, justice and the unity of the people above other sentiments. Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè knew when to wield the big stick and do what was right. He understood that being the community’s umpire, his watchwords must be justice and fairness. He did justice in the matter under reference because he was an Àmúpìtàn, the one whose deeds will be a positive reference point in history.

The king was not swayed by position; he was not persuaded by personality. He wanted a positive side of history whenever his reign was mentioned. The Olókòjú of his era had since joined the sage like Oba Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè did too. Today, the title has gone back to the other family that was aggrieved in the 70s without acrimony because an Àmúpìtàn did what was right, noble and just. History is kind to his name, almost four decades after he had transitioned!

There is another Àmúpìtàn in modern-day Nigeria. On this Àmúpìtàn’s shoulder lies the fate of over 200 million Nigerians. His pronouncements as the head of the nation’s electoral umpire can make or mar the nation. His decisions, actions and inactions have the capacity to break Nigeria or bind it together in unity.

Will this new Àmúpìtàn’ answer his name and occupy the positive side of history? Or will he do otherwise so that in years to come, every reference to his name will be on the deficit side of our political ledger as a nation?

Just as the eyes of all indigenes of the town were on Oba Òjó Àmúpìtàn Olúyeyè when it was most critical for him to adjudicate in a matter that had the potential of polarising the community, the entire nation looks up to Professor Joash Òjó Àmúpìtàn (SAN), the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), over the delisting of the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), from the portal of the electoral umpire last Thursday.

Everything favours Professor Àmúpìtàn to be on the positive side of history. He is well lettered, rising to the position of a professor in academics. The Yoruba translation of professor is Òjògbón (the wise one). In the legal profession, the gods have been kind to him as he rose to the pinnacle of his career as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The INEC Chairman is both a teacher and a lawyer. Therefore, he has no excuse not to be fair, just and noble!

Nigeria is on edge. I hope Professor Àmúpìtàn realises that. A time like this does not allow the coronation of a tyrant as President. Again, I hope Àmúpìtàn knows that he has unconsciously, by delisting the ADC leadership from INEC’s portal, loaned himself to that political perfidy of having President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the sole candidate of the January 2027 presidential election. This is not the time for diplomacy; the nation’s temperament at the moment abhors such a possibility!

It is unfortunate and equally saddening that those who rose to power with the credentials of democrats are today turning out to be worse than the baldhead-tyrants Nigerians sacrificed their lives to chase away! Professor Àmúpìtàn holds the four aces; he should not hide behind the proverbial one finger of a court order.

The INEC Chairman should not strike the match his appointing authority handed over to him because the nation is in a combustible state. A spark is all that is required, and the whole nation will be aflame! If this sounds pessimistic, sorry, I don’t know the gentleman-way to say it!

It will be an insult to the academic and professional credentials of Professor Àmúpìtàn if he should require a pocket lawyer to educate him that he is not in any position to interpret any court judgement or rulings. He must have taught the numerous students that passed through his tutelage that same jurisprudence. He must have argued such a position before several courts! Why he, at the twilight of his career, chose to do otherwise, is unexplainable!

But if he lacks that knowledge, I impose on him the teachings of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning (January 23, 1899-March 5, 1999), who posited that ‘fairness’ is a “bold spirit” that implores “judges to achieve justice and fairness in the individual case, even if it required challenging established legal precedents or strict, technical interpretations of the law”, and placed premium on “reason and justice over rigid legal formalism, often acting as a champion for the ‘little man’ against powerful institutions; preferring to see that ‘justice is done’ rather than strictly adhering to procedural technicalities.”

As a professor and SAN, Àmúpìtàn has adorned himself in white apparel. By accepting the INEC chairmanship in the Tinubu administration, the Kogi-born egghead elected to walk in the stall of palm oil sellers. He needs nobody to counsel him to be circumspect on how he walks through the slippery path history has set before him; otherwise, he gets stained! As a professor and SAN, Àmúpìtàn has seen it all. The INEC chairmanship is a mere jara; a very dispensable credential that adds no value to his already-made personality! Again, I hope he knows that.

The option to choose to be remembered on the positive or negative side of history is his to make. If I were him, I would ask the Appeal Court to decide what it meant by “status quo ante bellum” rather than being interpretative. And it is not too late to do that. If the INEC Chairman got the electoral processes right, his name would remain Àmúpìtàn. If on the other hand, he elected to do otherwise, he would have himself to blame.

What Nigerians want is a process that allows every candidate or political party the opportunity to go to the field and seek the mandate of the people via a free, fair and open election. Nigerians will not accept any establishment-induced technical knockout of any political party. If by any stretch of imagination, the INEC under Àmúpìtàn comes out as a biased umpire, I take a bet: the name, Àmúpìtàn, will assume a new multi-syllabic phonological realisation of À-mú-pì-tàn-bu-rú-kú (the one whose deeds will be retold in bad history). Let Àmúpìtàn choose and choose right!

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

Five-year-old girl says, ‘he gave me biscuit and peanut burger, laid me down, and…’

A 17-year-old boy, Usman (surname withheld) is currently on the run and being searched for after he allegedly defiled a five-year-old girl, ‘Labisi (surname withheld), who is the granddaughter of his neighbour at Foko area in Ibadan, Oyo State.

Saturday Tribune learnt that the defilement was carried out last week Thursday when the suspect boy, popularly called “Booda Ajao” by children, allegedly lured the girl with biscuits and sexually assaulted her.

Unknown to ‘Labisi, the 17-year-old half-brother of one of her playmates, a four-year-old boy, had been lusting for her tiny frame, and on the fateful day, he decided to carry out his plan.

Noticing that no adult was around, and his young brother was playing with ‘Labisi, Usman went for his Plan A. He bought biscuits and peanut burger, beckoned on the two children, and offered them the snacks. The children, happy to get the freebies, joyfully munched the snacks.

As they were doing this, Usman effected Plan B. He allegedly took the children inside his mother’s room, asked ‘Labisi to lie down, removed her underwear and his own trousers, baring his manhood. Then, he allegedly knelt in front of the girl, crouched over her and defiled her.

The distraught mother of the girl, Ms Ishola, aged 35, who narrated the incident to Saturday Tribune, explained: “My daughter used to stay with my mother on her return from school. My mother lives in the house next to that of Usman’s mother, and my daughter used to play with Usman’s four-year-old half-brother as they belong to the same age group.

“As I learnt, last Thursday, the two children were playing outside together in the evening when Usman came with biscuits to lure my daughter, ‘Labisi, inside, followed by his younger brother, unnoticed by anyone.

“The following day, my mother was bathing my girl when she started crying, saying that her private part was hurting her. That rang an alarm in my mother’s head, and she immediately asked my daughter what happened to her.

“’Labisi told her grandmother of how the teenager asked her to lie down, removed his trousers and her own pants, and laid on her, and told his younger brother to leave the room when the boy was watching his elder brother’s act. My daughter said that Usman put his manhood in her private part and started thrusting.

Read Also: Ogun man accused of impregnating daughter, forcing multiple abortions, as police arrest 23-year-old for alleged defilement of minor in Ondo

“The narration made my mother to raise the alarm. The young boy was called, and he confirmed that his brother laid on ’Labisi.”

When summoned, Saturday Tribune gathered that the teenager denied defiling the little girl, which angered the people around as they attempted to beat him.

Ms Ishola added: “My daughter has not changed her words since the incident happened. When I came to my mother’s place, I was told of what happened in my absence and my daughter repeated all she had said. I could not bear the sexual assault on my young daughter, so I went to Health Centre, Foko, for medical examination. On Sunday, we went to Adeoyo Hospital, Yemetu, to conduct tests which confirmed bruises in my daughter’s private part.”

When Saturday Tribune spoke with the little girl, she repeated everything her mother had said, adding: “Booda Ajao was doing like this (making thrusting gestures).”

Usman, who reportedly disappeared after the incident, is still at large. The girl’s family, it was learnt, went to the Amotekun Corps at Ibadan South West Local Government Area in Oyo State Command to report the case.

“We got information that he came on Wednesday to pack his clothes, but his mother said she was yet to see him since he ran away,” Ms Ishola said.

Saturday Tribune also contacted the runaway boy’s mother, Madam Ganiya (surname withheld), and she confirmed the disappearance of her son, claiming that she didn’t plan it or knew nothing about it.

“My son is in SSS3 and learning a vocation. Last Saturday, I was told of how he defiled the five-year-old girl and was beaten for doing such a thing. I also spanked him. On Sunday, he told me he was going to the shop where he is learning shoe sales. In annoyance, I told him not to let me see him return, as what he did was filthy. This was because he followed us to Adeoyo for a medical examination conducted on the little girl on that same Sunday. I’ve bought the medications prescribed for her,” the mother stated.

Showing displeasure to what her son allegedly did, Madam Ganiya said it was strange because in the neighborhood, they live communally. I used to give the girl’s grandmother the key to my room to keep for me. We are both tenants in houses next to each other. The girl used to come to us to play with my four-year-old son,” she said.

Usman’s mother maintained that “I didn’t take my son away to hide. If I were to be the one it happened to, I would not also have taken it kindly. I just plead that the government should have mercy on me.

“I can’t say precisely where my son is now. I’ve been searching for him. I heard that he was in Omi Adio with my mother and I informed Amotekun officers. I have told them to go for him and punish him accordingly if he is found. How can I hide him in my mother’s house after his embarrassing act?”

When contacted, the second-in-command at the IBSWLG, Sikiru Apanpa, confirmed the report of the case. He said that the suspect’s mother was invited for questioning and advised to look for the son.

It is an issue of professional accountability, not witch-hunt, NBA President to Okutepa

Dear Chief Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN,

I read your write up with more amusement than anger. In other to portray yourself as a victim of political oppression and witch-hunt, you accused me of abuse of office, forgery and indeed, professional misconduct. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I would ordinarily have ignored your post but for the fear that your misleading public narrative may be believed and thereby portray me as one guilty of your allegations. You will therefore understand why I have to respond to you in the same medium you have accused me.

The petition to the LPDC is not about whether Chief Okutepa had the right to accept a brief or challenge the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA). That right is unquestionable and firmly rooted in our adversarial system. The issue, rather, concerns the manner in which that right was exercised and whether, in the course of doing so, the ethical obligations owed to the court, particularly in ex parte proceedings, were fully observed.

Contrary to the narrative being advanced, the petition is neither personal nor retaliatory. It arises from what appears to be a serious professional concern deserving examination by the appropriate disciplinary body. The focus is not on representation, but on the circumstances surrounding Suit No. I/221/2026 and the procurement of far-reaching ex parte orders affecting the electoral process of the Association.

It is not disputed that the ECNBA was constituted at the National Executive Committee meeting held in Benin. The records of the meeting indicate that, following deliberations, a motion for the constitution of the ECNBA was formally moved by Chief Richard Oma Ahonaruogho, SAN, seconded by Mr. Clever N. Owhor, and adopted by NEC. Chief Okutepa, SAN, was present throughout the proceedings and actively participated in the meeting, including presenting the report and communiqué of the Security Ad-hoc Committee which he chaired shortly after the ratification of the ECNBA.

This procedure of presentation, motion, seconding, and adoption, reflects the established practice of NEC. A communiqué issued immediately after the meeting also reflected, among other resolutions, the constitution of the ECNBA. That communiqué circulated widely within the Bar and remained unchallenged. No objection was raised by those present, including Chief Okutepa, SAN, regarding the accuracy of the communiqué or the fact of the ECNBA’s constitution.

In addition, video recordings of the NEC proceedings capture the deliberations leading to the constitution of the ECNBA, including the motion, the seconding, and the adoption. The recordings also show that Chief Okutepa, SAN, was present in the hall during these proceedings. These materials underscore the importance of examining whether all material facts known to counsel were disclosed when the ex parte orders were sought.

The concern is further heightened by the reliance on minutes which allegedly did not reflect the full proceedings of the meeting, particularly the motion and adoption of the ECNBA. The ex parte application was prosecuted without disclosure of the material fact that both lead counsel and the first claimant were present at the meeting where the committee was constituted. Interim orders were thereafter granted restraining the ECNBA from functioning, thereby affecting the electoral process of the Association.

This raises an important professional question: where counsel personally witnessed the constitution of a body through a motion duly moved and seconded, and where a communiqué issued immediately thereafter reflected that decision without objection, does the failure to disclose those facts in an ex parte application not call for scrutiny? Would reliance on minutes that allegedly did not capture the full proceedings, particularly in the face of video evidence and an unchallenged communiqué, not raise legitimate concerns regarding the duty of candour owed to the court?

The Rules of Professional Conduct impose a clear duty in this regard. A lawyer is not permitted to rely solely on client instructions where he knows, or ought reasonably to know, that material facts are being withheld or misrepresented. The obligation is even stricter in ex parte proceedings, where the court depends entirely on the utmost good faith of counsel. Any omission of material facts, whether deliberate or reckless, goes directly to the integrity of the judicial process.

It is therefore incorrect to frame the petition as intimidation or victimisation. The LPDC exists precisely to examine allegations of professional misconduct. Submitting a petition to that body is the invocation of a lawful accountability mechanism. Whether the petition succeeds or fails is a matter for determination on evidence, not public sentiment.

Permit me to note that the assertion that I lobbied for Chief Okutepa’s exclusion from the Body of Benchers is misconceived. The NBA merely exercised its discretion not to recommend his renewal in light of the pending petition before the LPDC. It would have been inconsistent for the Association to recommend for re-appointment to a body of the highest distinction in the profession a person whose conduct it had simultaneously referred for disciplinary scrutiny. Recommendations for renewal are discretionary and may legitimately take prevailing circumstances into account.

This matter is not about personalities. It is about preserving professional ethics, particularly where ex parte orders are invoked in circumstances capable of affecting the electoral process of the Association. The petition seeks clarification on the extent to which a lawyer may rely on client instructions where material facts known to counsel are not disclosed, and the scope of the duty of candour under Rule 24(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The issues raised are properly for determination by the disciplinary process. The LPDC is not a political arena but a quasi-judicial body guided by rules, evidence, and precedent. If there is a defence to the allegations, it will find its strength there.

The petition is therefore an institutional step taken in good faith. It is not a personal attack. It is not a political contest. It is a professional inquiry into whether the procurement of ex parte orders, in the circumstances presented, complied with the ethical standards expected of legal practitioners.

The determination of these issues should properly lie with the disciplinary process, not in the arena of public debate.

Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN
President,
Nigerian Bar Association

1...515253...1,422Page 52 of 1,422

TIPS

Load more