Home Blog Page 6

He Would Have Been 90 Today: Remembering Chief Justice M. L. Uwais and a life of quiet greatness

Lillian and Fmr. Chief Justice M.L Uwais at her Call to Bar

By Lillian Okenwa

To some, he is a major headline. To many, he is much more than news.

So, when word filtered through on Friday, June 6, 2025, that Hon. Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais had passed away, I froze. Then I found myself screaming and pacing around my bedroom in disbelief.

When my father died 20 years ago at the age of 63, I convinced myself that people whose parents or loved ones died in their 80s or 90s probably did not feel the loss as intensely. After all, I reasoned, the deceased had lived a full life. I have now come to realise how wrong I was.

Loss does not negotiate with age.

When someone you love dies, the pain arrives all the same.

I struggle to write tributes for people close to me. This is only the second time I have attempted one. Since his passing, I have wrestled with these words, starting and stopping repeatedly. Even now, I am not sure I have found the right ones.

Read Also: Valedictory speech by Hon. Justice M. L. Uwais, GCON, retired Chief Justice of Nigeria, delivered on Monday, 12th June 2006 at the Supreme Court…

Read Also: A Legacy for Posterity https://youtu.be/tPR5BGCf-fg?si=CPEpElmNXkn-8HM0

Since that Friday morning when Justice Uwais passed away, just six days before what would have been his 89th birthday, I have searched for a fitting way to honour him. I am still searching.

Although he had been ill for some time, the news hit hard. It reminded me that grief does not measure years lived. It simply measures love.

When I arrived at the house that morning, part of me hoped there had been some mistake. Perhaps someone had misunderstood. Perhaps the message was wrong.

But the faces at the gate told a different story.

When I eventually entered his room and saw him wrapped up on his bed, all I could say to Aunty Maryam was, “So it’s true.”

Later, when he was wheeled on a stretcher into the ambulance that would take him to the mosque for the final rites, and I heard that loud thud of the ambulance trunk closing with forceful finality, it became clear to me that it’s really over. As the ambulance pulled away from the compound for the last time, I simply stood and watched. I could not cry. My heart was too heavy.

Read Also: Uwais resisted using his office to favour family and cronies with key appointments in the judiciary during his tenure — Odinkalu

Then another thought struck me.

It was Friday.

For decades, Friday meant one thing: Baba would leave for prayers at the Abuja National Mosque and return home. But not this Friday.

This was also Eid al-Adha, the sacred day when Muslims across the world commemorate Prophet Ibrahim’s obedience and sacrifice. Yet on this day of faith and devotion, it was Baba himself making his final journey to the mosque.

And this time, there would be no return.

He would never again walk through the doors of his home.

His grandchildren, whom he adored and who adored him in return, would never again hear his voice, sit by his side, or on his thighs.

That reality was difficult to bear.

Hon. Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais lived an extraordinary life of service. He remains the longest-serving Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, spending 27 years on the nation’s apex bench and serving for 11 years as Chief Justice of Nigeria from 1995 to 2006.

Yet what set him apart was not merely the offices he held.

It was the simplicity with which he carried them.

In a country where public office is too often treated as a family inheritance, he remained committed to fairness and institutional integrity. Throughout his years as Chief Justice, he resisted pressures to use his position to advance relatives, friends, or associates. He believed judicial appointments should be earned through merit, not personal connections.

That commitment earned him respect across generations of judges, lawyers, and public servants.

Duty came first.

It was only after he retired that I realised he had never used a siren, despite holding one of the highest offices in Nigeria. That quiet restraint mirrored the way he exercised power generally: without ostentation and without entitlement.

There is another irony that has not escaped me.

Justice Uwais was born on June 12, a date that would later assume profound significance in Nigeria’s democratic journey. Long after his birth, June 12 became synonymous with the struggle for electoral justice following the annulment of the 1993 presidential election, widely regarded as the freest in Nigeria’s history.

Perhaps it was fitting that a man born on that date would, decades later, chair the Electoral Reform Committee whose recommendations remain the most ambitious blueprint for fixing Nigeria’s troubled electoral system.

Following the controversial 2007 general elections, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua turned to Justice Uwais to lead a national conversation on electoral reform. The committee’s recommendations were bold and far-reaching: insulating INEC from political control, guaranteeing its financial independence, creating an Electoral Offences Commission and ensuring that election disputes were resolved before winners assumed office.

Many of those recommendations remain unimplemented today. Yet as politicians position themselves for the 2027 elections and Nigerians once again debate the credibility of the electoral process, the Uwais Report endures as a reminder that some of the solutions to our democratic challenges have long been identified. We simply lacked the political will to embrace them.

In many ways, Justice Uwais spent a lifetime defending the integrity of institutions. His work on electoral reform was merely an extension of that enduring commitment.

Away from the courtroom, national and international limelight, he was simply himself. A man of utmost simplicity. No airs.

My visits to him were always heartening. He was a gifted conversationalist. We would sit and talk for hours, sharing stories and laughter. He had a remarkable memory and an endless supply of fascinating anecdotes from decades in public service.

Listening to him was an education.

Sometimes we sat in companionable silence, before drifting into conversation. Other times we read and exchanged newspapers; then talk about trending issues. I will always remember him asking, “Lillian have your read this?” while raising a newspaper for me to see.

I remember him introducing me to a classmate that came visiting from Kaduna, as ‘his friend’. My Lord Justice Uwais was a rare breed.

Despite all he achieved, there was no trace of arrogance.

Chief Justice Uwais belonged to a generation of public servants whose humility was as remarkable as their accomplishments.

Today, he would have been 90.

Though he is no longer physically present, he lives on in the lives he touched, the institutions he strengthened, and the countless people who were privileged to know him.

Mama Saratu, Aunty Maryam, and those closest to him will understand this loss far more deeply than words can capture.

Happy birthday, Your Lordship.

And goodnight.

£210m Palace, Empty Hearts: What Britain’s most expensive house says about wealth, greed and the things we leave behind

The entire contents of the house were put up for auction in 2015. Photograph: ProAuction/SWNS

By Elvis Pratton

In one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods sits a property so extravagant that calling it a house feels almost inadequate.

Number 2-8A Rutland Gate, overlooking Hyde Park in Knightsbridge, boasts 45 rooms, 24 marble bathrooms, four lifts, an indoor swimming pool and enough luxury to rival many royal residences. When it changed hands in 2020 for £210 million, it became Britain’s most expensive home.

Yet today, nobody lives there.

The mansion stands silent behind its imposing façade, its vast rooms empty, its chandeliers unlit, its famous views of Hyde Park enjoyed by no one.

The irony becomes impossible to ignore when one discovers that the only person who appears to call the property home is a homeless man sleeping on its doorstep.

For three years, Swedish-born Anders Fernstedt has lived beneath a makeshift shelter on the mansion’s porch. A few metres separate him from a property worth more than entire districts in some countries. Inside are dozens of unused rooms. Outside is a man who survives day-to-day with little more than a mattress, a duvet, a few bicycles and the kindness of strangers.

The contrast is striking, but perhaps not for the reasons many might think.

This is not simply a story about homelessness. Neither is it merely a story about wealth. It is, in many ways, a story about the curious things human beings devote their lives to acquiring.

The mansion’s history reads like a catalogue of extraordinary fortunes. It belonged to Lebanese billionaire and former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri before his assassination in 2005. It later passed through Saudi royalty and eventually became entangled in the collapse of China’s Evergrande empire, one of the biggest corporate failures in modern history.

Its owners commanded immense wealth, influence and power. Some built empires. Some advised kings. Some moved markets.

Yet today, none of them lives there.

The building remains. The people moved on.

There is something sobering about that reality.

Across the world, countless people spend their lives chasing larger houses, bigger bank accounts and greater status. There is nothing inherently wrong with success. Ambition has built cities, created jobs and transformed societies. But there comes a point where accumulation ceases to serve any practical purpose and becomes an end in itself.

A mansion with 45 rooms can only be occupied one room at a time.

A wardrobe filled with hundreds of suits still allows only one to be worn.

A fleet of luxury cars can only carry a person in one vehicle at any given moment.

Beyond a certain point, wealth stops being about use and begins to exist largely as a symbol.

That may be why some of history’s most admired figures are remembered not for what they owned but for what they gave away. Long after fortunes disappear, people remember schools that were built, scholarships that were funded, hospitals that were established and lives that were changed.

Property can outlive its owners. Investments can pass to strangers. Estates can become the subject of litigation. Entire fortunes can vanish within a generation.

But acts of generosity have a way of surviving their creators.

The story of Rutland Gate illustrates that truth in an almost theatrical way. One owner was assassinated. Another died. Another lost control of his vast business empire and now faces criminal consequences. The mansion itself has become trapped in a web of ownership disputes and legal complications.

Meanwhile, the man sleeping outside remains one of the few people with any meaningful relationship to the property. He waters flowers. He knows the neighbours. Children stop to talk to him. He notices the changing seasons. In a strange way, he appears to derive more daily value from the building than many of those who have owned it.

Perhaps that is the real lesson.

The measure of a life is not necessarily what we accumulate, but what purpose our accumulation serves. In the end, the houses remain behind. The titles pass on. The money changes hands.

What endures are the lives touched, the opportunities created and the good done while we were here.

By Elvis Pratton

In one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods sits a property so extravagant that calling it a house feels almost inadequate.

Number 2-8A Rutland Gate, overlooking Hyde Park in Knightsbridge, boasts 45 rooms, 24 marble bathrooms, four lifts, an indoor swimming pool and enough luxury to rival many royal residences. When it changed hands in 2020 for £210 million, it became Britain’s most expensive home.

Yet today, nobody lives there.

The mansion stands silent behind its imposing façade, its vast rooms empty, its chandeliers unlit, its famous views of Hyde Park enjoyed by no one.

The irony becomes impossible to ignore when one discovers that the only person who appears to call the property home is a homeless man sleeping on its doorstep.

For three years, Swedish-born Anders Fernstedt has lived beneath a makeshift shelter on the mansion’s porch. A few metres separate him from a property worth more than entire districts in some countries. Inside are dozens of unused rooms. Outside is a man who survives day-to-day with little more than a mattress, a duvet, a few bicycles and the kindness of strangers.

The contrast is striking, but perhaps not for the reasons many might think.

This is not simply a story about homelessness. Neither is it merely a story about wealth. It is, in many ways, a story about the curious things human beings devote their lives to acquiring.

The mansion’s history reads like a catalogue of extraordinary fortunes. It belonged to Lebanese billionaire and former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri before his assassination in 2005. It later passed through Saudi royalty and eventually became entangled in the collapse of China’s Evergrande empire, one of the biggest corporate failures in modern history.

Its owners commanded immense wealth, influence and power. Some built empires. Some advised kings. Some moved markets.

Yet today, none of them lives there.

The building remains. The people moved on.

There is something sobering about that reality.

Across the world, countless people spend their lives chasing larger houses, bigger bank accounts and greater status. There is nothing inherently wrong with success. Ambition has built cities, created jobs and transformed societies. But there comes a point where accumulation ceases to serve any practical purpose and becomes an end in itself.

A mansion with 45 rooms can only be occupied one room at a time.

A wardrobe filled with hundreds of suits still allows only one to be worn.

A fleet of luxury cars can only carry a person in one vehicle at any given moment.

Beyond a certain point, wealth stops being about use and begins to exist largely as a symbol.

That may be why some of history’s most admired figures are remembered not for what they owned but for what they gave away. Long after fortunes disappear, people remember schools that were built, scholarships that were funded, hospitals that were established and lives that were changed.

Property can outlive its owners. Investments can pass to strangers. Estates can become the subject of litigation. Entire fortunes can vanish within a generation.

But acts of generosity have a way of surviving their creators.

The story of Rutland Gate illustrates that truth in an almost theatrical way. One owner was assassinated. Another died. Another lost control of his vast business empire and now faces criminal consequences. The mansion itself has become trapped in a web of ownership disputes and legal complications.

Meanwhile, the man sleeping outside remains one of the few people with any meaningful relationship to the property. He waters flowers. He knows the neighbours. Children stop to talk to him. He notices the changing seasons. In a strange way, he appears to derive more daily value from the building than many of those who have owned it.

Perhaps that is the real lesson.

The measure of a life is not necessarily what we accumulate, but what purpose our accumulation serves. In the end, the houses remain behind. The titles pass on. The money changes hands.

What endures are the lives touched, the opportunities created and the good done while we were here.

If lawyers gang up, clients will hang up

By Chinua Asuzu

Law is complex enough. The legal issues that feature in legal writing are complex and difficult.

Don’t add an extra layer of difficulty for your readers to wrestle with by using unnecessarily convoluted language.

The mark of a true professional is the ability to convey complex ideas in simple language.

Making a simple thing difficult is a symptom of defective intelligence.

Keeping a simple thing simple is common sense.

Making a difficult thing simple is an emblem of intelligence.

Keeping a difficult thing difficult is mediocrity.

If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it amply.

The audience for most legal writing extends well beyond the legal community. “Much of what lawyers write—contracts, statutes, judgments, decrees—has the laity as its ultimate audience. Lawyers, like journalists and teachers, have reason to break out of their closed circles and write … for everyone who can read.” James C. Raymond, ‘Writing to be Read’ (Presentation at the New Zealand Law Conference, Wellington, 1993), 3.

As things now stand, the profession faces an existential crisis. If we lawyers don’t move quickly to take care of lay-audience needs, nonlawyers may very well invade our temple and introduce the changes themselves, turning us into illegal aliens or guilty bystanders in our own sanctuary.

“Unless lawyers do the right thing and reform from within, outside forces may well cause a revolution that will marginalize the legal profession.” Garner on Language and Writing (ABA, 2009), 295.

The fulfillment of this dire prophecy already looms, with artificial intelligence and legal-document automation invading our cherished temple.

Hugging legalese or verbosity is a losing strategy and a suicide mission. It’s an unviable conspiracy against laypeople.

In George Bernard Shaw’s play, The Doctor’s Dilemma, a character, Sir Patrick, characterizes all professions as “conspiracies against the laity.” George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor’s Dilemma (1906, Project Gutenberg Ebook 2015), 20.

Let’s reject this characterization, if not for all professions, then at least for the noble profession of law. Professionals shouldn’t gang up against their clientele.

If attorneys gang up, clients will hang up.

Indeed, “the very idea of professionalism demands that we not conspire against nonlawyers by adopting a style that feels impenetrable.” Garner on Language and Writing, 295.

Rather than conspire, let’s communicate. Indeed, let’s go beyond communication. Let’s engage. “All writing is communication. But most writing hopes to go further. It hopes to make the reader react in certain ways—with pleased smiles, nods of assent, stabs of pathos, or whatever.” John R. Trimble, Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, 2011), 5.

Chinua Asuzu, Uncommon Law of Learned Writing 2.0 (Partridge, 2023), 10–12.

Tales My Patients Told Me: The ghosts of dead patients

By Emmanuel Fashakin, MD, Esq.

Sir Robert Hutchinson, who was President of the Royal College of Physicians alluded, over half a century ago, to the ghosts of dead patients chasing Doctors about in the midnight hour. We will talk about “ghosts” today.

My “ghost” walked into the surgical out-patient of the Obafemi Awolowo university Teaching Hospitals Complex one wet day in June 1988, a few months after I was appointed Lecturer/Consultant Surgeon in the University. He was emaciated and malnourished. According to his wife, he had been unable to eat properly for several months, and vomited quite often. There was suggestion of a palpable mass in the upper abdomen as I examined him.

The initial clinical impression was that of upper Gastrointestinal malignancy, possibly cancer of the stomach. However, barium studies soon showed that he had chronic duodenal ulcer with severe obstruction in the gastroduodenal area. He was salvageable, and with surgery, he should have survived.

He was prepared for surgery, which I approached with a lot of enthusiasm, being my first case for gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy since I was appointed Consultant Surgeon. To the layman reading this, this man had obstruction in the junction of his stomach into the intestine, and the corrective operation was to cut off  the lower half of the stomach and join the upper half to the small intestine. The patient was prepared for surgery.

The surgery went very well, and there were virtually no technical challenges. After I was reassured two different times that all instruments, swabs and towels were complete and all accounted for, I closed up the patient. Because the patient was from far away place in Ekiti, he was kept in hospital until the sutures were removed. By the end of the week, the patient was able to eat pounded yam for the first time in months. The wife and patient were very grateful as they left for their town about ten days after surgery.

Five months after surgery, I was in the outpatient when our patient walked in with his wife. His abdomen was protuberant and he appeared ill. What happened? He said that he had discomfort in the abdomen and had not been feeling well. I examined his abdomen: it felt doughy and tender. X-rays soon confirmed every surgeon’s nightmare: there was a large piece of towel in the lower abdomen!

Then it all came to me. As I was joining the stomach to the jejunum, the coils of small intestines kept sliding into my view, and I asked for an extra piece of green towel to wrap them. In the rowdiness of the operating theater, the circulating nurse forgot to record the extra piece of fabric supplied to me. Somehow, the towel slid between the coils of bowel and ended up in the abdomen. When I asked for the first and second counts of swabs and towels, I was reassured that all was correct because the extra towel was never recorded on the board.

As soon as I opened up the patient, I knew that he was doomed, because the bowels were perforated in not less than twenty places after the towel was removed. I resected the more damaged portions of intestines, and repaired the rest of the holes. But the bowels were so edematous and shredded, that I knew that the chance of survival was minimal, especially because we had no intravenous nutrition to keep the patient alive while the bowels heal. We returned him to the surgical ward, with prayers that he would somehow pull through. But his condition worsened in the days after surgery.

As his left ebbed away, his wife kept vigil at his side. She did not leave the bedside to clean up, and had nothing to eat for two days. As I arrived at work on the patient’s last day, I told the wife to go and eat. The patient opened his eyes briefly and joined me in urging the wife to go and eat: “l’a jeun!” (Go and eat!), he commanded. They proved to be his last words as he soon slid into the final coma. I have heard those words “l’a jeun” echo in my head all these years. I look back on the case. The atmosphere in the operating room that day was unprofessional, and if I was a more senior surgeon, I would have been able to correct the nurses who were just chatting away. And if the patient had been seen in the days or weeks after discharge, we could have avoided a total catastrophe. “L’a jeun”! 

The ghost of dead patients!

Emmanuel O. Fashakin, M.D.,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

Woman cheats death as boyfriend attacks her with hammer for refusing cash demand

The Gombe State Police Command has arrested a 35-year-old man, Musa Adamu, for allegedly attacking his girlfriend with a hammer, attempting to strangle her, and robbing her of N100,000.

The spokesperson for the command, DSP Buhari Abdullahi, who disclosed this in a statement on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 said preliminary investigations revealed that the suspect had requested money from the victim, who is a businesswoman, but she declined.

According to the PPRO, the incident occurred in the early hours of June 9, when the suspect allegedly gained unlawful access to the victim’s residence at Riyal Quarters by scaling the fence and forcefully breaking into her room.

“The Gombe State Police Command has arrested the above-mentioned suspect in connection with a case of attempted culpable homicide, armed robbery, and causing grievous hurt,” the statement read.

“On 09/06/2026 at about 0800hrs, a lady (name withheld) of Riyal Quarters reported a complaint at Pantami Divisional Headquarters, Gombe, alleging that at about 0200hrs on the same date, her boyfriend, Musa Adamu, unlawfully gained access to her residence by scaling the fence and forcefully breaking into her room.

“The suspect allegedly attacked her with an iron hammer and attempted to strangle her using a USB cable before robbing her of the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000.00).

“Upon raising an alarm, the suspect fled the scene. As a result of the attack, the victim sustained serious injuries.

“Upon receipt of the complaint, police operatives promptly visited the scene, while the victim was evacuated to a hospital for medical attention, where she was treated and later discharged.

“Following a swift investigation, the suspect was traced and arrested at about 0945hrs on the same date.

“The following exhibits were recovered: 1. One iron hammer with suspected blood stains.2. One USB cable.

“Preliminary investigation further revealed that, prior to the incident, the suspect, being the victim’s boyfriend, had requested money from her on the same day, knowing that she is a businesswoman, but she declined.

“The suspect is in police custody while investigation is ongoing. He will be charged to court upon conclusion of the investigation.

“The Commissioner of Police, CP Umar Ahmed Chuso, mnips, fwc, psc(+), reiterates the Command’s commitment to the protection of lives and property and urges members of the public to promptly report suspicious persons and criminal activities to the nearest police station.”

The Sovereign Pitch: Why football must sever the chain of FIFA’s geopolitical exploitation

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

Let’s start here: Iraqi player Ayman Hussein detained at the airport for 7 hours. The Iraqi national team photographer denied entry without any reason and returned to his country. The Iranian national team will play all its matches in the United States but will have to leave the country immediately after each match. The Japanese national team complain about the poor condition of their training pitch. Gunfire and injuries near the English national team’s training ground, prompting the coach requesting bullet-proof vests for his players during matches. All of these before the start of the 2026 FIFA World Cup!

The global game is no longer merely being played; it is being strip-mined. As the expanded, hyper-commercialised 2026 FIFA World Cup gets underway across North America, the beautiful game has collided head-on with an ugly, modern reality. What was promised by FIFA President Gianni Infantino to be the “most inclusive World Cup ever” has instead degenerated into a stark, transactional exercise in geopolitical sycophancy and local alienation.

The defining narrative of this tournament is no longer the democratic poetry of a forty-eight-team pitch, but a series of administrative and political lockouts that demand a radical, structural response. It is time, therefore, to face the uncomfortable truth: FIFA can no longer be trusted with the stewardship of global football. The governing body must either be forcibly stripped of its unchecked monopolies or bypassed entirely in favour of a democratic, fan-and-labour-driven alternative.

The architecture of this “cash grab” was built on a foundation of manufactured scarcity. When FIFA defended its exorbitant ticket prices by citing an astronomical 500 million ticket requests, the data immediately began to tell a different, more cynical story. In local host communities across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, everyday fans have been priced out entirely, squeezed by local host city deficits and corporate hospitality tiering. Yet, on the eve of the tournament, hundreds of regular group-stage tickets remained unsold in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. This disconnect reveals an extractive business model that views the local supporter not as the heartbeat of the sport, but as a secondary asset to be monetised.

But the economic exclusion of the fan is merely a symptom of a deeper, systemic rot: the utter politicisation of the tournament’s administrative architecture. In the years leading up to this event, FIFA’s leadership engaged in a polarising, calculated alignment with the United States political executive. The presentation of an inaugural “FIFA Peace Prize” to President Donald Trump and the subversion of standard tournament oversight to a federal task force were marketed as guarantees that all qualified participants would feel “safe and welcome.”

Instead, that political appeasement has yielded a border crisis that tears at the very fabric of sporting merit and dampened the spirit of the beautiful game. The most egregious casualty of this geopolitical subversion is the exclusion of Somali referee Omar Artan. Named Africa’s Best Male Referee in 2025 by the Confederation of African Football (CAF), Artan had earned the historic merit of becoming the first-ever Somali official to grace a World Cup. Yet, upon landing at Miami International Airport with valid travel credentials, he was subjected to an eleven-hour interrogation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and summarily deported, retroactively branded a security threat under broad regional restrictions and arbitrary vetting concerns.

The response from Zurich was a masterclass in moral cowardice. FIFA washed its hands of the diplomatic fallout, releasing a sterile, defensive statement asserting that “a host government ultimately determines who receives a visa.” By deferring entirely to local border enforcement, FIFA violated the core covenant of international sport: that the pitch remains a sovereign, neutral space where access is dictated strictly by athletic excellence, not the arbitrary whims of an administrative regime.

Artan’s exclusion is not an isolated incident; it is part of a sweeping, discriminatory pattern. More than fifteen essential staff and officials from the Iranian national team were denied visas, forcing the squad to establish their training base in Tijuana, Mexico, and endure the logistical absurdity of daily cross-border commutes just to play their scheduled group matches in California and Washington.

From the detention of Iraqi players to the profiling of African delegations at domestic airports, this tournament has exposed a bitter reality: FIFA will gladly sacrifice the dignity and integrity of its own stakeholders to protect its multi-billion-dollar corporate partnerships.

The question is no longer whether FIFA has failed, but how long the football world will consent to its misrule. Should the refereeing corps, the player unions, and the global fan base not stand united with one of their own against this assault on the global game? If a federation cannot protect its highest-performing minority officials from administrative overreach, it forfeits its right to govern.

True reform cannot happen within the current, tightly insulated walls of Zurich. Because FIFA operates as a non-profit association under Article 60 of the Swiss Civil Code, it enjoys staggering tax immunities and shields itself from the corporate transparency laws that govern standard multinationals. To break this cycle of corruption and exploitation, we must look toward two distinct, structural models of governance going forward:

First is the Multi-Stakeholder Democratic Cooperative model. We must transition global football away from an autocratic presidency and toward a decentralised, tripartite model scaled from Germany’s domestic “50+1” ownership philosophy. Voting power for international tournaments and policy must be divided equally between three independent chambers: a Supporters Chamber composed of regional fan trusts; a Labour Chamber run directly by player unions (FIFPRO) and referee associations; and an Administrative Chamber hired strictly for event and operational logistics. This structure ensures that no state-backed entity, billionaire sponsor, or political strongman can outvote the collective conscience of the sport’s actual producers and consumers.

Second is the Sovereign Oversight Trust model. If the tournament is to remain globally centralised, host selection must be stripped entirely from the political horse-trading of the FIFA Council. It should be managed by an independent judicial trust comprised of international jurists, human rights experts and forensic auditors. Under this model, host nations must sign a legally binding, irrevocable treaty granting sovereign athletic immunity: any nation that cannot guarantee unrestricted, dignified visa access for every qualified player, official, and fan, regardless of geopolitical tension, automatically forfeits its hosting rights. If a host government blocks an official like Omar Artan, the tournament moves.

A Call to Collective Action

It is worth noting that, contrary to the common impression, the ultimate weapon against FIFA’s predatory model does not reside in Swiss courtrooms; it sits in the turnstiles and on the pitch. FIFA’s immense power is an illusion sustained entirely by television broadcast rights and corporate sponsorships. If the global football community truly wishes to honour the principles of fair play and solidarity, it must mobilise its collective leverage.

The referees’ unions must consider coordinated walkouts, demanding absolute contractual protections and financial compensation for colleagues discarded by geopolitical gatekeeping. Concurrently, fans must leverage the power of the consumer boycott: shunning official merchandise, challenging corporate sponsors, and leaving empty seats in hospitality sectors. When the stakeholders who create the magic of the World Cup refuse to participate in its exploitation, FIFA’s financial house of cards will ultimately collapse.

Omar Artan returned to Mogadishu to a hero’s welcome, displaying a dignity and grace entirely absent from the executive suites in Zurich. His exclusion must mark the line in the sand. Football belongs to the people who play it, officiate it, and love it; not to the politicians who exploit it or the bureaucrats who sell it to the highest bidder. It is time to reclaim the global game for the global community. “Cup Mundial” it is, after all.

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

Five to die by hanging over killing of Edo lawyer

The Edo State High Court sitting in Benin City on Wednesday sentenced five persons to death by hanging for their involvement in the abduction and murder of a legal practitioner, Iyoha Osobase.

The court, however, discharged and acquitted one of the defendants, Solomon Esuike, citing insufficient evidence linking him to the crime.

Delivering judgment in Charge No. B/CD/136C/22, The State versus Valentine Dibie and Five Others, the presiding judge, Justice Efe Ikpomwonba, held that the prosecution proved its case against five of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

The court consequently convicted the five defendants on charges of conspiracy, kidnapping and murder, imposing various prison terms and sentences, including death by hanging.

“It is clear that the prosecution successfully proved its case against five of you (the defendants) beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence presented against the second defendant, Solomon Esuike, was insufficient to sustain the charges against him. He is hereby discharged and acquitted,” the judge stated.

The judgment brought to a close a criminal trial that has attracted significant attention within Edo State’s legal community since the killing of Osobase in 2020.

Osobase was reportedly abducted, beaten to death and buried in a shallow grave in the Aduwawa area of Benin City on May 9, 2020.

Esuike’s defence team, led by Douglas Ogbankwa, alongside A.P. Uzor and S.A. Idemudia, successfully challenged the prosecution’s case against their client, securing the only acquittal among the six defendants who stood trial.

The prosecution was led by a former Edo State Director of Public Prosecutions, Orobosa Okunbor, who presented witnesses and other evidence during the proceedings.

The case also drew national attention following calls for justice from senior legal and political figures, including the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Chief Festus Keyamo (SAN), who had urged authorities to thoroughly investigate and prosecute those responsible for the lawyer’s killing.

With Wednesday’s verdict, the court brought to an end a trial that has remained a reference point in Edo State’s legal community for more than six years.

Depraved Akwa Ibom pastor earns 49 years imprisonment for raping and impregnating teenage daughter

A High Court of Justice in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State capital city has sentenced a pastor, Apostle Williams Okon Bassey, to 49 years imprisonment for raping and impregnating his teenage daughter.

Hon. Justice Bassey delivered the judgment on Wednesday, June 10, 2026.

Bassey, of Mount Zion Lighthouse Full Gospel Church, Uyo, was arrested at his residence on Ibanga Street on November 7, 2019.

Police paraded him alongside four other men, Nsikan Udo, Iniobong Moses, Saviour Ukpong and Festus Etuk, who were also arrested for rape and incest.

The victim revealed that her father started having sexual intercourse with her at age 13.

The continuous sexual assault led pregnancies on three different occasions and the pregnancies were aborted by her mother.

She added that her father always demanded sex from her before paying her school fees or meeting her needs.

Bassey confessed to the crime but claimed the assault started when his daughter was 16.

“I called my daughter to come and scratch my back, as she was scratching my back, I became tipsy, my daughter climbed on top of me and I fucked her. That was my first time of sleeping with my daughter and she was about 16 years old then,” the pastor confessed.

“I took her to her mother’s place in Eket, after telling her that our daughter was pregnant, I handed her over to the mother who promised to get rid of the pregnancy.

“After the pregnancy was terminated, I continued having sex with her each time I have misunderstanding with my wife.

“She became pregnant the second time. I still returned her to the mother who still took her to abort the pregnancy.

“When she returned the second time, I continued the act of sexing her which resulted in the third pregnancy and the mother still took her for abortion.”

Red Cards and Red Tape: Why it’s time to cancel FIFA

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

The beautiful game has always belonged to the world, but its governing body belongs, it seems, to the highest bidder, the smoothest bureaucrat, and the coldest geopolitical calculation. As the 2026 World Cup kicks off across North America, the true soul of football is not being celebrated in the shiny new stadiums; it is being systematically dismantled at the border.

The recent, deeply disturbing deportation of Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan by United States immigration authorities is not just an administrative hiccup. It is a moral failure that exposes a fundamental truth: FIFA can no longer guarantee the basic dignity and equal treatment of the global football community. It is time for fans, players, and nations who believe in actual fair play to do the unthinkable: it is time to cancel FIFA.

Just to be clear: Omar Artan is not an unverified traveller. He is an elite, history-making professional. He was named the Confederation of African Football’s CAF African Referee of the Year for 2025. He overcame a gruelling journey through the ranks, took control of major continental matches, and earned a historic appointment as the first Somali referee to officiate a World Cup.

He did everything right. When initial visa struggles loomed, he secured diplomatic support and a valid United States visa. FIFA itself confidently declared the issue “fully resolved.” Yet, the moment his flight from Istanbul touched down in Miami, he was treated not as an honoured sporting official, but as a security risk. Swept away during a “routine” inspection, he was slapped with a vague “vetting concerns” label and immediately deported back to Türkiye. No clear explanation. No transparency. No dignity.

After speaking to the US authorities, FIFA eventually confirmed what happened. “Fifa can confirm that match official Omar Abdulkadir Artan will be unable to train and officiate at the Fifa World Cup 2026 after he was denied entry into the United States,” read a statement quoted by the BBC.

The statement added: “Fifa is not involved in host country immigration processes, including visa adjudications, and has been informed by authorities that Mr Artan’s status will not be changed at present. In line with previous Fifa events, a host government ultimately determines who receives a visa and who is admitted into their country.”

That statement is damning! FIFA admits it has no power where it matters most. The organisation that bullies sovereign nations to rewrite labour laws, tax codes, and stadium ordinances for tournament revenue now claims helplessness when one of its own is thrown out at the border.

The silence from Zurich is deafening. Where is the fierce defence of their own staff? Where is the institutional muscle FIFA flexes for corporate sponsors? When it comes to protecting billions, Gianni Infantino’s FIFA acts like a global superpower. But when a history-making referee from a geopolitical “high-scrutiny” nation is unceremoniously deported, FIFA folds its arms and hides behind procedure.

This hypocrisy lays bare a toxic double standard. We are forced to ask the uncomfortable question raised by veteran referees globally: would this have happened if Artan hailed from a wealthy European nation or a powerhouse Western economy? The answer is as clear as it is painful. Football plastering stadiums with banners proclaiming “Respect,” “Equality,” and “Say No to Racism” is nothing more than empty marketing. When those values are tested at an immigration gate, FIFA’s inclusion is proven to be a corporate myth.

And FIFA’s own rules make it worse. The BBC further reported that referees’ chief Pierluigi Collina has created a training hub for the tournament’s 52 referees and 88 assistant referees in Miami. All on-pitch officials must stay at the base in Florida for training, preparation and security. It would therefore not be possible for Artan to stay outside the United States and only referee matches played in Canada or Mexico. FIFA designed a system that guarantees exclusion.

By awarding tournaments to nations without securing ironclad guarantees that every qualified participant, be they a Syrian striker, an Iranian midfielder, or a Somali referee, will be allowed to enter without prejudice, FIFA has broken its foundational contract with the world. A World Cup is supposed to be a neutral, global sanctuary. If geopolitical biases and border-agent whims dictate who takes the pitch, it is no longer a World Cup; it is an exclusive invitational filtered through Western political anxieties.

At this point, polite statements will not do. If FIFA cannot be moved by principle, it must be moved by pressure. And there is only one kind of pressure FIFA understands: an empty stadium and a missing continent. I think it is time to call for an African boycott. Boycotting the Olympics in 1976 brought the sporting world to its knees because Africa refused to accept a game with rigged rules. CAF has to hold Infantino’s feet to the fire now the same way. The continent supplies the talent, the passion, and a huge share of FIFA’s legitimacy, yet when one of its own is humiliated at the border, CAF’s leadership goes quiet. Patrice Motsepe will not push back. Infantino has been allowed to mould CAF to suit his purposes for too long, so I cannot see it happening, sadly. But that silence is exactly why fans and member associations must force the conversation. Without Africa, there is no World Cup worth watching.

Football does not need FIFA to survive, by the way. The passion, the local clubs, the community pitches, and the unyielding love for the sport belong to the people, not to a corrupt Swiss cartel that sells the game to the highest bidder and abandons its own pioneers at the border.

If FIFA cannot or will not protect its own family from systemic discrimination and geopolitical bullying, then it has outlived its legitimacy. We must stop treating this organisation as an untouchable monarchy. It is time for continental federations, players, and fans to demand a structural split. We must build a new, genuinely equitable governing body from the ground up, one where a referee’s merit matters more than the passport they carry. Until fair play applies to the people running the game, the only righteous move left for the global community is to give FIFA the ultimate red card. Now.

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

This one-eyed monster can’t be appeased, By Funke Egbemode

Things are really bad now with big church denominations cancelling vigils and schools shutting down. We all are afraid. Our palace is under threat. Lives are involved. Communities are vulnerable. Even well-thought-out strategies won’t be without casualties Yet history has repeatedly demonstrated that societies survive when lawful authority prevails over armed coercion.

Many moons and seasons ago, Akojo was a prosperous kingdom that sat between rolling hills and fertile valleys. Its rivers never ran dry. The ancestors and the deities endowed the kingdom with uncommon fertile lands and full barns. Its markets overflowed with yams, peppers, livestock and cloth. Travellers from distant lands spoke admiringly of its peace and abundance.

The people loved their king and celebrated each of the deities generously, especially Orisa-Oko and Obatala.

Alakojo of Akojo, Oba Alowolodu-bi-iyere, was not the strongest warrior in the land, but he was wise, patient and compassionate. Under his rule, children played without fear, women went to the river and returned safely. Hunters were not brought back home accompanied with a dirge. Farmers went to the farm whenever they wanted. The people slept with both eyes closed.

Until Kako Olojukan arrived like a demon sent from the coven of demons.

Nobody knew exactly where he came from. Some said he emerged from the forests beyond the mountains. Others swore he had crossed deserts and conquered smaller settlements before arriving at the kingdom’s borders.

What everybody agreed on was that he came with fire.

Read Also: Insecurity: Sending Orunmila and Ogun to the president

Read Also: Terrorists demand ₦1bn, commanders’ release as police debunk pupil’s death report

His men raided villages, burned farms and slaughtered anyone who resisted. They struck suddenly and disappeared before the kingdom’s Balogun and his men could organise a response.

Fear spread faster than wildfire.

The king summoned his chiefs.

“What does this man want?” he asked.

A messenger soon returned with the answer.

The warlord demanded one hundred slaves.

The chiefs argued.

Some insisted the kingdom should fight.

Others warned that war would destroy villages and kill innocent people.

The king chose peace. The slaves were handed over. For a while, the attacks stopped. The people sighed with relief.

Then Kako returned.

This time he wanted fifty virgins.

What for?

The kingdom groaned in disbelief.

Surely, this was too much.

Again, the council met. Again, voices rose in anger.

Again, the king feared bloodshed. The virgins were surrendered. The attacks ceased briefly.

But the one-eyed terrorist was not done. This time, he wanted strong young men. The future builders of the kingdom.

The farmers.

The hunters.

The blacksmiths.

The wrestlers.

The king hesitated but eventually yielded. The young men were taken away. Months passed. It looked like Kako Olojukan had had his fill. For where?

The warlord returned, again. This time, he wanted fertile farmlands. The king surrendered some distant lands. The attacks paused. Then the warlord demanded more territory. Then more livestock. Then more taxes. Then the fair and shapely wives of village leaders. Then wives of chiefs.

Every concession bought temporary silence. Every surrender was celebrated as a victory for peace. Every compromise was described as necessary.

But the warlord kept coming back. The appetite of a predator does not diminish because it has eaten. It grows. A monster does not become a saint because it has been appeased. And so it was with Akojo and Kako.

One morning, the kingdom awoke to the most outrageous demand yet.

The warlord wanted the king’s palace. Kako’s remaining one eye was set on Oba Alowolodu’s palace. The one-eyed one was tired of his own  abode. He did not just want only the palace, he also wanted the royal farmlands that sustained the throne itself.

The king was stunned.

The chiefs were speechless.

The people were furious.

One elderly chief rose to speak.

“My king,” he said quietly, “the day we surrendered the first slave, we thought we were buying peace. What we were actually buying was time for the warlord to become stronger. We taught him that threats work. We trained him to demand more.”

The council chamber fell silent.

The old chief continued.

“A man who receives your goat today will return tomorrow for your cow. The man who takes your cow will soon demand your house. And the man who takes your house will eventually ask for your throne.” The kingdom had finally arrived at the destination of endless appeasement.

Today, that old tale feels painfully familiar.

Nigeria has spent years battling terrorists, bandits, kidnappers and violent extremists. Our soldiers have fought bravely. Thousands have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Communities have been destroyed. Entire villages have been displaced.

Yet alongside military operations, another dangerous culture has quietly flourished.

The culture of appeasement.

A nation under siege often faces difficult choices. Governments must protect lives. Communities sometimes negotiate under extreme pressure. Families of kidnap victims will do almost anything to bring loved ones home.

That is understandable.

But there comes a point when repeated concessions begin to strengthen the very forces threatening society.

For years, Nigeria’s one-eyed criminals have discovered a profitable truth.

Violence pays.

Kidnap schoolchildren.

Collect ransom.

Kidnap travelers.

Collect ransom.

Invade villages.

Extract concessions.

Threaten communities.

Receive rewards.

The evil enterprise grew rapidly. More criminals entered the business. More weapons were purchased. More territories become unsafe. More innocent people suffer.

The result is a vicious cycle. Every successful act of terror becomes an advertisement for future terror. The bandit who receives millions today inspires ten others tomorrow.

The kidnapper we rewarded with money and operational vehicles recruited more foot soldiers. The terrorist who survived have now learnt that society fears him enough to negotiate.

Today,  the demands have become larger. The audacity, the temerity have increased. The attacks are now bolder, like the siege on Akojo.

Kako began with slaves and ended by demanding the palace.

Nigeria has witnessed similar escalation. Years ago, attacks that shocked the nation involved isolated incidents.

some criminal groups are powerful enough to impose illegal taxes, seize farmlands, dictate movement, close highways and control vast territories.

Farmers abandon fields because armed groups have effectively become landlords. Communities pay protection levies.

Travelers calculate risk before every journey.

Entire local economies have been distorted by insecurity.

This is what happens when violence becomes an alternative system of governance and that should worry every Nigerian.

The problem is not merely terrorism. The deeper problem is normalisation.

A society can become so accustomed to abnormality that it stops recognising danger.

When kidnappings become routine news and mass abductions no longer shock us, we must admit that we are in trouble.

When communities expect to negotiate with criminals, we must admit that the enemy is winning.

When farmers budget for extortion payments, they will lose respect for government.

When citizens accept fear as a permanent companion, it means something fundamental has gone wrong. No nation can prosper under such conditions.

Investment and uncertainty cannot co-habit.

When agriculture suffers and tourism collapses, economic low hanging fruits will rot. When businesses relocate, young people lose hope because employment opportunities will dwindle.

Development slows down steadily, painfully.

Fear becomes the tax paid by everyone.

What lessons are there for Nigeria and its Balogun to learn urgently?

Terror movements rarely disappear because they are accommodated indefinitely. Criminal empires do not retire voluntarily.

Violent groups do not wake up one morning and decide they have accumulated enough wealth, enough territory or enough influence.

Power acquired through intimidation creates an appetite for more intimidation.

That is why every successful extortion breeds another demand.

Kako Olojukan never intended to stop at slaves.

The palace was always the destination.

Perhaps not immediately.

But inevitably. He just bade his time.

This is Nigeria’s difficult but unavoidable reality.

The war against terror cannot be won merely by reacting to attacks.

We must dismantle the systems that sustain violence. We must stop the weapons from flooding in. Our borders must be better secured.

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

TIPS