#SomberTuesday! Presidential inauguration and transition plans are underway but lawsuits on the results of the elections continue. The percentage of Nigerian women elected into office has dwindled to minuscule proportions. Youths and people with disabilities are also few and far between. INEC is a great disappointment as an election management body. It has contributed greatly to damaging public trust in the integrity of the elections. Ethnic divisiveness and hate speech remain concerns that challenge the project of nation-building. Democracy remains ephemeral.

There is still currency scarcity although more old notes are in circulation, some so tattered and dirty that it’s a marvel that they don’t disintegrate into nothingness. Plus handling them encourages hand-washing that has the unintended consequence of contributing to positive health outcomes. The economy remains in the doldrums, although it is usually the case that even in bad times, some people make a figurative killing. It is also usual that the masses suffer most because they have few to no social safety nets.

Nigeria is blessed with numerous youths. Majority of them also suffer from the country’s political, economic, and social problems. Many are understandably invested in japa–leaving the country by any means necessary to seek better opportunities abroad. They are literally “sick and tired of being sick and tired,” as Fannie Lou Hamer, courageous African American civil rights activist famously said. Octogenarians have taken control of the reins of power in a country with the youngest population in the world. Democracy. What does it mean in the day-to-day realities of the youths? Should patriarchy, oligarchy, and gerontocracy be so ingrained in Nigeria? Should there be so few women in leadership? Do the people with disability not deserve representation? Do poor Nigerians have any hope of getting into political office? What kind of democracy do we want?

Insecurity, abductions, and kidnappings have become normalized. Nigerian political institutions, infrastructure, and social services do not perform as expected. High unemployment and underemployment remain prevalent. Decent jobs are few and far between. Is there any memory of the social contract between the people and leaders?

Democracy and economic development, personal and human security should not be impossible dreams. Citizens’ well-being and welfare, as well as the masses’ ability to meet their basic needs, should be uppermost in the minds of the leaders. The hope for a brighter future shouldn’t be lost to all but the elites.

#EndSARS youth protesters went to the polls hoping to freely choose their representatives, but the glaring mismanagement of the elections caused frustration and confusion about the utility of engaging in the political process. #EndSARS demonstrations were demands for good governance, an end to police brutality, extortion, impunity, economic inequality, marginalization, targeting of youths and other minorities, and cessation of political violence. However, violent suppression was the response.

The 2020 Lekki massacre should never be forgotten. Youths at #LekkiTollGate & other locations were subjected to state-sponsored brutality and naked force. The right to peaceful protest should be sacrosanct in a democracy. We should collectively think about how to build a nation where democracy and sustainable development are deeply rooted and experienced as realities. Kleptocracy should be eschewed. Instead, it is celebrated.

#NigerianWomenArise #EndPoliceBrutalityinNigeriaNOW #EndSars #EndSWAT #EndImpunity.

Howard Zinn’s statement remains relevant: “Civil disobedience, that’s not our problem. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while, the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”

Like the voice in the wilderness I repeat: Let the kleptocrats give back our stolen wealth so that we can fix our infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and also offer worthwhile social protection to our people. Let the masses enjoy the full benefits of citizenship in Nigeria. Let the leaders and political class repent and build peace with justice.

This is no time for politics as usual. The people elected should be those trusted to bring justice, equity and human security to the entire country, not expedient, unethical and egocentric individuals determined to dominate for self aggrandizement or sectional gain. We don’t need oligarchs’ continued domination. We also need a government that puts the interests of majority of citizens first. Dare I hope that this will happen anytime soon?

Prof. Mojúbàolú Olufúnké Okome is a professor of political science at Brooklyn College in New York.

By Sylvester Udemezue

I start by admitting that Douglas Ogbankwa, Esq had displayed gross negligence or ignorance when upon his completion of the process of changing his name from “Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom” to “Douglas Onyebuchi Ogbankwa”, he failed to send the necessary notification/documents to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This notwithstanding, the fact that he is yet to notify the Supreme Court of his successful change of name, does not in any manner detract from the fact that having successfully undergone the process of change of name, he is entitled to practice law under his new name since he, Douglas Ogbankwa, does not fall within the expression “any person other than a legal practitioner” as envisaged by section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act.

◾THE EXTANT LAW:
Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act,” Cap L11, LFN, 2004, dealing with impersonation of a lawyer, provides that “…if any person other than a legal practitioner ‐ (a) practises, or holds himself out to practise, as a legal practitioner; or (b)takes or uses the title of legal practitioner; or (c) wilfully takes or uses any name, title, addition or description falsely implying, or otherwise pretends, that he is a legal practitioner or is qualified or recognised by law to act as a legal practitioner; or (d) prepares for or in expectation of reward any instrument relating to immovable property, or relating to or with a view to the grant of probate or letters of administration, or relating to or with a view to proceedings in any court of record in Nigeria, he is guilty of an offence and liable, in the case of an offence under paragraph (a) of this subsection or a second or subsequent offence under paragraph (d) of this subsection, to a fine of an amount not exceeding N200 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both such fine and imprisonment, and in any other case to a fine of an amount not exceeding N100.”

◾THE FACT’S OF THE CASE:
A guy got called to the Nigerian Bar in 2007 under the name “Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom”. He theratfter began law practice in that name, but somewhere along the line, successfully underwent the process of change of his name to “Douglas Onyebuchi OGBANKWA”. Although by a newspaper publication he gave notice thereof to the whole world and specifically to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), he did not formally give notice to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Meanwhile, he continued his law practice but thenceforth in the new name, “Douglas OGBANKWA”

◾QUESTIONS ARISING:
1️⃣. Is the PERSON bearing the name “Douglas OGBANKWA” guilty of the offence of impersonating a legal Practitioner?
✔ Answer: Not at all! Section 22 talks about the PERSON and not the name. The names ‘Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom” and “Douglas Onyebuchi OGBANKWA” belong to and are borne by one and the same person. And the bearer, irrespective of the name he bears or calls himself, is a PERSON duly called to the Bar in Nigeria. It’s submitted that the person bearing
“Douglas OGBANKWA” has not violated the provisions of section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11 LFN 2004 or of any other law in Nigeria, since he remains a PERSON duly called to the Bar irrespective of the name he answers. A crime of impersonation is said to be committed only when “any person other than a legal practitioner* holds himself as a legal practitioner or practices as a legal practitioner or exercises any of those rights that are exclusive to only legal practitioners. This is not the case in the present scenario. So, what is the noise about? Why the machination or plot to destroy or diminish Douglas Ogbankwa who is not only a lawyer but a well-known lawyer for that matter?

2️⃣. Does the fact that the person has failed or neglected to give notice of his otherwise successful name-change to the Supreme Court, render it illegal or unprofessional for him to practice law under his new name “Douglas OGBANKWA?” ◾ Answer: Not at all. Since he has successfully gone through the process of change of name, he is entitled to practice law in his new name. Practicing law in his new name is neither illegal nor unprofessional, although he’s negligent in having failed to give notice to the Supreme Court to enable the latter update its records. I repeat that giving such a notice to the Supreme Court of Nigeria is not a part/step in successful change of name in Nigeria; thus a change of name by a lawyer could be successfully concluded without recourse to the Supreme Court. This means, I submit, that a person who is duly called to the bar but who later validly changed his name, is not estopped from using his new name only on account of the fact he has not sent notice of the change to the supreme court. The change of name is complete, effective and valid whether Douglas OGBANKWA has notified the Supreme Court or not. The only reason for such a notice to the Supreme Court is for the supreme court to update its records about the person involved. Accordingly, the SUPREME COURT is not under any obligation to update Douglas Ogbankwa’s records on the Roll if Douglas Ogbankwa fails or neglects to give notice of the change to the Supreme Court. For example, Mr Douglas OGBANKWA has no right to blame the Supreme Court for the response the latter gave in this instance to the letters of enquiry from some lawyers. Recall that in its response to the letters from some petty, mischief-making Legal Practitioners and groups, the Supreme Court had stated that “We have checked our records and the name DOUGLAS OGBANKWA cannot be found on the Rolls of Legal Practitioners kept in the Supreme Court of Nigeria…. The said DOUGLAS OGBANKWA is at liberty to come forward with his call to Bar Certificate and Qualifying Certificate for enrolment. If he has changed his name, he is expected to come along with a duly stamped deed poll and all the requirements for change of name in the Supreme Court.”
See: “EXCLUSIVE: SUPREME COURT SAYS MAIKYAU’S NBA C’TE APPOINTEE IS NOT A LAWYER” (https://citylawyermag.com/exclusive-supreme-court-says-maikyaus-nba-cte-appointee-is-not-a-lawyer/).

◾IMPLICATIONS OF THE MANNER OF THE SUPREME COURT’S REPLY:
1️⃣. The Supreme Court did not say the person bearing the name Douglas OGBANKWA, is not a lawyer in Nigeria. Nooo! What the supreme court has said, as shown in its letter, is that the NAME “Douglas OGBANKWA” is not found in the Roll. The Supreme Court’s response could be described as or likened to a negative pregnant traverse/response to the question “Is Douglas Ogbankwa a lawyer in Nigeria?* This sort of response could mean, from the point of view of the Supreme Court, that “the person bearing the name may indeed be a legal Practitioner but operating under a new name about which we have not been notified”. This could be why the Supreme Court added in its response, that “If he has changed his name, he is expected to come along with a duly stamped deed poll and all the requirements for change of name in the Supreme Court”. His records at the supreme court wouldn’t be updated unless and until he gives such notice to the Supreme Court. Yet, the mere fact he is yet notify the Supreme Court, and that his records are yet to be so updated, is not a sensible or reasonable ground for anyone, especially one who is aware of such successful name-change, to go to town misrepresenting the bearer of the new name (whom one knows is one and the same person as the owner of the now changed name: “Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom) as a person impersonating a legal Practitioner or who has committed some offense, illegality or other unprofessional conduct. This is the basis of my submission/comment (and I reiterate) that those lawyers and non lawyers who know the truth (about the name-change) but are still going about spreading the lies and falsehood, that the guy bearing the name “Douglas OGBANKWA” is not a lawyer, are a bunch of petty, shameless, unscrupulous myopists whose actions in this respect are best described as hare-brained, cock-eyed, and airheaded.

Well, in my opinion, Mr Douglas OGBANKWA could be properly accused of having displayed gross negligence or even stack ignorance in not having notified the Supreme Court of the change of name, which has brought him this unexpected embarrassment from the malevolent actions of some scatterbrained lawyers. But, with due respect, Douglas Ogbankwa cannot be validly or effectively accused of having perpetrated any act of illegality or unprofessionalism. If one looked carefully at the newspaper publication that was done as part of the process of the name-change, one would see that Douglas OGBANKWA had given notice publicly to the NBA but not to the Supreme Court. This, in my opinion, could be interpreted to mean that Douglas OGBANKWA may have acted more out of IGNORANCE than of negligence; he may have thought that the notice to the NBA was sufficient or was all that was necessary for his records as a lawyer to get updated. With due respect to Douglas, the notice to the NBA was absolutely unnecessary. The only notification that was necessary was that to the Supreme Court which was UNFORTUNATELY never done.
Membership of the NBA is guided/governed solely by the Roll kept at the Supreme Court; you’re automatically an NBA member if your name is on the Roll, and NBA is under an obligation to take notice of any updates in the Roll of legal practitioners as kept at the supreme court. For example, if one’s name is struck off the Roll, NBA has an obligation to cease treating such a person as a lawyer in Nigeria. This thus places an obligation on the NBA to ensure it’s in constant contact with the Supreme Court for purposes of getting necessary updates as they come, on the Roll. On the other hand, there is a responsibility on the Supreme Court to constantly keep the NBA posted about any updates on the contents of the Roll. The implication of this is that NBA and the Supreme Court must work together for this purpose to ensure there are no mixups and no embarrassment caused the profession or to any lawyer who has done the needful by giving notice to the Supreme Court. But notifications about name change is properly and appropriately channeled to the Supreme Court and not to the NBA, since the Supreme Court, and not the NBA, is the keeper of the Roll and upon whom lies the responsibility to effect necessary changes thereon based on genuine information at its disposal as the case may be. After each round of changes, the Supreme Court should inform the NBA. But the Supreme Court may not be obliged to effect any such changes until it has got necessary information/notice. This tells us that the responsibility is on the LAWYER who has changed his name to give notice thereof to the Supreme Court, and not on the Supreme Court to go about scouting to know whether there are lawyers who have changed their names and in need of such updates. This is where Douglas Ogbankwa’s own default lies. But it is possible that, as of then, he didn’t think he should do this — he may have acted out of ignorance! The bad news is, ignorance of the law is not a good excuse while the good news is, there is no law broken in this instance, although one can’t doubt that he has been thoroughly embarrassed as a result of his “enemies” taking advantage of his ignorance or negligence — more like giving your foes the weapons with which to fight you. But what have they achieved? Nothing, in my opinion other a temporary distraction! Anyway, if upon the name change, Douglas Ogbankwa had notified the SUPREME Court and the name Douglas Ogbankwa was documented on the Roll, the NBA would have had no choice but to recognize the same, and all this embarassment would have been averted. This is why one may be right to argue that the foundation of of Douglas Ogbankwa ‘s current travails lies almost entirely in his failure or neglect to notify the Supreme Court immediately upon the name change. This notwithstanding, I keep repeating that it’s still improper to associate him with any form of illegality or professional misconduct on account only of his default as explained above.

In the meantime, as I hope shortly to, among others things, show, some useful lessons have been learnt on all sides:

1️⃣ First, and especially by Douglas Ogbankwa himself, who has, out of his negligence or ignorance, learnt by EXPERIENCE, and the hard and harsh way;

2️⃣ By some other lawyers contemplating name-change or who have already so done but are yet to do the needful — I expect they have learnt by *OBSERVATION;

3️⃣. By those fighting Douglas Ogbankwa — they have learnt how to not engage in pettiness and childish acts in the name of or as a part of politics or “bar fight” Although they have succeeded in causing Douglas Ogbankwa some embarassment, albeit temporary, they have not succeeded in destroying or diminishing Douglas Ogbankwa. So, in effect, they have achieved almost nothing or nothing at all; and

4️⃣. All observers of the current scenario have also learnt something, one way or another, however little or huge

Finally, and for the avoidance of doubts, please take note of the following:

🅰. My comment above has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever problems or misunderstanding Mr Douglas Ogbankwa may have currently with his NBA Branch, Benin. I am neither in support of Douglas Ogbankwa nor of his branch because I do not know the root of their current problems. It’s for Douglas Ogbankwa (AND I SO ADVISE HIM) to find a way of reconciling with his Branch regarding whatever problems or differences they may have with each other. But lawyers should not in name of Bar politics engage in petty, mischievious, unjust and malignant actions such as that of misrepresenting Douglas Ogbankwa as a fake lawyer when we all know he’s not a fake lawyer. I felt the need to write because Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere; I am particularly appalled by the petty, mischievous, unscrupulous and childish attempts to falsely represent a respected learned as a fake lawyer.

🅱. I am not saying that Douglas Ogbankwa is a saint. On the contrary, my comment above is specifically on the unnecessary attempts to falsely represent Douglas Ogbankwa as a fake lawyer. Nothing more. Else, I have keenly watched his recent outing as well as read some of his public statements, regarding his current differences with the leadership of NBA Benin Branch. I must confess that if I were in his shoes, I would have approached their quarrel differently. My comment above should therefore not be interpreted as supporting Douglas Ogbankwa against his Branch or the Branch against Douglas Ogbankwa. No. My point is, even if Douglas Ogbankwa has offended NBA Benin Branch or its rules, let the Branch find a mature, saner and objective way to either resolve the matter or to punish him according to extant law; he is not above his branch and has no reason to think he is above correction or otherwise above his branch or above the operating rules. However, in my opinion, falsely REPRESENTING him as a fake lawyer or as someone who has committed any illegality or unprofessional conduct in not having notified the Supreme Court of the change of his name from Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom to Douglas Onyebuchi Ogbankwa, is not a proper, reasonable or mature way to punish him.

I shall find time to say more on this in part 2 of my commentary titled,
‘Douglas Ogbankwa’ As A Qualified Lawyer In Nigeria: Matters Arising and Recommendations”
Respectfully submitted,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Coordinator,
The Realist Ministry (TRM)
(A Realist’s Approach to Advancing Justice, Promoting Rule of Law and Protecting Human Rights).

8109024556. [email protected].
            (30 April 2023)

By Martins Oloja

This question has become inevitable because of the inexplicable failure of the presidency to inaugurate the most important institution of governance the Public Procurement Act 2007 Creates for the purpose of protecting public funds by fighting corruption in the public sector. This presidential fear of the Public Procurement Council is now 16 years old. And even the outgoing President Buhari who campaigned with this weapon of fighting corruption in the public sector in 2015 has failed to institutionalise public procurement council eight years on. This is quite disappointing. And that is why it is pertinent to sensitise the incoming presidential bureaucracy that public procurement council should be part of the first deals in the first 100 days in office. It is in public interest.

The Public Procurement Act 2007 establishes the Bureau of Public Procurement as the regulatory authority responsible for the monitoring and oversight of public procurement, harmonising the existing government policies and practices by regulating, setting standards, and developing the legal framework and professional capacity for public procurement in Nigeria.

And more important here, the ‘National Council on Public Procurement’ is the governing body on issues relating to public procurement in Nigeria. It is a high-level organ with approval powers on issues relating to the administration and management of public procurement under the Public Procurement Act of 2007.

On May 13, 2018, here I asked in this column:

‘When will the National Procurement Council be inaugurated? When will the President allow the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to share some powers with the legal Council on Public Procurement generally known as ‘contracts award’ at the federal level?

I had then assured the nation that: ‘Answers to these 11-year-old questions will no longer blow in the wind, as the Council will be inaugurated sooner than later”. I had then explained the rationale for my optimism then this way:

‘This is official, thanks to the wind of change subscription to the strategic “Open Government Partnership” is fast bringing to the way corruption is being fought in the country.

In the first week of May 2018, I was an active participant at the “Open Government Week” in Abuja where a reference to the absence of the Public Procurement Council since 2007 as part of some hindrance to an ‘open government’ led to the confirmation of government readiness to inaugurate the long-neglected Public Procurement Council. In fact, it was confirmed by the Permanent Secretary in Charge of General Services Office (GSO) in the Office of Secretary to the Government of the Federation on Day Four of the 5-day conference.

The Permanent Secretary, General Services Office, (GSO) Mr. Olusegun Adekunle then who represented the SGF, Mr. Boss Mustapha was present at the Monday opening ceremony the Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo declared open.

In response to my observation and a written question by as a participant on when the Procurement Council would indeed be inaugurated since 2007 when the then President Umaru Yar’Adua signed it into law, the Permanent Secretary Adekunle said, “The Council has in fact been constituted and its inauguration will be done very soon”. And spontaneous applause followed the clear answer to an 11-year-old conundrum and anxiety then – for inauguration of the Council.

That was part of the highlights of the Open Government Week 2018, which ended at that weekend (May 10, 2018) in Abuja.

The conclusion of the whole matter then was President Muhammadu Buhari would take the glory of inaugurating the first-ever Public Procurement Council (as provided by law) to deepen public engagement and involvement in procurement processes, being the starting point of corruption in the public sector. He hasn’t till the present.

Specifically, three past presidents have failed to inaugurate the Council.

President Olusegun Obasanjo’s government actually prepared the executive bill on Public Procurement. The National Assembly then passed it but failed to sign it into law. So it was with Fiscal Responsibility Bill, he also failed to sign into law as submitted too by the Clerk National Assembly then in 2007. But Obasanjo didn’t veto the two Bills. He however refused the content of the third legislation, the Freedom of Information Bill. It was a tripartite arrangement to enhance citizens’ access to information and deepen accountability and transparency in public service.

The brass tacks: On June 4, 2007 then President Yar’Adua signed the Public Procurement and Fiscal Responsibility Bills into law. But he failed to inaugurate the Council, which would have removed contracts award from the FEC that has been acting as Tenders Board – till date.

Curiously, despite promises made during the 2015 election, President Muhammadu Buhari too has failed to inaugurate the National Council on Public Procurement, (NCPP) as required by the Public Procurement Act 2007. Instead, the Federal Executive Council, FEC, under the leadership of the president, continues to usurp the most important function of the NCPP: approval of contracts.

The Public Procurement Act provides for the establishment of the NCPP, and the Bureau of Public Procurement, BPP, as the regulatory authorities responsible for the monitoring and oversight of public procurement as well as harmonising existing government policies and practices.

The Act was put in place to allow transparency and ensure public participation in government procurement.

Although President Yar’Adua, who signed the bill into Law, failed to inaugurate the NCPP until his death in office, his successor, Goodluck Jonathan, who stayed in office for six years also failed to inaugurate the Council.

As I had noted here in 2018, that President Jonathan’s spokesperson, Dr. Rueben Abati once asked ‘The Guardian a rhetorical question in a story I did on the thorny issue for the newspaper: “What would you want the FEC to do after inauguration of the Council”, he asked. Which explained why an amendment Bill was sent to the Session of the National Assembly then.

The amendment had sought to remove the power of Tenders approval from the Procurement Council and retain it in FEC. Membership of the Council according to the Act should comprise 12 members to be appointed by the President. While six of the members are government officials, the other six are drawn from relevant professional organisations.

Those from the government side, considered permanent members, include the Minister of Finance, who serves as Chairman, and the Director General of the BPP as Secretary. Others are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Head of Service, and the Economic Adviser to the President. Those representing professional bodies are drawn from the Nigerian Bar Association, the Nigerian Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management, the Nigeria Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mines and Agriculture, the Nigeria Society of Engineers, a representative of Civil Society Organisations, and the media.

The FEC, the constitution provides as Executive Council of the Federation is made up of the president, the vice president, all the ministers, and some presidential advisers; meaning the president and his political appointees who are all less likely to question his decisions.

The failure of the government to set up the Council means that the FEC continues to approve contracts to be executed by its members. And that is why procurement processes have become a critical part of why the public sector has become a bane rather than a boon to Nigeria since 1999. Obasanjo began the process and so unfortunately, no government after him has embraced the reform of the public sector and that is why the country, the same Obasanjo cleared of debt in 2006 has returned to a debt trap, no thanks to ineptitude and unbridled corruption in the outgoing Buhari administration. If the public procurement and fiscal responsibility nurtured by access to information mechanisms have worked we would have been very close to being the African giant and strong tower of the black race we are destined to be.

It will be recalled that candidate Buhari had in a document circulated during the 2015 campaigns titled ‘My covenant with Nigerians’ promised to “inaugurate the National Council on Procurement as stipulated in the Procurement Act so that the Federal Executive Council, which has been turned to a weekly session of contract bazaar, will concentrate on its principal function of policy making”.

Although after assuming office, the president disowned the document. A fact check later showed that the procurement-policy document was produced by the policy and research directorate of the APC presidential campaign, headed by the then Minister of Solid Minerals Development and former Governor of Ekiti State, Kayode Fayemi, when the party was trying to convince Nigerians to abandon the then ruling party, PDP.

I had on September 16, 2016, written on the same issue here in an article titled: “Where is the Public Procurement Council? (https://guardian.ng/opinion/where-is-nigerias-public-procurement-council/)

Below is an excerpt from the column (article), which addresses the urgency of the public procurement council.

“…But then it is time for the president to overhaul the federal bureaucracy to prevent corruption. And here is the thing, even if the president continues ruthlessly alone as a fundamental objective without involving the civil service of the federation, even by 2019, the result will be that yes, he fought some corrupt people without really fighting corruption. And so the war would have been lost… Therefore, the president should step forward and use an existing law to begin institutionalization of the anti-graft war at the highest level…The Freedom of Information Bill, which was also ready in Obasanjo’s time was not signed into law until May 28, 2011 by the then President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan….”

The whole process would also have been enhanced in the Buhari administration by the Open Government Partnership (OGP) mechanism, a multi-stakeholder initiative focused on improving transparency, accountability, and citizen participation, which also engenders responsiveness to citizens through technology and innovation. The OGP process brings together, government and civil society champions of reforms who recognize that governments are more likely to be more effective and credible when governance is made open to public input and oversight.

The OGP was launched to provide an international platform for national activists committed to making their governments more accountable, and more responsive to citizens in their quest for transparency. At the national level, the OGP introduces a domestic policy mechanism where the Government and civil society can have continuous dialogues on effective transparency policies.

At the international level, the OGP provides a global platform to connect, empower and support domestic reformers committed to transforming governments and societies through openness. It is indeed a multilateral initiative aimed at securing solid commitments from Governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.

In 2011, the OGP was formally launched when the governments of Brazil, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States endorsed the Open Government Declaration and went further to announce their individual country action plans. The success of the OGP process per country, lies in the implementation of the National Action Plan, as it provides an organizing framework for international networking and incentives. In July 2016, Nigeria joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) as the 70th country.

Nigeria’s joining of the OGP process demonstrates a strong political will to dismantle existing structures, which have assisted the long presence of corruption, including opacity, and ineffective governance caused by a lack of accountability in the country’s institutions.

This is why it is important for the incoming administration to inaugurate the National Council on Procurement (NCPP) as soon as it is sworn it to begin the process of using public institutions to rebuild our broken system that nurtures our underdevelopment.

This article was first published by Guardian Nigeria on 30 April 2023

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

Evidence of the scope of the mess created by Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under the crooked leadership of Mahmood Yakubu began to emerge this past week. It all suggests network egregiousness on a monumental scale that easily rivals the elections of 2007 until now seen as the nadir in Nigeria’s journey of elective governance.

As the National Judicial Council (NJC) released the names of the 257 judges who will sit to consider and decide on elections petitions around the country beginning in May 2023, it emerged this past week that so far 1,044 petitions have been filed against results declared by the INEC in the 2023 elections. That is already more than 70% of the 1,490 seats contested and it appears that these are not the final numbers.

The relationship between election petitions and the acceptability of elections in Nigeria is one of direct proportionality. Candidates and parties who believe that the results reflect the will of the people are generally disinclined to continue the contest and more expenditure through the courts. Those who do not so believe re-litigate the contest through the courts. The numbers tell the story.

Some 1,299 petitions, representing about 86.35% of the seats contested in 2007 ended up before the courts, a fact that prompted The Economist to describe Nigeria as a “democracy by court order”. With a mere 10 months to prepare and deliver the 2011 elections, Professor Attahiru Jega whom President Goodluck Jonathan appointed in 2010 to replace the rampant Maurice Iwu at the leadership of INEC, cut the number of petitions by nearly 58% to 751 in 2011. In 2015, the last election conducted under Professor Jega, there were only 677 petitions, or 45.4% of the seats on offer.

By contrast, with four years to deliver the 2019 elections, Professor Mahmood Yakubu managed to grow the number of petitions from the 677 he inherited in 2015 to 811 petitions, or 54.4% of the contested seats. Four years later, the bottom has fallen off the system of electoral administration under his watch, with the proportion of petitions guaranteed to be much nearer where they were in 2007. Only a fool will believe that the judiciary can clean up this mess.

In many ways, the drama that accompanied the Adamawa State governorship elections embody everything wrong with the INEC under the watch of Mahmood Yakubu. In that contest, the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), who goes under the appellation of “Barrister” Yunusa Hudu Ari, on 16 April and with full protection from senior officers of the Nigeria Police Force and allied security services, announced fake results without numbers and without authority, forcing an INEC hierarchy steeped in electoral scandal to make song and dance of disowning the declaration.

The antecedents to this development, as well as the aftermath, should detain us.

Like the Chairman of INEC, “Barrister” Hudu Ari is from Bauchi State; and like the INEC chairman, he came from a supply pipeline that appears to bear the fingerprints of the Attorney-General of the Federation. In his home state, Bauchi, Yunusa Ari had worked as a civil servant, before retiring as a Permanent Secretary. He also previously served as secretary to the Bauchi Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA.

But these were not what qualified him to be appointed a REC. His claim to fame is that he was chummy with the Attorney-General of the Federation. According to Leadership Newspaper, “Yunusa was classmates with the minister of justice and attorney-general of the federation, Abubakar Malami”, and “the age-long relationship between Yunusa-Ari and Malami played a crucial role in his emergence as REC.”

Less than eight months before the 2023 elections, in July 2022, President Buhari transmitted Yunusa Ari’s name to the Senate for confirmation as one of a cohort of 19 REC nominees. His identification with the ruling party was well known. Far from disqualifying him as the applicable laws required, these credentials of partisan propinquity made his nomination all the more appealing, guaranteeing his confirmation. Now that the elections are over, INEC admits that many of these RECs nominated by Buhari in 2022 “were clearly partisan and, to make matters worse, some were deployed to states where they had sympathy for the ruling parties.”

After Yunusa Ari’s criminal announcement of a non-existent result, the INEC headquarters intervened purportedly to disown his conduct and summon him to Abuja. From the venue of the announcement, meanwhile, Yunusa Ari headed to the airport in Yola all the time under high-level Police protection, where he boarded a private jet. He did not turn up in Abuja to answer the summons of his employers, however. Instead, the same employers went public to claim that he had vanished and they could not find him. The Police, under whose protection he acted up to the point of vanishing, suddenly announced an investigation into what happened.

If this all sounds like coordinated institutional hyperventilation manufactured for a cover-up, it is because it probably is. The possibility that Yunusa Ari could have acted this script all by himself and without coordination with other agencies or with people higher up the political and institutional food chain is less than zero. It is equally impossible that he could have left Yola on a private jet that then vanished from the airspace. Air Traffic Control had to have cleared the flight and the manifest had to have been filed with the Civil Aviation Authority, all federal agencies. Bringing him to account would entail unmasking this command chain of complicity and conspiracy.

Hours after Yunusa Ari’s fake declaration, Aishatu Dahiru, the serving Senator whom he sought to benefit in the Adamawa governorship contest, went to the Federal High Court in far away Abuja, asking it to affirm her as winner of the election. She did this by way of an ex-parte application, essentially asking the court to decide this matter without hearing any of the other parties in the contest or the INEC whose REC purported to declare her the winner. The court invited her to show how it had jurisdiction over her claim. Rather than do that, her lawyers elected to ask the court for permission to discontinue the case. But, instead of granting her application, the court dismissed it.

While he is supposedly a fugitive, meanwhile, Yunusa Ari has apparently been busy firing off missives to the police, the security services, and suing his employers. His address is presumably undisclosed and undiscoverable. The leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association, whose membership he advertises when he ostentatiously describes himself as a “Barrister”, has studiously averted its gaze from the peregrinations of this infamous member despite the demand of many of its members for the Bar leadership to take steps to discipline him. Similarly, the Attorney-General of the Federation does not appear to have taken notice.

If they were to choose to, the leadership of the Bar as well as the Attorney-General of the Federation would have remembered that Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in Nigeria’s Legal Profession precludes every lawyer from “any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.”

In a country in which the richest lawyers make their billions from inventing technicalities to justify crooked election results, it is no surprise that those who lead the Bar are unwilling and unable to notice that announcing fake election results and disappearing thereafter into thin air is not something that should be associated with a lawyer, especially not one who claims to be a “barrister”. But then again, anyone who feels a need to be addressed as “barrister” is probably far from fit for purpose, anyway.

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