The Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association Abuja Branch, Bulus Y. Atsen, has said that the education system is not a reflection of society, instead of society is a reflection and magnification of the education system. 

He added that the corruption we see exhibited in society was implanted in our schools.

The Chairman Bulus, made this remark Saturday following the recent shocking and horrifying revelations of the bullying, hazing and torture going on in our schools.

Bulus in his statement made available to TheNigerialawyer(TNL ) said the accompanying culture of silence that enables this practice must be brought to an end.

“Every year, mentally and emotionally abused students leave secondary schools to join society through the workforce or the tertiary education system and no one is saying anything about it.

“What makes this more insidious is that this trend is almost as old as our school system and so we have developed a thick skin to it.

“How do we expect People subjected to such dehumanizing treatment to function properly in the society?

“We are quick to go up in protest against brutality by security agencies, and rightly so, but continue to turn a blind eye to the institutionalized torture going on in our secondary schools.

“The painful truth is that the perpetrators and victims are our children, cousins, nephews and nieces. The silence is even louder when the perpetrators are the children of the powerful: of our Pastors, Imams, MDs, Senators, Governors, CEOs, Perm Secs, Politicians and Chiefs. This is when gaslighting and victim-blaming are added to the equation. This has to end!

“As we mark the 16 days of activism against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, it is imperative that we make deliberate effort to end the vicious cycle of bullying and torture in secondary schools.

“Institutions must open themselves up for public assessment, governments must take proactive rather than remedial steps and parents must rise to their responsibilities. 

“The time to act is now.”

By Bola Bolawole

A saying of the elders is that for as long as lice persist on the head, blood will be a common feature on one’s fingers. That is one reason why we are dwelling on the vexed issue of religious bigotry in the South-west again today. The protagonists of religious bigotry in the geo-political zone are not relenting – but many thanks for the firework that has clipped their wings and taken the wind off their sail. The other reason is that feedback is an integral part of communication; it is two-way affairs unlike the “Rediffusion” of old which our people called “asoro-ma-gbesi” lacking in feedback mechanism. The views expressed here today further throws light on South-West Muslim/Christian relations. Enjoy it!

“I am an admirer of Farooq Kperogi (but) his write-up is suspect. Looks like a bait to incite religious war in Yoruba land. We must be careful. Yes, extremists are all over the place but the generalization is suspect. It looks like a ploy and another effort to deal with us as we set up Amotekun to counter the Fulanization scheme. Growing up, I never knew the difference between myself and my Muslim friends. In fact, in Notre Dame Grammar School, a Roman Catholic school, our Muslim friends were given money to celebrate one of their Muslim festivals and we shared their food with them. Kperogi’s idea is strange and suspect. – Adeseko Aborisade Ayeni.

Whosoever would want to enslave the Yoruba will have a very serious fight to contend with. To use religion will fail. Northern Muslims call Yoruba Muslims “kaferi” (unbelievers). In the first place, is there any wrangling between Yoruba Muslims and Yoruba Christians? I have not heard of any! Fulani Muslim conquest of Yoruba land will forever remain the imagination of its dreamers. It will be very difficult to sow any seed of discord between Yoruba Muslims and their Christian brothers in the South-west. Education has enlightened the majority of the populace. – Kola Oloye.

Religious tolerance manifests strongly in Yoruba land. For example, I am a Muslim but my wife and children are Christians on their own volition and we live together very, very happily and peacefully. Love is our religion! – Olumide Lawal.

This thing exists. I have numerous examples of where Muslims are denied jobs by their brothers on account of religion. I have also suffered from it. Instead of us denying the fact that it exists, it is better we talk to ourselves. I know there are Christians who do not do this but it exists for real and we should tell ourselves the truth. There are media houses in this country that Muslims cannot be appointed as deputy editors because of vilification, victimisation or both -0806 411 2555.

Yours is the best piece on peace initiative I ever read in Nigeria in recent years -Akin Hanson.

Religious tolerance: The Yoruba people of Nigeria as a case study: Nobody batted an eyelid when, in the 1950s, the Lagos Muslim Cricket Club was the darling of cricket fans. As for football, Christians versus Muslims was a major event in the sporting calendar. Indeed, on one occasion, the Gbajabiamila twins (Kehinde and Taiwo) played against each other in the cup final – one played for the Christians and the other was in the Muslim team. Neither was disowned by their family! It was no big deal when Mashood Akanbi, a devout Muslim, became House Prefect, and School Captain at Igbobi College, Yaba (a Christian school jointly owned by the Methodist Church and the Anglican Church). During Ramadan, special arrangements were made for him to perform his prayers and also break his fast in accordance with Muslim rites. At St. Gregory’s College, Obalende (a staunchly Catholic School), Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi, a Muslim who is now His Majesty Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, the Alaafin of Oyo, was the undisputed boxing champion. Not many people know that the Alaafin of Oyo and Cardinal Olubunmi Okogie, the former Archbishop of Lagos, are first cousins. Chief Adebowale Durosaiye Akande, SAN, was also at St. Gregory’s College. He enrolled as Yahaya Akande but changed his name and converted to Catholicism of his own free will. His wife, Professor Jadesola Akande, SAN, was a Christian. Also at St. Gregory’s College Kayode Erogbogbo became the Senior Prefect regardless of his religion. He was a staunch Muslim. As for Chief Akin Disu, who is still very much a Muslim, he lived as a student at the C.M.S. (Church Missionary Society) Grammar School in Lagos in the residence of the School Principal/Headmaster, Bishop Kale. He shared the same room (and bed) with a Christian, Chief Ernest Adegunle O. Shonekan, former Head of State.

Over at Baptist Academy, Lagos, the late Molade Okoya-Thomas was actually a Muslim but there was no doubt about his sporting prowess on the football pitch or the athletics field. Indeed, the school’s formidable 4×100 yards relay quartet was made up of Okoya-Thomas, S.D. Shittu and two others who were also Muslims! No problem whatsoever. It was long after he had left school that Chief Molade Okoya-Thomas converted to Catholicism with uncommon passion. He was captain of industry in addition to being the Asoju Oba of Lagos. Also, Alhaji Musiliu Anibaba, a former President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria and the late Alhaji Kafaru Tinubu, a former Commissioner of Police and later Minister of Health, were classmates at Methodist Boys High School, Broad Street, Lagos. They were not obliged to convert from being Muslims to Christians. It was the same story with the girls. Alhaja Lateefa Okunnu (nee Oyekan and a former Deputy Governor of Lagos State), a Muslim, attended Methodist Girls’ High School and Queen’s College, Yaba: She was not under any obligation to convert to Christianity. Time and space will not permit us to dwell on the vast number of “mixed” marriages – Christians married to Muslims. However, one of the most remarkable was that of the late Chief Gaffar K. Animashaun (“Lucky GK”) who died a little over a year ago. His father, a Muslim, was the head of the Ansar-ud-Deen Society of Nigeria while his wife, Chief (Mrs.) Yetunde Animashaun, was the daughter of the Vicar of St. Patrick Church, Lafiaji. He later became a Bishop. The take-away is that the marriage was blissful and flourished for over 40 years. As for their children, they are free to choose between Islam and Christianity” – Excerpts from J.K. Randle’s “Tribute to the Chief (but not the last) Imam (1)” article.

We are not going to allow fundamentalist Christians and pseudo-Mujahideen wannabe Muslims destroy the value of tolerance among the Yoruba people. We urge other Nigerians to emulate this value! – Wale Ajao.

All this nonsense emanates and manifests from the home. Yoruba spirituality is beautiful and definitive and yields tangible results. In our envisaged new Nation, religion will be a completely personal affair. By the grace of our ancestors, Alales and Irunmoles, religious bigotry will fail in Yoruba land – Otunba Shade Olukoya.

Among my grandmother’s children are two Muslims and four Christians. Till tomorrow, my cousins celebrate Christmas with me while I celebrate Ileya with them. My cousin is the Baba Ijo of Christ Apostolic Church, Odo Owa, Kwara State and my other cousin is the Chief Imam of the Central Mosque, Odo Owa – 0803 966 8748.

When I was just seven years old, I was the “troublesome” supplier of local canes with which the Arabic teacher at a nearby mosque walloped his students. From there, I picked some Arabic verses which, till today, I can recite off the top of my head. My mother also hailed from Oba Laoye (the talking-drummer King) royal family of Ede. In fact, I used to be the only boy (Christian at heart) who rode in the King’s posh car to the Yidi (prayer ground) during Ileya festival. Baba Oba (King’s father: Baba Malaoye) was my maternal great grandfather and it was customary to send the royal car to pick him from our large compound. I was Baba’s pet and had a reserved corner right in the car where we all rode to the praying ground amid pomp and pageantry. This did not make me renounce my faith while my mother who had already become a Christian lived and died a Christian. During her burial at St. Peter’s Cathedral, Ibadan, the reigning Timi of Ede was represented as his royal staff of office was brought by his chiefs to pay their last respect to a Princess. This is to confirm (from our own small corner) how deep interfaith understanding in Yoruba land has been legendary and such peaceful coexistence would never be allowed to be polluted. No wonder why, in assigning value to my collective experience as a journalist, I organised the first interfaith workshop for practising journalists in 2001/2002. It was on the platform of Movement of Non-violence in Africa, MENVIA, which I initiated with the support of former Gov. Lam Adesina of Oyo state – Olalere Fagbola.
Need we say more!

By Emmanuel Jonathan

Periodically, Nigerians go to the polls to cast their votes in a plurality voting system to either elect or re-elect leaders. The offices to which citizens elect officials to include the office of the President and Vice President,109 Senators, 360 House of Representatives members, 36 Governors and diverse persons to occupy the various Houses of Assembly of each state of the federation.

Sometimes after rigorous campaigns, some candidates in the race lose out. The next available option opened to an aggrieved candidate or his/her political party as the case may be is recourse to the election petition tribunals and, in the case of the Presidential election, the Court of Appeal. The Aggrieved applicant/petitioner turns to these special tribunals via the mechanism of the election petition vehicle. Election petitions are not a common feature of our jurisprudence. They are special occasional spurts in our jurisprudential horizon. They are in the words of Ariwoola JSC, “Unique and peculiar, different from other civil matters.” Refer to the case of Ugba v. Suswan (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 427. It was also the opinion of Charles Dadi Onyeama JSC (as he then was) in Oyekan & Anor v. Akinjide & Anor (1965) LPELR-25250 (SC) who stated, reiterating the uniqueness of election petition, “The proceedings on an election petition are special proceedings for which special provisions are made in the constitution…”

Due to the special nature of election petitions, it is the only type of litigation that has a very clearly demarcated and well spelt out lifespan from beginning to end. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereinafter CFRN) in section 285 (6) clearly stipulated that the hearing and determination of an election petition shall not exceed 180 (one hundred and eighty) days from the date of filing of the petition to the dissipation of the issues in the petition. Subsection 5 of that same section 285 leaving no room for any form of indecision on the part of the potential petitioner stated that the petition must be brought within 21 days after the declaration of results.

The essence of this rapid quick timelines and time boundaries are to ensure a mandatory dissipation of issues and final determination of election matters and results so as to leave no room for chaos or uncertainty in the political spectrum of a state or the country.

This article will attempt to dissect the election petition backdrop with particular focus on the standard of proof required to obtain the blessings of the election tribunal or court. The major thrust of the article will be to analyze the issue of whether the election petition system is not rigged or judicially biased vis-à-vis the earmarked standards and hurdles seemingly arrayed against the petitioner? This becomes forceful especially when considered under the microscopic focal light of where there is an allegation of fraud or other criminal elements which usually raises the bar to proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. A fast fact check of the most recurring ground of petition is the allegation of noncompliance with the Electoral Act (hereinafter ‘The Act’) and acts of fraud. This ground automatically foists the additional requirement of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt which said acts of fraud and other criminal elements alleged most times occur under the most difficult to prove circumstances.

Secondly, this article will address head-on, the issue of cost in election petitions. The question will be raised, canvassed and addressed, in light of the provisions of the Electoral Act, whether the Election Petition procedure, the often voluminous and bulky collection of evidence and the financially intensive requirement are not heavy weight which unnecessarily weigh the petitioner’s shoulder grievously?

Thirdly, this article will address critically the 180 days’ timeline mark. But more, the fulcrum of attention will revolve around the automatic and enshrined helplessness of the petitioner who for no fault of his/her may lose out on a well-articulated and presented case, only because the tribunal or the Court as the case may be was either deliberately or not deliberately hamstrung from crossing the finish line before the 180 days’ mark. In this regard, pertinent suggestions will be highlighted and novel recommendations will be proposed which if implemented may, together with the other issues raised rejig and revolve our election petition process towards a more modern judicial practice.

Finally, the article will draw on election petition practices and procedure in the United States of America (hereinafter the “United States” or “USA”). This nexus while marrying seemingly divergent jurisdictions is rather apt as the USA and Nigeria both operate a Republican system and have a similar judicial and litigation system structure, albeit slightly different in hierarchical structure. The positive and glittering highlights of the American election petition system, with particular focus on the Bush- Gore election adjudication will be highlighted, then the article will close on the possible and potential positive points which could be extracted from the US and similar jurisdictions to completely revolutionize our election petition process. The essence will be to show that while we have a working and workable election petition system, that we could still have a better election petition system.

Analyzing the election petition system, structure, practice and procedure in Nigeria

Before we delve headfirst into the election petition system, structure, practice and procedure, it is imperative to state that our discussion will flow from the following headings:

1. The available grounds for election petition
2. Who are the defined persons and entities capable of bringing an election petition?
3. The statutory content of an election petition and accompanying documents
4. The available election petition tribunals, and;
5. An election petition: How it works, practice and procedure.

After discussing the above issues, we will close in on the thorny subject of the different standards of proof in the predominantly civil suit. The discussion on the appeal process and procedure for enforcing election petition tribunal decisions will be a discussion for a different subsequent article.

In discussing the above outlined subheads, the drafters of the Constitution did not leave the question unanswered as to when an election petition may be brought after an election or who could validly bring the petition. It would have been a dangerous situation if no clearly marked principles were established in this regard. There would have been a floodgate of suits at various times distracting the performance and smooth running of governance. But even more worrisome, it would have led to a situation where meddlesome interlopers who have neither business nor gain in the electoral process would have entered the race to distract the sitting successful candidate. Kindly see the case of Senator Abraham Ade Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor 1981 LPELR-SC. 1/1981 where the Supreme Court held that for any person to bring an action, such a person has to show his locus standi or sufficient interest to bring such a suit. The drafters of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, in delimiting the range of persons and the timeline in which a petition can be brought entrenched some useful criteria.

Hence to prevent a situation where the successful candidate was to be left in a perpetual state of abeyance, the drafters of the Constitution as discussed in the introductory paragraph earmarked a ‘living’ period of oxygenated timespan within which a petition could be brought.

The drafters of the Constitution in their wisdom restricted the timeline opened to an aggrieved participant in the election to a 21 (twenty-one) days span.  See 285 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereinafter CFRN). Once this period has lapsed, no force above or beneath can resuscitate the right to action. In the very interesting case of Oyekunle Gbenga v. All Progressives Congress & Ors LOR (06/09/2019) SC, the claimant brought an action challenging the declaration of another candidate as the APC flag bearer in the House of Representative election for the Offa/Ifelodun/Oyun constituency after the party primaries. By virtue of Section 285 (9) of the CFRN, all pre-election matters are to be brought within 14 days of the complained action or decision. Mr. Gbenga had waited for a period spanning almost 20 days before bringing the action. The matter had been struck out at the trial court as being statute barred. Upon appeal to the Appeal Court and subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellate Courts had reaffirmed the decision of the trial Court to dismiss the appeal holding that once the constitutionally sanctioned timeline lapses, that the matter becomes a dead on arrival suit for which no amount of resuscitation can revive.

Hence, any election petition must be commenced within 21 days of the declaration of the results. Failure for same to be commenced within the stipulated timeline will result in the matter being declared statute barred. Kindly see the cases of Maigari v. Malle (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1697) 69], Zayyad Ibrahim v. APC (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 469]. Nigerian Ports Authority Plc v. Lotus Plastics Limited & Anor. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 158 and National Revenue Mobilization Allocation & Fiscal Commission& ors. v. Ajibola Johnson & Ors (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247.

The Electoral Act going further delimited the factual grounds of what might inspire or ground an election petition to just four grounds. In other words, if the claims or gravamen of the Petitioner cannot be squared into any of the stipulated grounds, then the petitioner could as well bid farewell to any challenge of the election.

The grounds, pursuant to Section 138 (1) (a) – (e) of the Electoral Act are:

1. That the person whose election is contested was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election. We shall briefly discuss this rather crisp ground with all its attendant implications.
2. That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. This ground will bear the weight of our subsequent discussion in this article.
3. That the Respondent was not duly elected by majority of the votes cast at the election.
4. That the Petitioner or its candidate (where the petitioner is a political party) was validly nominated but was unlawfully (note the term ‘unlawfully’) excluded from the election.
5. That the person whose election is questioned had submitted to the Commission (INEC) affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the election. It will be recalled that one of the grounds against the election of Governor Godwin Obaseki of Edo state in the recently concluded Edo State Governorship election petition tribunal had been the allegation that the Governor had forged and or falsified his school certificate to INEC. Kindly see the petition in Action Democratic Party & Anor v. INEC & 2 Ors (2021)LCN/15169(CA).

Where an aggrieved candidate or political party in an election cannot ventilate his grievance under any of the above grounds, he may as well bid the petition goodbye.

On the first ground enlisted in Section 138 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act (hereinafter the “EA” or the “Act”) it is clear that what is intended here is that the successful candidate /Respondent was not at the time of the election qualified to contest. It is important here to drag one’s attention to the phrase, “as at the time of the election.” So the principle at equity that equity holds as done that which ought to be done will not avail a Respondent here. It is immaterial that perhaps, after the election the successful candidate/Respondent did become qualified. What matters for all time material is that for the large timespan going backward from the time of the election, the candidate was not qualified.

This directly leads to the question: what determines the qualification of a candidate in an election? In other words, what are the feasible things/facts which a candidate must be seised of before he/she can validly contest an election?

While the different contestable electoral offices carry different criteria for eligibility, yet a common threshold can be gleaned from the relevant provisions of the CFRN stipulating the eligibility criteria which include sections 131 and 137 (which provides qualifications for the office of the President), 177 and 182 (which provides qualifications for office of the Governor of a state), 65 and 66 (which stipulates qualifications for the office of the National Assembly) and sections 106 and 107 (which outline eligibility for House of Assembly contestants). Collectively, any candidate for the above mentioned offices must satisfy the following criteria:

1. The candidate must be a Nigerian citizen by birth. For the office of the president, he/she must have attained the age of 35 (thirty-five) at least, the office of the governor, he/she must have attained the age of 35 (thirty-five) at least, for the office of the Senate, he/she must have attained the age of 35 (thirty-five) at least, for the House of Representatives, he/she must have attained the age of 25 (twenty-five) at least. Also for the House of Assembly of a state, he/she should have attained at least 25 (twenty-five) years.
2. The candidate must be educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent. The outcry has been there and the present researcher also is of the opinion that the barest minimum educational qualification for the above mentioned elective posts ought to be a University degree.
3. The candidate must be a member of a political party and must be sponsored by that party.
4. He must not be adjudged to be a lunatic or of unsound mind.
5. The candidate must not be under any sentence of death or imprisonment for an offence involving dishonesty or fraud (or by whatever name called) or any other offence, imposed on him by any court or tribunal or substituted by a competent authority of any sentence imposed on him by such a court or tribunal.
6. Within at least 10 (ten) years, prior to the date of the election, the candidate should not have been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or should not have been found to be guilty of contravening the code of conduct.
7. The candidate must not be a member of a secret society.
8. Where the candidate is in the employ of the civil or public service of the federation or a state as the case may be, he shall have resigned, withdrawn or retired at least 30 (thirty) days before the date of the election.
9. Such a candidate must not be an undischarged bankrupt.

The other requirements for the office of the President as gleaned from section 137 (3) is to the effect that where the candidate succeeded a previous President so as to complete his tenure, that the candidate can only be entitled to a further term of just four years and no more. While the beauty and the timeliness of this provision is apt, especially in the light of the saga that trailed the candidacy of the President Goodluck Jonathan’s declaration to contest the 2015 elections, yet it is the position of the present researcher that this position is stiflingly restrictive and unconstitutional.

By Mallam Kabiru Yusuf

It is an indisputable fact that the hydrocarbon industry which powers human civilization is a complex, specialized, and strategic arena in the energy space all over the world. As such, incidents that arise in the course of crude oil exploration and exploitation need to be professionally managed. Arguably the most unwelcome distraction in the serious business of incident and crisis management is irresponsible politicization of difficult and highly technical issues by entities or persons with poor or no understanding of the key issues. In doing so, these unwelcome and ill-informed distractions create nothing but divisions where none exist.

The recent Nembe oil wellhead blowout and spillage incident are a prime example of how genuine and expert interventions already deployed should not be politicized, discredited, or hobbled by hostile fringe industry interests.

The OML 29 Well 1 platform, which is operated by Nigeria’s largest indigenous oil firm, Aiteo Exploration and Production Company Limited (AEEPCO), a JV with the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) experienced a wellhead gas/crude blowout.

On November 5, AEEPCO reported a major oil leak from its Oil Mining Lease (OML) 29, the Santa Barbara South field, in Nembe, Bayelsa State from a blowout which was spewing oil into the immediate water bodies and contiguous communities and fumes in the air. Following available information, the well in question is a non-producing well in respect of which no production had taken place before 2015 when the company assumed operatorship. Terminal.

Aware that the spill situation was time-sensitive and rightly so, Aiteo activated technical containment measures and quickly invited highly competent foreign based technical experts with experience of managing emergencies of this nature to help arrest the situation. The firm has since mobilized to ground zero and has fully deployed measures to contain the leak including an effective fast-track spill recovery programme. In addition to this has been high level, community targeted community-targeted measures that has been providing provide relief and health related support to those immediately affected.

But for some wholly incomprehensible reasons, several forces have equally deployed their armaments to smear and damage not only the image of Aiteo, but its quite considerable efforts. From peddling specious information that the spill has led to losses in excess off two million barrels, some have alleged that over 500,000 barrels were spilled, while some have suggested figure stupendous loss of some 200,000 daily.

According to the Director General/Chief Executive Officer, National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA), Idris Musa, who spoke last week on a national TV show, “It is absolutely wrong and preposterous for people to make false speculations over the oil spillage in Nembe communities of Bayelsa State.”

This brand of speculative mumbo-jumbo continues to be circulated the fact that competent regulatory agencies exist that can provide the appropriate and correct information but are hardly approached to do so. To show the extent of mischief, few have asked how many barrels the well was producing prior to the blowout. Credible information confirms that before its shut-down prior to 2015, the well produced about producing 700 barrels daily. In the light of this disclosure, it is simply incomprehensible that there can be any truth to the volumes being misleadingly bandied about.

This wretched attack is, quite simply, a disgracefully organized conspiracy to put down Aiteo. Despite efforts by Aiteo to professionally contain the spill in Nembe, some see this incident as an opportunity to attack the company. Some interests are even, curiously, putting out old spill videos to create a negative false impression of the extent incident.

It certainly cannot be overstressed that what is playing out appears like well-choreographed intrigue at work to undermine Aiteo and besmirch ongoing efforts to contain the leak and mitigate the impact on communities around the location of the well. First was the exaggeration of massive oil spill, which some compared to Hiroshima Atomic Bomb catastrophe. Comparing the Nembe oil spill to the Hiroshima, is taking mischief to a dangerous level. Worse, it betrays crass ignorance. Clearly, it is scandalous to liken it to Hiroshima. Except one has a very bad motive – there can be no purpose to such a destructive allegation. Not surprisingly, after putting out this narrative, these same hostile forces of divisiveness who apparently have an axe to grind with Nigeria’s biggest indigenous oil company started circulating old spill videos to fuel to their plot and set the communities against the company. By circulating false videos to various social media platforms, they have sought to create the impression that there has been massive environmental damage to the ecosystem.

Even Governor Douye Diri of Bayelsa State who is not a petroleum engineer has demonstrated a disturbing disposition to his contributions to the public discussions by misguidedly alleging impossible scenarios. Douye Diri is a 1990 Bachelor of Education and Political Science graduate from the University of Port Harcourt with no previous knowledge, experience, or involvement in either oil production or the environment. Yet he has manfully opined that the Nembe spill is worse than the Gulf of Mexico spill. From a person in authority of such elevation, this is extreme misinformation stemming from willful ignorance or dark motive.

To place matters in context, the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico is considered to be the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and estimated to be 8 to 31 percent larger in volume than the previous largest, the Ixtoc I Oil Spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico. Comparisons between the two or three scenarios with the Nembe incident bespeaks nothing short of a wicked, mischievous conspiracy..

More importantly, when journalists finally visited the location yesterday, they realized that the extent of spill had been greatly exaggerated beyond what the reality they met on ground. The questions are; Who are those behind this plot? Who is paying for it? Who benefits from these damaging stories based on ignorance and outright fake news?

The governor’s posture and utterances call for closer examination. By his own admission, the governor was outside Nigeria on holidays when this spill happened. He did not feel the urgency to cut short his trip to return to assess the situation for himself or play any role that he desired for more than 2 weeks. Whilst the problems, the governor, like the proverbial Nero from the Tragedy of Nero, “fiddled while Rome burned” frolicked in London as responsible leaders and government officials thronged Nembe to offer support, guidance, and assistance. When he belatedly returned, his major contribution was to offer threats and his absurdly twisted comparison of the incident with the Gulf of Mexico spill.

What was Diri trying to achieve by such wild incomparable comparison that had no basis in reality?. Why he now does he pretend to care for the impacted communities when he failed to demonstrate leadership early enough as the news of the spill was first reported by Aiteo. Whilst absent on his foreign junket, President Muhammadu Buhari deployed his Minister of State for Petroleum Resources to Nembe for an on-the-spot assessment and evaluation of the spill. The Minister attested to the work being done to contain the spill and pledge support to the company’s efforts. This bears little comparison to the tame efforts of Diri whose return to Nigeria is only noteworthy by his wild, ignorant, and unsubstantiated allegations. Indeed, it is not known if he has intervened in any way on behalf of his people.

What benefits could the governor possibly gain from a disaster that he should also be in the forefront of efforts aimed at genuine mitigation and stability? Granted it is within his legitimate rights to protect his citizens, but this must align with the scientific templates of managing spills as obtains elsewhere in the industry. Immediately, the blowout in question occurred, Aiteo followed professional procedure; alerted the regulatory agencies and activated critical technical and community-focused interventions. Journalists who visited the wellhead blowout ground zero this week saw for themselves the extensive efforts deployed to cage and remediate the situation. What they observed contrasted sharply with a lot of the misinformation being peddled by forces hostile to Aiteo for whatever reasons. According to the oil company, “Aiteo Officials are closely monitoring all activities related to the affected communities, viz. feeding, lighting, hygiene, drinking water and medical requirements with the help of local associations.” Further, “Aiteo Safety and security and HSE teams are monitoring the quality of air every six hours to ascertain the livability of the areas adjoining ground zero. Aiteo is mobilizing additional relief materials for the affected communities.”

The Presidency and relevant agencies, on their parts, have responded admirably in providing for guidance and support towards the efforts being deployed containing spill as well as providing stability. But from closer examination, it appears this conspiracy is an attempt to sabotage and rubbish both image and efforts of President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration. All his efforts at reorganizing and reforming the crucial sector are being serially undermined by some forces whose motives are diabolical. It seems evident that those forces want to capitalize on this spill by exaggerating its impact beyond the scope of what is on the ground. Ultimately, they want to use it to undermine the federal administration and allege both lack of capacity and incompetence by the Buhari government in a major area of the country’s economy. They have already imputed that federal government officials are compromised on the issue. Compromised by who and for what purpose? Instead of acknowledging that Aiteo is working with government officials to clean up the spill and bring the situation under control as should be expected, these diabolical agents are very willing to cast aspersions on the integrity of these officials in furtherance of their dangerous obsession with Aiteo founder Benedict Peters. Incontrovertibly, this is driven primarily by the objective to target and destroy individual reputations and the integrity of cooperate concerns built over several years. This is nothing short of blackmail and its very common tactic deployed by hired mercenaries – blemish everybody in the chain activities with all sorts of allegations to hamper the clean-up efforts for as long as they can.

The hydrocarbon industry, with its peculiar hazards, remains very important to human civilization. When incidents like this occur, they must be professionally managed as is being done currently and not dangerously politicized or mischaracterized by forces with dark motives.

By Stanley Maduabuchi Ofoegbu Esq.

Generally, most consumers act like patients who are in dire need of accessing medical treatment in different medical facilities. A typical patient who is sick and taken to the hospital will only be interested in getting well and better. In other words, he is only interested in recovering from the said illness and nothing more. At that point, he is not aware or interested in knowing any legal rights accruing to him as a patient. Even when he is aware, ensuring that those legal rights are protected to him, will to him, occasion delay and may affect the kind of treatment he may be given considering the level of the legal knowledge of our Medical practitioners here in Nigeria where most of them turn hostile the moment you try to show that you as a patient have some medical rights to be protected. Accordingly a typical Nigerian patient, will not want to bother himself with the legal rights provided he will be attended to and remedies proffered to him to get well soon. In the same vein, a typical Nigerian consumer of public utilities will only be interested in the acceptance of the services being rendered without minding the mode at which the said services were or was rendered. No doubt, many consumers of public utilities are not even aware of their legal rights and so, how can they be enforced? Little wonder they say, knowledge is power. The essence of this shot essay is to x-ray the nature of some public utilities and their legal implications.

The ideology that consumers are usually the king does not hold any water within the operation of public utility treatment of the consumers in Nigeria. This essay focus attention on the obligation of some public utilities providers such as electricity distribution companies, water board of various states and the telecommunication companies among others.

Who then is a consumer of public utilities? The term consumer encompasses such category of persons as hirers, buyers, hotel guests, commuters, medical patients, legal practitioners and all users of goods and services in one way or the other. These group of persons, deals with business and persons who are assumed to be superior or higher to them in technical know –how, knowledge and complexities of the goods and services in question. Accordingly, it is safe to say that a consumer is a person who purchases, uses and maintains or disposes product or services.

A public utility is a business concerned with the interest of the public, the most conventional, which is regulated by statutes or judicial decisions and common laws. Although the Utilities charges commission decree does not expressly define the term, in its second schedule, it enumerates some public utilities within the regulatory mandate of the commission. However, it is not proper to say that others not listed in the utilities charges commission decree are not considered as part of public utilities for which legal rights of consumers accrues.

The principles of Economics which is governed by common law and statutes is that a consumer is entitled to derive satisfaction from the goods and services rendered or delivered to him for which money is paid by him or another on his behalf. Accordingly, since utility means the amount of satisfaction a consumer derives from the usage of goods and services, he is bound to furnish some amount of consideration directly or indirectly.

The question then is, what happens when goods or services are poorly rendered to the public who usually make payments for the provisions of those services? Note that the services here need not necessarily mean essential services as usually undertaken by the states it includes both services rendered by private firms to which large number of the public subscribes to.

The supply of water which is an essential commodity is undertaken mostly by various states water board. In some states, there exists a ministry of water resources that over sees the affairs of the water board. Their major duty is to ensure that water is made available to individuals who subscribe to the supply of water especially for a reasonable fee. What happens if the water is not supplied or adequately supplied? It is not in doubt these days to see water boards supplying water with different colours against human consumption. Colourful water can never be palatable for human consumption. What then is the way out if water board supplies such type of water to the public who subscribes to the supply of water? What about the disconnection of water supply from a building without adequate notice? What about the shortage of water supply without adequate notice being given to members of the public even when considerations usually in monetary terms are furnished for the supply of the water?

It has been the law from time immemorial that consideration is an element of a valid contract either between persons or persons and state government see CURRIE V MISA {1875} L.R 10 Exch 153 at p. 162. Where there is no consideration, there is no valid and operational contract that can be enforced between parties. Unfortunately, members of the public who subscribe to the supply of water by water board for a fee or other forms of consideration are not aware that a valid contract has been established in the absence of other vitiating elements which gives them the right to commence an action against the ministry of water resources and water boards for poor or no supply of water which a reasonable fee is usually paid for. In other words, in the absence of statutory provisions mandating the ministry of water resources including water board to supply adequate and palatable water to members of the public who subscribe to them, contractually, they are bound by law to so supply adequate water to members of the public. They are legally and duty bound to issue adequate notices when water will not be supplied or where there is shortage of the said supply. However, issuance of the notice does not absolve them from legal liabilities when they fail to supply water.

Failure to supply water which is being paid for, amount to breach of contract same, which is actionable in court no matter how minute the breach may appear. It is unfortunate, that 90 percent of Nigerians are not even aware that state water boards and ministry responsible for the supply of water can sue and be sued where and when necessary. It is recommended here that ministry of water resources and states water board should try as much as possible to live up to expectations irrespective of whether members of the public know and understood the fact that they have rights which ought to be respected and capable of been enforced.

While water board are busy acting in their own whim and caprices, the electricity distribution companies are not left out. In fact, they are birds of a feather with the various states water boards. They are govern by the same principles of law. In other words, besides the statutory provisions such as the Electric power sector reform Act, the relationship between the various distribution companies and the public who subscribe to the supply of power to their various homes are contractual. This is because; the relation contains all the essential elements of a valid contract which includes, offer and acceptance including consideration among others. Accordingly, where there is a breach in the contractual relation such as wrongful disconnection occasioning damages to properties, disconnection without adequate notices, poor power supply or no supply at all, rationing of the power supply as a result of inefficient functioning of transformers, illegal and skyrocketed bills not commensurate with power consumption, forcing of new intakes to pay or clear the bills consumed by previous users who relocated among others. All these, are various ways by which the distribution companies breach the terms of contract between them and the public users for which any affected individual can approach the court for an action and for a redress which most times, warrant the payment of monetary damages go the affected victim or user.

This however, is not to say that the distribution companies on their own have no cause of action. Just like every individuals with his contractual rights, the distribution companies are treated like human being in the eyes of the Law. They too can sue a subscriber who breach the terms of the contract. It is immaterial that the terms of the contract are not written down. Where a party erects a house or even rent an apartment and invites an electricity distribution company to supply power or even proceed to apply for a metre and same was granted, a contractual relation immediately exist between the duo and any of the parties can enforce same when breached as contract can be entered orally, in writing or by conduct of the parties.

It is interestingly interesting to know that over the years, Nigerians now understood the fact that electricity distribution companies can be sued for wrong doings. We have recorded series of cases emanating from High courts of different jurisdiction and even getting to the court of Appeal against various distribution companies. This is a welcome development as it helps to keep the companies on their toes. It is recommended here that Nigerians should not just keep mute over the anomalies of the electricity distribution companies alone, the water boards of various states should be given their own portion of food when they misbehave either by breaching statutory provisions of the law or contractual relations.

What about telecommunication companies such as MTN Nigeria, GLO, AIRTEL, ETISALAT and others? Just like the commercial banks, where an adult approach the bank and make an offer to have an account opened in his name and same is accepted, he automatically becomes a customer of the bank and a contractual relationship begins to run between him as the customer and the bank with each party entitled to enforce his own rights in the event of breach. In the same vein, an adult who purchase and registered a sim card with any of the network providers, has automatically becomes a customer to the said network company by virtue of such purchase and registration. In Nigeria, telecommunication network is regulated by the Nigerian Communication Act which is the major law. Others includes the Constitution of Nigeria, Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the NESREA Act among others. All the relevant Acts have provision depending on each case where subscribers can safely rely to enforce a right accruing to him or her.

In line with the principles of economics, a subscriber to any network who has complied with the necessary requirements is bound by law to enjoy good and quality service. A subscriber who has sufficient credit in his registered line should be able to make calls and send out messages. A subscriber who subscribes to data usage, should be able to surf the net using the said data. A subscriber, who is not under any impediment, should be able to receive calls and messages using his phone lines. Where any of the above and more is lacking, a subscriber who suffers damage as a result of inefficient network service, the network provider will be liable for breach of contractual relation depending on the circumstances of each case. This also includes unsolicited text messages from network providers and secret extortion of credit balance and data. It is immaterial that a public apology will or was tendered by a chief executive officer of the company. Breach of contract, remains a breach irrespective of the magnitude of the apologies. The law is trite that parties are bound to perform their obligation under the contract they have entered into. Accordingly, where the telecommunication company fails to live up to expectations, an affected subscriber can approach the court for a redress see MTN NIGERIA LIMITED V CHINEDU (2018) LPELR 44621 CA, MTN NIGERIA LIMITED V AMADI (2012) LPELR-21276 (CA), ANDREW V MTN NIG LTD (2016) LPELR 41181 (CA), MTN NIG LTD V ANENE (2018) LPELR -44447 (CA), EZUGWU EMMANUEL ANENE V AIRTEL NIG LTD among others.

In summary, it is expected that providers of public utilities should try as much as possible to live up to expectations. The idea of Nigerian mentality in allowing things to go as a usual practice should be jettisoned. A closed mouth they say is a close destiny. Where a customer or subscriber keeps mute following the anomalies committed by a service provider, the service provider will extend same anomalies to other customers until it becomes a daily norm and Nigeria continue to get worse. Hence, we are the cause and the solutions to our problems.

Stanley Maduabuchi Ofoegbu Esq.

By Ademola Owolabi, Esq

On 20^th October, 2020, an incident of significance proportion happened at the Lekki Toll Gate. Prior to that date, some youths congregated at the venue to protest against police brutality. Their demand: End SARS. SARS is an acronym for Special Anti-Robbery Squad. On the said day, soldiers and policemen were alleged to have invaded the peaceful venue and killed some of the protesters. The Lagos State Government reacted by setting up a Panel of Inquiry headed by a Retired Judge of the High Court of Lagos State and eminent Nigerians including a Senior Advocate and a Retired Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was a formidable team.

After a year of sitting and receiving evidences, the Panel turned in its report and found that a massacre took place on the fateful night. As usual, the report has generated heated debate and comments which was further fuelled by Lagos State White Paper that rejected some of the Panel’s findings and recommendations.

The questions we intend to answer in this article do not relate to the accuracy and correctness of the findings of the Panel but on two critical issues to wit: whether a Tribunal of Inquiry set up by Lagos State Government can validly investigate acts of the Armed Forces of the Federation whose Commander-in-Chief is the President and two, whether Lagos State Government can reject some or all the recommendations of the said Judicial Panel.

It must be stated straight away that constitutional issues must be approached not only with the moment in mind, we must not loose sight of the future too. As such, our view must not only address now, it must consider future development. Edward v Canada (1932) AC 124.

Nigeria is a Constitutional democracy and powers and obligations are constitutionally conferred on the Federal and State Government. This is where the issue of Exclusive, Concurrent and Residual lists came up. It is submitted that matter of defence and security are matters exclusively within the constitutional purview of the Federal Government of Nigeria. We refer to Nos. 2, 17, 38 and 45 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the 2^nd Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This puts it beyond doubt that the command and control and discipline of the Armed Forces is constitutionally vested in the President who is the Commander-in-Chief by virtue of Section 217 of the Constitution.

We have read argument that the Supreme Court in the case of Fawehinmi v Babangida (2003) 3 NWLR (pt. 808) 604 that the Federal Government cannot set up a Tribunal of Inquiry except for the Federal Capital Territory. It is strange that the lawyers who stood against that judgment during Oputa Panel are now employing the judgment because it suits a narrow perspective. The answer is that to investigate and discipline members of its Armed Forces, the Federal Government does not require a Tribunal of Inquiry. A cursory perusal of the Armed Forces Act and the Constitution show that the Armed Forces as a discipline force has adequate provisions for maintaining standard and discipline its members that err.

It is therefore not correct that since the Federal Government cannot set up a Panel of Inquiry except for the Federal Capital, that power is now to be exercised by the State Governments.

It is at this stage apt to consider the law that set up the Hon. Justice D. Okwuobi’s Panel. It was set up under the Tribunal of Inquiry Law of Lagos State.

Section 1 of the Law provides:

The Governor may when necessary, constitute one or more persons by a signed instrument, a Tribunal with authority to inquire into the conduct or affairs of any officer in the public service of the State, or any officer in a local authority in the State, or of any chief or the management of any department of the public service or of any local authority or declarations of customary law relating to the selection of an Oba or a recognised chief or any matter relating to chieftaincy dispute, or into any matter in respect of which in his opinion would be for the public welfare.

We have set out the constituting authority in extenso so that there is no ambiguity. The first thing to note is that the Tribunal is to INQUIRE. That is the limit of its power. Secondly, the officers who can be investigated or be subject to an inquiry are officers in the employment of Lagos State and for matter involving customary law and Obaship. It is the law that words in an enactment be given their natural meaning. See AG Lagos v Eko Hotels (2006) All FWLR (pt. 342) page 1398. We have also read some people who having apprehended the limitation of the scope of powers of the Tribunal took refuge in the phrase – would be of public welfare. The proper interpretation of the phrase: public welfare cannot derogate from the preceding provisions. Public welfare here must align with the words previously mentioned. Having limited itself to matters within its public service and customary law, it would be absurd to interpret the word: Public Welfare to include the military and other security agencies. In statutory interpretation, this is known as Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius”.

Also, it is also an acceptable interpretation that since the Constitution has placed the act, formation, posting, discipline of the Armed Forces under the Federal Government, no State can legally set up a panel to investigate the Armed Forces. Section 1(3) of the Constitution makes the Constitution supreme and any law that derogates from the constitution in invalid. Insofar as the Tribunal of Inquiry Law of Lagos State is being interpreted as capable of investigating the security agencies in Nigeria, that law will be unconstitutional. In our humble perusal of the Law, there is no provision therein that makes it valid for a Panel of Inquiry to investigate the Armed Forces. In actual sense, the Law recognises the limitation of the Governor’s power as it concerns the setting up of a Tribunal of Inquiry.

We refer to Section 21 of the Tribunal of Inquiry Law which provides as follows:

The powers conferred by this Law on the Governor, may be exercised in         respect of any matter within the legislative competence of the State.

It means that the Governor cannot direct the Tribunal to inquire into the conduct of the Armed Forces insofar as it pertains to the conduct of its officers on 20^th October 2020. The fact that the Army appeared before the Panel would not constitute a waiver as the power and limit of authority of the Panel in statutory. After all, it is the law that parties cannot on their own confer jurisdiction on a Court.

Thirdly, the instrument and the Law setting up the Panel require it to make an inquiry – a finding of fact. Such a Panel of Inquiry cannot indict or punish and that explains why the Panel rightly made recommendations to the convening authority.

The other issue is whether Lagos State must accept the Panel’s recommendations without more. We have read several learned writers to the effect that White Paper is unconstitutional and that the Panel Recommendations are law unto themselves. This is also not correct. It may be necessary that we remind ourselves that our practices and procedures are inherited from our colonial master. It has never been the law that the Executive Branch must accept the recommendations and findings made by a Panel of Inquiry. The practice as inherited is for the Executive Branch to peruse and review the recommendations and findings of the Tribunal. It is that process that is referred to as issuance of White Paper which is the Government’s position on the matter.

Section 15(1 &2) of the Tribunal of Inquiry Law of Lagos State compel the Tribunal to furnish a full report of its proceedings, findings, recommendations and report to the Governor. Subsection 2 empowers the Governor – if he deems it necessary to do so- to make an order on matters dealt with by the Tribunal and same shall be registered as a judgment of the High Court.

It must be noted that Section 15(2) gives the Governor the discretion to treat the Tribunal’s Report & Recommendations as he deems it fit. The idea or argument that the Governor is willy-nilly bound by the Tribunal’s recommendations is not correct and should be discountenanced. In exercise of the power conferred on the Governor, he can even discard the recommendations of the Panel.

s we have mentioned earlier, this article does not seek to take a position on the correctness and accuracy of the Tribunal’s findings, reports and recommendations. The two issues that agitate our minds are whether a Tribunal of Inquiry sets up by a State Government can validly investigate matters of defence and security; and whether the Governor of a State has power to accept or reject recommendations made by the Tribunal of Inquiry. The issues have been adequately addressed in this article.

GUEST COLUMNIST BY KAYODE FAYEMI

What would have been Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s idea of nation-building amidst the centrifugal forces emerging from almost all parts of the country to challenge the foundations of our nationhood as a united Nigeria? It seems to me that it would be fair to say, as Azikiwe would have done, that national security and development are dependent on a resolution of the National Question and the associated demands of nation- and state-building.

History and comparative experience teach us that where a broad consensus has been built on the fundamental issues underpinning the National Question, security and development becomes much easier to attain and sustain. One of the most critical factors for the success of any nation is the achievement of a broad and enduring consensus among the elite drawn from various walks of life on a fundamental set of questions that are germane to the establishment and nurturing of a stable foundation for the pursuit of security and development.

Yet, on the other hand, this is not a charge to be left to political elites only as doing so is bound to create resentment and feelings of exclusion among lay citizens. A nation’s theory of development can only derive from the consensus that has been forged on key national questions, especially those related to the issues of identity, religion, participation, justice, and the overall management of diversity. How these are mobilised to define the value of citizenship and to set the parameters for inclusion or exclusion within the nation’s socio-economic and political space. As such, there can be no successful nation-building in our current climate where a wide section of our citizens are apathetic to the very idea of the nation-state and perceive the political institutions that govern them as enemies. For many, nation-building is no more than age-old idealistic rhetoric that has no bearing on lived realities.

My argument has always been though, that we cannot speak of national development without first resolving the key issues of nation-building. I make bold, therefore, to say that the security challenges that are confronting us in all their various dimensions and ramifications, and all the issues of governance instability that we are confronted with are directly consequential upon our inability to settle some fundamental questions of nationhood and find points of convergence in a plural society like ours. Where the very existence of the nation itself is easily brought to question at the slightest provocation, it should serve as a warning to us that the very foundation upon which the nation stands is either weakening or has collapsed. In either case, measures aimed at reinforcing that foundation must be adopted speedily. Settling our foundational challenges, and doing so frontally, is a sine qua non for the successful forging of consensus that is needed for moving the country forward with a unity of purpose, a common vision of our greatness, shared values of solidarity, and a sense of equity, and justice.

. Yet the challenges of nation-building are not exclusive to Nigeria or African states as is often ascribed. Erstwhile model nation-states in the West are falling short of their cohesive ideals and grappling with the challenges of national divisiveness. In the case of Nigeria, some have argued, with some merit, I must admit, that we cannot build Nigeria into a truly united nation until we somehow boil down all our ethnic and other differences into one homogenous melting pot. “For the nation to live, the tribe must die” was the clarion call. This was the exact thinking that underpinned the Westphalian model of the modern nation-state in Europe. History has shown, however, that difference is a permanent feature of the human condition and it does not preclude the nurturing of bonds that unite. Moreover, human beings have natural affinities to their ethnic or linguistic groups that are too resilient to be simply swept aside artificially. This is true for most nations of the world, but even more so for post-colonial African states that emerged out of the European partition of continent in 1884/85. None of us chose to be Nigerians. But having found ourselves in this geographical space called Nigeria, we are left with two real alternatives. One is to make it work for everyone. The other is to break it up and let everyone return to their ethnic enclaves. The latter option has never proven to be better or more sustainable than the former.

Speaking in the context of Nigeria’s three regions in the early years of independence, Dr. Azikiwe noted as follows:

“Each of our three Regions is vastly different in many respects, but each has this in common: that, despite variety of languages and custom or difference in climate, all form part of one country which has existed as a political and social entity for fifty years. That is why we believe that the political union of Nigeria is destined to be perpetual and indestructible.”

It was a message to say that despite differences of various types, we are not confronted with cleavages that are insurmountable as we invest in the building of enduring parameters for nationhood. No political union is created perfect and none enjoys perfection as a permanent condition. What is encouraging, and which Azikiwe understood and preached always, is that through visionary leadership, doors are opened to us to invest in forging a more perfect union from generation to generation.

Like most of his contemporaries, Zik acknowledged our diversities in ethnicity, religion, tongues, and custom, but he regarded Nigeria as the “motherland.” I believe that in choosing to describe Nigeria as a “motherland,” he was being deliberate. No one gets to choose their mothers or change their mothers. It is a relationship that is “perpetual and indestructible.” In the context of the many historical events that have unfolded in the country over the years since independence, some have been tempted, in the thick of zero-sum partisanship, to suggest that perhaps Zik had too much faith in project Nigeria or allowed himself to be blinded to the many dysfunctions that have wracked the nation-building process. In my considered opinion, both suggestions are wrong and unhelpful insofar as they betray a fundamental understanding of the roots of his nationalism which set great store by unity in the march to greatness. As a key architect in the making of contemporary Nigeria, it would have been too much to expect that Azikiwe would also easily embrace a path that would lead to its dismemberment. To do so would have amounted to a wholesale self-repudiation.

The greatest test which he faced came at the onset of the Nigerian civil war and the polarization which required all key actors to pitch their tents with one side or the other in the conflict. It had to be one of the most difficult moments in his entire political life watching the potential disintegration of Nigeria while also seeking to understand the fullness of the grievances in Eastern Nigeria that unfurled the drive towards the creation of Biafra. One of the enduring controversies of the Nigerian civil war was the actual role that Dr. Azikiwe played – or did not play – in that conflict. It was the real-life equivalent of being caught between the rock and the hard place. Treading with the utmost caution, he did stick out his neck to make a plea for the abandonment by the conflicting parties of the resort to violence and a resumption of dialogue. Perhaps there is something in this approach that contemporary gladiators in the ongoing challenges to Nigerian nationhood may want to take as food for thought.

Like all people imbued with a profound intellect, Azikiwe’s favoured strategy for tackling differences was encapsulated by the French word “Parlement”, or parliament in English, which means discussions, meetings, or negotiations until a compromise can be forged. In the fight for Nigeria’s independence, Zik insisted that “we would not shed blood. We would not force the British to shoot at us.” And he advised all of his fellow anti-colonial nationalists around Africa to adopt the same strategy. In embracing the philosophy of non-violence, Zik was undoubtedly influenced by his experience with the civil rights movement in the United States and the example of Mahatma Ghandi. But apart from a deep commitment to humanism and the sanctity of human life, Zik’s non-violence was also borne out of pragmatism. He did not think there was any wisdom in taking to the battlefield against an enemy that is more powerful than you. However, armed with the heavy artillery of your intellect and the morality and justness of your cause, you can make an enemy retreat. Dialogue is more compelling and can oftentimes be even more resounding than the staccato of the Kalashnikov.

Zik’s non-violence also had nothing to do with a surrender mentality as some have suggested. Thus, even as he made efforts to stop the Nigerian civil war from becoming an inevitability and escalating, he also made it clear that justice, fairness, and equity in the administration of the commonwealth were fundamental pre-conditions for peace and unity to be won and sustained. He called for an end to the war hostilities and the reintegration of the Biafrans back into Nigeria, “provided,” he said that:

“Nigeria will continue to ensure the safety of persons and properties of Biafrans in one united country where all its citizens will be treated as equals without any discrimination. And where there would be opportunities for all citizens and inhabitants.”

History has taught us that wars, especially civil wars, could be one of how a country self-introspects and finds its true identity and a pathway to transformation. As with the American civil war which historians have suggested was also America’s war socio-economic transformation, there have been suggestions that out of the wreckage of the civil war, Nigeria might successfully reconstruct itself and move on to the path of structural change. All things considered, amidst the optimism unleashed under the banner of the three “Rs” of post-war reconstruction, reconciliation, and reintegration, few will disagree that we are yet to achieve the high hopes that flourished amidst the oil boom of the 1970s that we were well on the way to fulfilling our destiny to greatness. With persistent challenges of state and nation-building and a myriad of developmental discontents, the rise of separatist agitations in recent years, and the rhetoric of such agitation indicates that there are still people in this country who feel that Nigeria is not working for them; who still feel marginalised in the scheme of things; who frame this discontent in ethnic, religious, or regional terms; and who, therefore, believe that the only solution is for them to be allowed to go and form their own country.

It is important to note that complaints about marginalisation are not exclusively or always solely directed at the federal centre. Within the regions and states that have made up the Nigerian federation at various times since 1960, people who feel they are not getting a fair deal or equality of opportunities also complain of marginalisation. The standard solution that has been pursued has been to clamour for more states in the expectation that the interests of those who feel marginalised would be better served if they have a state of their own to themselves.

Going by the persistent agitation for the creation of more states, it is easy to assume that discontent at the sub-National level is real, persistent, and widespread. Since the 1946 Richard constitution that created the three regions of the Nigerian federation, agitations for the creation of more regions had been rife, particularly among the minority ethnic groups. The subsequent creation of states in 1967, 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1996 has not stemmed the vociferous demand for more states. While the 2005 National Political Reform Conference set up by the Obasanjo administration concluded that the creation of new states was not feasible, the 2014 National Conference by the Jonathan administration recommended the creation of 18 new additional states to make Nigeria into a federation of 54 states.

The infinite political market for the creation of an ever-increasing number of states in the Nigerian federal system is an indicator of the fact that the successive rounds of state creation which we have had to date have not produced the el dorado that successive generations of agitators thought the exercise would produce. The more states are created, the more new perceptions of marginalisation have multiplied. It cannot be viable to steer the country into an over-fragmentation that cancels out the effectiveness of the administration of the common good.

Another argument by those who are still clamouring for the creation of more states is that doing so will bring government closer to a particular people who were otherwise marginalised under a current arrangement. Even if this were true, it is debatable whether mere geographical proximity can deliver good governance and improve the quality of lives of the people without a corresponding commitment to development generally. Shared geographical space does not automatically translate into shared resources and equitable and fair distribution. Solidarity can at times be situational and if there is nothing more than agitation for states without deeper commitments to what constitutes shared values between state and citizens, the centre may not hold. There is no such thing as a homogenous society, not even a homogenous family. The ties that bind are the mutually shared values that accommodate differences. In the absence of this, conflict is almost always inevitable.

Perhaps, of greater concern, is the growing evidence that many of our states are fast becoming economically unviable. This situation would get worse as the amount that would be available for allocation from the centre dwindles in tandem with the decline in oil revenues. It is, therefore, reasonable to argue that the solution to the problem of lack of equity or marginalisation within a state is not the creation of more states, which may end up only creating new arenas of conflicts. Even if it were possible to ensure that only people of the same ethnic group or religion occupy a State, this would still not stop the complaint of marginalisation as some people would always be better off than others. I am from the most homogeneous state in Nigeria and I can confirm this.

The argument against the agitation for the creation of more states can also be extended to those who think that the best solution to the problem of real and/or perceived marginalisation in Nigeria is outright secession from the country. While it is easy to understand the sentiment that drives the kind of extreme position adopted by groups like the MASSOB or IPOB, one would still have to question whether this is indeed the best solution in the best interest of the people on whose behalf they have claimed to pursue the struggle. In attempting a response, it may be pertinent for us to remind ourselves of the experiences of countries that have faced the same kinds of challenges to unity and nationhood in recent times. I would like us to pause and look at the experience of these countries.

Amidst massive global goodwill, South Sudan declared independence from Sudan in 2011, following an agreement signed in 2005 to end what was regarded as Africa’s longest civil war. According to South Sudan sources, the war was fought to resist “Islamisation and Arabisation” by the North and to preserve their ethnic identity as Africans, animists, and Christians. The discovery of rich deposits of crude oil in the South also added fuel to the conflict and reinforced agitations for separation, especially after the death in an air crash of the historic leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, John Garang. Those who had expected independence to bring the long-overdue peace to the Sudan, North, and South, were sorely disappointed when within two years of winning the freedom to self-determination, a civil war broke out within South Sudan itself, leading to the death of over 400, 000 people and the displacement of an estimated 4 million more.

In the period since then, the young country has alternated between conflict and uneasy peace, complete with a UN peacekeeping mission. In the meantime, in what was left of Sudan after the separation of South Sudan and its accession to independence, various mini-conflicts underwritten by an assortment of armed groups challenging the authority of Khartoum have been the order of the day. Darfur in Sudan became both an embodiment and symbol of the tragedy of war that befell the country even as South Sudan was also locked in a violent struggle for power-driven by inter-ethnic distrust and an unreconstructed system of political monopoly. Since the ousting of President Omar Al-Bashir in 2019, the North itself had been trapped in an unhappy transitional arrangement that has culminated in a second flexing by the military of its muscle in the domestic political process.

Those who are sold on the logic of secession may counter this analogy by outlining the differences between South Sudan and the South East of Nigeria and how the outcome of “independence” would be different in both cases. It is true that while the South East of Nigeria is relatively homogenous in language, culture, and religion, South Sudan has about 60 different ethnic groups. However, it is important to remember that when they were united in the fight against Khartoum for independence, the South Sudanese put up a united, practically “homogenous” front. The breakdown in their unity only burst into the open as independence loomed. No matter how homogenous it may appear, no society is ever bereft of differences and cleavages that require to be managed on an ongoing basis through engaged and visionary leadership.

If the simple fact of apparent ethno-cultural homogeneity was an absolute guarantee for stability and progress, we may never have had a cycle of genocides in Burundi and Rwanda or a broken Somalia on our hands. It is, therefore safe to state that while diversity does not guarantee a slide into war, homogeneity does not guarantee a sustained peace either. In fact, as the award-winning author Yuval Harari has argued, it is by our common conflicts and dilemmas that we define our identity, not by our common traits. Therefore, he observes, “the people we fight most often are our own family members. Identity is defined by conflicts and dilemmas more than by agreement.” As we say in Yorubaland, “it is the person that you lie in the same bed with that you bump into.” We must, therefore, learn to manage our differences and do so in order to achieve the goal of a better and more perfect union.

If separation and secession are not as easy or simple as their proponents imagine, and given that they do not provide any guarantees that a better future can be secured through them, the demands for a national restructuring would seem to me to be worth keeping on the table for deeper consideration. In doing so, we have a duty to frame and contextualise the quest for restructuring as part of a normal process of regular and periodic adjustment and recalibration of governance arrangements to changing times and contexts. This would represent a departure from the negative and adversarial connotations which proponents and opponents have attributed to the idea of restructuring, turning it into another source of rancour, recrimination, and division. However, at the end, when all the dust around the issue settles, we find that we are all confronted with the same fundamental question: How do we make Nigeria work best for every Nigerian? Like the great Zik posited, how do we build a nation where the safety of every citizen is assured and where there would be equal opportunities for all, regardless of the language they speak, the place they come from, or how they worship God.

Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe envisioned a country that would be “perpetual and indestructible” on account of its ability to remain adaptive and responsive to the shifting challenges and its commitment to meet the aspirations of every generation of Nigerians. The indestructibility of Nigeria, as envisaged by Zik is indeed best assured when the majority of Nigerians are emotionally connected to Nigeria because of what Nigeria is able to do for them. In essence, the legitimacy of the nation-state is not in making demands of patriotism but in the quality of life it provides for its citizens towards building mutual trust and the common good.

The question, therefore, is this: is Nigeria as currently structured capable of delivering the full benefits of citizenship to every Nigerian? The answer to this is obvious. Certainly, the growing army of our frustrated and disenchanted youths do not think so. One might even argue that our generation of young people are actively engaged in alternative spaces of micro nation-building projects of their own in the absence of a perceived nurturing state. We see this in the ways common identities and aspirational notions of what Nigeria could be in new media spaces, entertainment, and other forms of identity-making projects youths have taken up, and successfully too.

Yet, when the Nigerian story is told, we very often focus a disproportionate amount of attention on what does not work about our union. And perhaps that in itself may not be a bad thing if, rather than being weaponised to undermine our collective will, it is framed as a clarion call to do more and better and with greater purpose. It is important also not to forget that there exist important glues that bind us together as Nigerians regardless of our differences and these glues also deserve to be reinforced.

I am convinced that the problems that we are called upon to address and redress in building a better country are not beyond our grasp to tackle. With good faith and a generous dose of goodwill, we can, as we have done on various occasions in our history, summon that Nigerian genius to build on the things we have successfully erected together. We must strive to do so in the spirit of the kinds of noble values and principles that inflamed the spirit of a youthful Azikiwe to enrol at Lincoln University in a quest to discover the innate goodness in the human species with a view to building a better and freer world. We must never abandon the spirit of inquiry and discovery that led Azikiwe to join other nationalists to seek to create a nation-state founded on the best ideals of citizenship anchored on freedom and justice.

“We, the people of Nigeria,” must truly mean that our considered aspirations have fed into the document that would form the fundamental organising principle of our nationhood. The opportunities are there. The question of how to develop a democratic system that meets the expectations of our people and restore people’s trust in government; how to bring ethical principles, empathy, and efficiency into the heart of government and leadership at all levels; how to harness our demographic advantage and translate our youth population into an asset rather than a time bomb; how to build a society that is governed by the rule of law; how to build an electoral system that is reliable and efficient; or how to build a trusted, dependable and efficient judiciary. All these are at the very heart of what I see as the broad package of restructuring that we need to work towards. It is a package around which we can forge a broad consensus.

And I believe that we don’t need to go through another war or tear down our country to arrive at such a consensus.. Of course, the cynics among us would like to ask me that if I am so confident that we can resolve these issues through dialogue or any other form of parlement, how come such previous efforts have failed to lead to the desired outcomes? My answer would be that the national transformation that we seek can only happen through the transformation of the individual and the individual’s transformation in relation to fellow citizens and in relation to the nation itself. People create systems and not the other way round. It is only by the transformation of the individual that we can hope to do that which is necessary for the transformation of our country. While the notion of social contract is central in exploring the relationship between the state and citizens, as the Rabbi and moral philosopher Jeffrey Sachs reminds us – it is inadequate in dealing with our current challenges simply because;

Social contract creates a state; social covenant creates a society. Social contract is about power and how it is to be handled within a political framework. Social covenant is about how people live together despite their differences. Social contract is about government. Social covenant about coexistence. Social contract is about laws and their enforcement. Social covenant is about the values we share. Social contract is about the use of potentially coercive force. Social covenant is about moral commitments, the values we share and the ideals that inspire us to work together for the sake of the common good.

For me, this encapsulates the idea of nation-building at its best. A contract must be founded on cohesion – a covenant to stay true to the agreed contract. All parties must agree to avoid contestations. Achieving a sense of common identity, strong institutions, and shared values as a nation is a process of building trust and finding unity in difference. This is how we build the sort of national relationship that is not an exploitative social contract but a moral commitment that combines individual and state obligations.

Permit me to conclude with this admonition. Regardless of how long it takes and whatever we do in-between, war or violence is never an option. I hold a Doctorate in War Studies. Therefore, I feel adequately qualified to speak about the futility of war and violence. There is absolutely nothing heroic about dying foolishly for a cause for which dialogue and negotiation can provide pathways to workable solutions. Whatever is worth fighting for, is worth staying alive for. I can very much hear this refrain flowing from the life experience and legacy of the great Nnamdi Azikiwe, the first president of Nigeria.

*Dr. Kayode Fayemi, CON is the Governor of Ekiti State

By Umeh Kalu, SAN

I have been under intense pressure to share my thoughts with you on the real and general public perception of the poor state of affairs in our state, and, possibly proffer solutions towards ameliorating the situation.

I am aware that most of the sordid and unfavourable things trending in public discourse about our State do not get to your knowledge, as those whose duty it is to draw your attention to them, will for fear or inability to handle the backlash, keep that information away from you. This I must say, is not peculiar to our State, but is a national malaise. Abia will no doubt be amongst the topmost in this regard, due to the high level of idiotic sycophancy that is prevalent in our domain.

Since I left office as Attorney – General of our State in May 2019, I have variously been confronted in both private and public, with the poor and pitiable state of affairs in our State. Attempts to put up some defense often fail as I come out of the exercise looking stupid due to wanting justification for the parlous/pitiable state of affairs in our State.

As one who had been in government prior to your emergence as Governor in May 2015, I can attest to the fact that you inherited a State that was in distress and in dire need of emergency attention. Those who are objective and truthful know too well that you did not originate the prevalent rot but accepted it gleefully, and, instead of halting the drift, you have sustained it. This in a nutshell is the true state of affairs in our State at the moment.

The rain started to beat us torrentially somewhere within the eight (8) years of your immediate predecessor’s tenure. Each time I ponder over your reluctance and/or refusal to make the expected positive impact on the governance of our State, I recall the admonition given to you in my presence by one of the best legal minds in our country today. This advice was given to you at a meeting held at your instance, between the three of us, at the new Presidential Lodge, Umuahia, in June 2015.

On seeing you, the legal icon congratulated you over your victory and emergence as Governor but noted particularly that you were lucky to assume such a position of immense authority and responsibility at a youthful age. He said the country and indeed the southeast needed educated young men like you to display vibrancy and charisma in governance; which virtues he opined were in short supply in our body polity. He further admonished you to use your present position as a stepping stone for greater political exploits through superlative performance. I echoed his views and good wishes for you and we both left your presence, after eliciting your assurance that you will not disappoint God and the people of Abia State. When I look back, almost six (6) years after that encounter, it does appear to me that those wise words of admonition remain unheeded.

I profess that we were both strangers to each other prior to my reappointment as Attorney – General/Commissioner for Justice under your tenure. My appointment was the earliest, if not the first cabinet appointment that you made on your assumption of office. In our brief consultation preceding my acceptance and swearing-in, you informed me that I was highly recommended by your predecessor and equally aware of my desire to leave Abia State for Abuja, which desires you pledged to facilitate after your election petition proceedings. Like with most political promises, the issue of my desire to leave Abia for Abuja was never considered or revisited till the termination of my tenure as Attorney – General/Commissioner for Justice by effluxion of time in May 2019.

On your assumption of office in May 2015, you made concerted and spirited efforts to hit the ground running and made a sharp departure from the wastefulness of the past, to the applause of many Abians, including myself. You rejected and frowned at the ascription of “His Excellency” to your name or being addressed as such. You equally directed that your dear wife – Nkechi – be addressed as “Wife of the Governor” and not as “Her Excellency”. You reduced the retinue of protocol staff accompanying the Governor on trips outside the state to the barest minimum, in order to save cost. You rejected the use of private jets by the Governor of Abia State as was the case in the past and resorted to flying Business Class on commercial Airlines. You commenced reconstruction and refurbishment of the Governor’s official residences in Umuahia, G.R.A Aba and Aminu Kano Crescent, Abuja, the old Presidential Lodge, Umuahia, the Executive Council Chambers, etc.

The Standard of work in some of the completed projects as cited above was superlative and got a commendation from everyone. The former governor was impressed with the facelift made to the Executive Council Chambers and made comments about its impressive status when he visited a few months after his exit. The roads in Aba and even the FMC, Umuahia to Ubakala road that could not be addressed for the eight (8) years that your predecessor held sway, started receiving your attention. The people of Aba (Enyimba City) who had since 2010 been a thorn in the flesh of Abia government and her principal officers, due to the government’s nil attention to the city’s infrastructure, especially roads, embraced you with both hands. You became the toast of ndi Aba.

Aba people trooped out en masse to hail you and your convoy each time you ventured out into the streets. All these were heartening, especially for those of us who had suffered multiple embarrassments, ridicule, and humiliation in the past through the pelting of government cars and convoys with stones and sachet water by Aba residents. Equally heartwarming and worthy of mention was your initial discomfiture with vainglory, as enunciated in the various award-giving groups, organizations, and bodies that feasted on Abia government funds under the guise of giving out awards to the Governor

I witnessed your rejection of an award by a group from the UNIBEN Alumni, led by my learned friend Richard Oma Ahonaruogho, SAN. You bluntly told the group that you were barely two (2) months old in office and do not consider yourself fit or deserving of any award at that moment. This obviously would not have happened in the past. Billboard and flex politicians were kept at bay on your instructions, thereby giving the airspace in Umuahia and its environs some respite. All these I must say were short-lived, as you suddenly could not maintain the momentum and things started tilting gradually towards the old ways. The sudden cessation of the upward and progressive acceleration of your government towards the positive change we all desire in our State is bewildering.

I must state here, that I have no doubt whatsoever of your passion for service. I have listened to you severally and I am convinced that you have all the ideas on the way forward, as you profess these lofty ideas at each given occasion. What I find wanting is the will and ability to implement these ideas. There have been conjectures and speculations at arriving at the reasons. Some think you are acting on instructions, as your predecessors do not want you to outshine them. Some believe you are not in total control of the affairs of the State. A lot of people think that the terms and conditions under which you were drafted into the governorship of the State have made it difficult for you to operate maximally. All these I must say are in the realm of conjecture.

I have however on two occasions listened to your immediate predecessor narrate how he single-handedly made you governor of Abia State. First, was at the grand reception organized in his honour by an Ukwa – Ngwa socio-cultural group, that was held at Ngwa High School, Aba, while the other was at another event organized by a Bende Union at the old Umuahia market arena. At both events, your predecessor stated that you almost fell off from your chair when he told you in the presence of his wife and your wife for the first time that you were going to be the next governor of Abia State.

On each of these occasions, there was loud applause for him by the undiscerning crowd of people at both events. As an individual, I was shocked by that analogy, as I considered those statements a great disservice to God and the Abia State electorate. That exposition as undesirable as it was had its purpose; which was to drive home the point that you were not expecting to mount such high an office, but that he made it possible.

Some past governors in other States have ventured unsuccessfully to impose successors in their States. I liken your emergence as governor of Abia State in 2015 to the emergence of the Biblical Esther in the Palace of King Ahasuerus. Esther was divinely situated in the Palace of King Ahasuerus to deliver the Israelites from persecution. So were you positioned in Abia State to change our story and place the State on the path of sustainable growth.

Abians, including their elders, had long come to an agreement that the governorship seat of the State should shift to the Ukwa – Ngwa axis after your predecessor’s tenure. Chief Onyema Ugochukwu was chosen by the Abia council of elders to screen and recommend an Ukwa – Ngwa man or woman, who must be a graduate for the governorship seat. Chief Onyema Ugochukwu’s committee had commenced the selection process before it was truncated. The making of a governor is not an event but a process. Your immediate predecessor and few persons around him may have initiated the process for reasons best known to them, but God saw you through the process and unto its realization. The Scriptures have it that Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the increase.

Recall even, that you were twice removed as the governor by the Courts. Firstly, at the Court of Appeal at Owerri and secondly by Justice Okon Abang at the Federal High Court, Abuja. At these crucial moments, your predecessor was already out of the equation and had absolutely nothing to do with the reversal of the Court judgments. God used other persons to see you through those dire moments.

I relay all these things because it does seem obvious that you are so fixated on one or two persons who claim to have made you governor and as such will not disobey or harm their interests. While nobody will endorse ingratitude, the idea of unalloyed blind loyalty to an individual in order to show gratitude has the innate capacity of eroding one’s sense of judgment, performance, and capacity to deliver on the arduous task of governance.

I do not and will never believe that your predecessor and/or members of his family made you governor. God did. Your predecessor and members of his family were only tools in the mighty hand of God. They were at most vessels through which God perfected His will for you. It was God’s design even before you were born, that you will attain the status of the governor of Abia State in your lifetime. If you do not agree with me, or desire to push the argument further, you can as well believe that Orji Uzor Kalu made you governor because if Orji Uzor Kalu did not choose T.A. Orji as his successor, he would not have been in a position to make you governor. I have devoted some time to the issue of your predecessor’s claim of making you governor, as it does seem to me that therein lies your reluctance to depart from the past and effect the needed positive change in our State. The moment you accept that God and only God made you governor of Abia and that you are answerable to God alone and to no mortal being in whatever name called, then will you commence your journey of the redemption of Abia.

You may be surprised by the contents of this letter and the channel of its delivery. For the medium of communication, I am told you no longer read sealed letters and that all letters must pass through your aides, whose decision it is to decide the letters that get to your notice. I have decided not to subject the fate of this letter to the decision of your aides who may not know the import. For the content, unpalatable as it might be, I believe I have a greater duty to God, my conscience, and the citizenry of our State, including generations yet unborn.

I am by this letter, not in the least denying culpability in all the inadequacies and/or shortcomings of the two governments I served in, including yours. I join in accepting failure, though with a caveat and equally think that I should join hands with you and other well-meaning Abians in salvaging the fortunes of our dear and only State. I will provide details of the caveat at the appropriate time, if necessary.

With twenty months left for you in the saddle of the affairs of our State, it may be important to proffer some suggestions as earlier stated, towards salvaging the situation we presently find ourselves.

Road Infrastructure:

Umuahia remains our State capital and deserves a better deal from past, present and future governments. Umuahia has indeed suffered neglect in the hands of successive governments, including yours. I implore you, within the available time to ensure completion, dualisation and lighting of the FMC to Ubakala/Enugu – Aba Expressway junction. The Mission Hill access road into Umuahia from the Enugu – Aba Expressway remains an embarrassment to our State and the capital city. The attempt at demarcating that road is an added problem to motorists.

We visit other States and cannot pretend not to know that no State hosts that nature of colonial road announcing entry into its capital city. The Mission Hill road needs to be expanded and compensation paid to owners of roadside structures and buildings that may be affected in the expansion process. Ditto for the roads leading to Isieke and Ikot Ekpene. It is not an impossibility to revamp the Umuahia water scheme.

For the commercial city of Aba, you may concentrate on the three areas of ingress and egress into and out of Aba. That is the Aba/Owerri road, the Aba/Port – Harcourt road and the Ogbor Hill to Ehere and Ukpakri roads. Tagging these roads federal roads is no excuse, as the dilapidated nature of these roads is adversely affecting the economic fortunes of Aba and its citizens. The internal roads within Aba metropolis, which till date remain the most efficiently planned in the entire southeast region of Nigeria should be given attention. Special attention should be given to the roads leading to the major markets and areas of economic activities. It is disheartening to know that all the efforts and Billions of Naira allegedly expended on the construction of roads leading to the Ariaria market, including the Ukwu mango since 2010 have yielded little or no dividend.

Equally of importance for Aba is the Osisioma flyover project. The delay in the completion of this project has become a big embarrassment to most Abians, as it is now a subject of comic jokes on social media. A few weeks ago, I witnessed governor David Umahi on Channels Television making a veiled reference to the projected prohibitive cost of flyovers by some States in the country, as opposed to a meager 1.2 Billion that it cost him to complete one in his Ebonyi State. I recall that either 4.2 or 4.4 Billion Naira was the project cost of this flyover when I co-signed the contract papers some five years ago. I presently do not know the project cost, as I have information that there have been variations to the cost of the project.

It may not be necessary to bring into context the propriety or otherwise of a flyover at the Osisioma interjection, but it is of utmost importance that you do everything possible to deliver this notorious project within the lifetime of your administration. The duration of the project no longer matters, but its completion, for it is well with all that ends well.

I consider it misplaced priority, inadvertence and deceitful to be touting with the idea of a golf course in Ohafia when the roads leading to Ohafia are in deplorable condition. While you may encounter time and economic constraints in addressing the major road leading to Ohafia, it is advisable that you conclude the Ohafia ring road that I endorsed the contract papers some four years ago. The Ohafia ring road has long been abandoned after attaining less than 10% of the project. The same goes for the Abiriba ring road that has equally been abandoned. Nkporo is another community within Ohafia L.G.A that should attract your sympathetic consideration. The Abiriba to Nkporo road which has a history of receiving epileptic attention since your immediate predecessor’s tenure should be completed and delivered before the eclipse of your administration. The completion of this road will at least compensate the citizens of Abiriba and Nkporo communities for the several years in which many of their young and vibrant politicians have had their political ambition held down, to pave the way for a subservient, opportunistic and self–serving politician, at the behest of those who have brought our State to its present situation.

It may interest you to know that most Arochukwu citizens now access their communities through Akwa – Ibom State, especially the rich ones who now prefer the Uyo airport to Owerri or Enugu airports. Their preference for the Uyo airport is a result of the difficulty in accessing Arochukwu through Abia State.

Patronage for Enugu airport is equally on the increase as opposed to Owerri airport for Abia North citizens due to easy access to their homes through Ebonyi State. Motorists coming into Ohafia and Arochukwu from Lagos and Abuja access their communities through Abakiliki, Afikpo and Edda. The only attempt to link Arochukwu through Abam has long been abandoned. I urge you to consider ameliorating the plight of people within Arochukwu, Ututu, Ihechiowa and all the adjoining communities in your closing months.

I equally recall vividly a road contract Agreement that I co-signed some years ago consisting of about thirty–three (33) kilometers. This ambitious road contract is being handled by Tunnel End Limited and runs across the five (5) Local Government Areas of Aba North, Obingwa, Isialangwa North, Isiala Ngwa South and part of Osisioma. I am told that this project has attained 70% completion. I implore you to complete this project before the terminal date of your administration, as these inter-communal roads will greatly facilitate growth, development and ease of movement of goods and persons within those communities.

I strongly advise you not to compound the myriad of issues associated with the so-called legacy projects. i.e. New Abia Government House, New Abia Governors Lodge, New Abia Governors administrative offices, JAAC Building e.t.c. These projects cannot be visited without a proper assessment and audit of the enormous State’s resources invested in them in relation to the quantum of work done. An audit or assessment as advised above is an area I know you may not want to embark on in order not to step on toes. You may therefore want to leave these issues for the next administration. An attempt at injecting more funds into these projects would compound the problems these projects portend for our State.

PARIS CLUB DEBT REFUND:

Another issue of importance worth commenting on is the Paris Club debt refund matter. You will recall that I have always maintained that we do not require the so-called “consultants” in order to reconcile and obtain the State’s Paris Club debt refund from the federal government. The entire thing is a façade with the intention of defrauding the State of its scarce resources. It is regrettable that we have consistently allowed the resources of the State to be fleeced under the guise of settling these multiple “consultants”.

Paris Club debt refund has given birth to some Abia billionaires, who are basically bereft of any known qualification in finance or related matters. The only qualification these few persons possess is their affiliation to the seat of power in our State. While these few persons drive around in their fleet of exotic cars, thousands of deprived Abians for whom these funds are meant to ameliorate their problems are either dead or living destitute. These so-called “consultants” and their accomplices, including their lawyers, the majority of whom are Abians may regrettably evade the judgment of man due to their connections and deep purse, but will definitely not evade God’s supreme judgment.

I find it disturbing that the State is even cherry-picking and instituting joint court actions with some of these “consultants”, as such joint Court actions have the inherent capacity of jeopardizing the commonwealth of the citizens of Abia State, whenever these contrived court Suits yield their intended results. It is still mind-boggling to know how a letter emanating from a governor, without any legal documentation from the appropriate government ministry, department or agency will entitle a so-called “consultant” to 25% or 30% of the resources of our State. Abia State you will agree with me, is in dire need of every available fund in order to meet its obligations, particularly in the area of infrastructural improvements, payment of salaries, wages, pensions and so on.

Clannishness and nepotism in our body polity:

We have witnessed within the past few months some frenzied activities by competing Clans and sections of our State claiming rights to your succession. These claims ordinarily may appear proper in normal political settings, but I see those claims as a clear indication of how divided we are along ethnic lines. While the Igbos claim to be marginalized in the wider context of the Nigerian nation, there is a big divide amongst various Clans within Abia State. There are claims that Orji Uzor Kalu’s tenure favoured the Igbere and Bende people, while your immediate predecessor’s tenure was for his Ibeku Clan and adjoining communities. This belief or notion has enamoured the people of Ngwa Clan to lay claim to your administration as theirs.

Regrettably, not much has been done to disapprove of this notion. We cannot deny the fact that we have affiliations to our ancestral roots before becoming Abians. Those who are in positions of authority at every stratum in our State should be conscious of our diversity in all their actions.

We cannot as Igbos complain of being marginalized and denied of our dues as Nigerians, while we enthrone clannish sentiments in our body polity within our State. I implore you to take a closer look at all the critical appointments made by your administration from inception to date, including portfolios assigned to Commissioners, Advisers and sundry aides. The fact that past administrations were considered to be clannish in their disposition, does not provide us a vista to proceed along that divisive and retrogressive path. Somebody must break the cycle.

A situation where persons who have reached mandatory retirement ages are retained on the contract is unacceptable and devoid of a true sense of justice and equity. A situation where there is an embargo on employment, while a select few are constantly been set out for an interview on a weekly basis under the guise of executive waiver is equally devoid of fairness and enthrones mediocrity. It will be in the larger interest of our State and its citizens for critical and in fact all appointments to be made on merit and shared evenly among all sections of our State. I urge you to exhibit true statesmanship, fairness, justice and equity in the appointments you make, and, in the citing and distribution of amenities.

ABA G.R.A GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE

The partial movement of government activities to the governor’s lodge, G.R.A., Aba, is in my mind not well thought out. When you took up temporary residence and office at the Aba G.R.A guest house, those of us in government were told that it was for purposes of availing you easy access to the then multiple ongoing rehabilitation of Aba roads. Weeks turned to months and months turned to years, as you gradually shifted a substantial part of your official duty time from the seat of government in Umuahia to Aba. You have presently taken up permanent residence in Aba as opposed to the seat of government in Umuahia.

As Attorney – General, I recall having difficulties transmuting from Umuahia to Aba to see you for important government matters and suffered enormous strain and loss of valuable time each time I had to do so. The movement of government activities from Umuiahia to Aba is a great departure from the norm, as no past governor of the State, both civilian and military have ever moved government activities out of the government house in Umuahia.

I make my last statement advisedly and mindful of the fact that the governor has freedom of movement and has the entire Abia as his area of operation. The movement of government activities from Umuahia to Aba, apart from being an anomaly occasions a high toll on the activities of governance in the State. The cost and strain on allied government functionaries and officers, and, your having to commute between Aba and Umuahia to attend to official duties is a huge drain on the resources of the State and available time for government activities.

THE JUDICIARY:

The judiciary you will agree with me is an important arm of government and has specific roles assigned to it by the Constitution which you swore to uphold, on an assumption of office. You must do everything within your will to address some of the problems that have hindered and continue to hinder the optimal performance of that important arm of government.

Funding is key in this respect. I advise you to give assent to the Bill granting autonomy to the judiciary that has been on your desk unattended for the past months. It is worrisome that the judiciary in Abia State cannot even afford to attend the annual judges conference in Abuja on government sponsorship. Several judges in Abia State are yet to be assigned official cars years after their appointment.

There is a dearth of court halls in Abia State, as most judges and magistrates do not have court halls. There are instances where judges sit out of their jurisdiction due to non – availability of court halls within their areas of jurisdiction. It may interest you to know that the court in your local government area – Obingwa – has been sitting at Aba since the time of your predecessor and has remained so six years after you assumed office as the governor of the St

My personal experience from the reconstruction of the burnt Ohafia High Court puts the conservative figure of twenty–five million Naira (N25, 000, 000) as the cost of constructing and furnishing a befitting High Court hall, with adjourning offices for the judge and support staff. With a modest sum of two hundred and fifty million Naira (N250, 000, 000), you would have built ten court halls across the State. Let me equally draw your attention to the deplorable condition of the main High Court complex at the Abia State Judiciary Headquarters, Umuahia, built by your predecessor a few years ago. This building is more of a monument presently, requiring entire re-roofing of the building and refurbishing of all the court halls, amongst other areas of immediate attention.

It is worrisome to find retired judges in Abia State, including past Chief Judges, being forced to file a Suit at the National Industrial Court, Owerri, for purposes of being paid their gratuity and accrued pension. It may interest you to know that judges are precluded from practicing their profession on retirement. This means that their only source of livelihood after retirement is the stipend they get as their gratuity and pension. It will amount to a death warrant for these accomplished senior citizens of our State, who devoted their lives to the service of the State and at such a high level, to be made destitute on retirement. This situation will even demoralize serving judges and may likely encourage the weak amongst them to resort to bribery while in active service, in order to amass wealth to take care of themselves in retirement. Recall that I made several letters to you on the need for the payment of the pension and emoluments of these retired judges while in office, and, held meetings with the then Commissioner for Finance and the Accountant – General, which meetings yielded little or no dividend.

I am unable to find a reason or justification for the large number of persons being engaged by our State as magistrates and law officers in the Ministry of Justice. An inquiry from the other southeastern States will clearly reveal that we have in most cases doubled the numbers coming from some of these States. Emphasis should be on the quality of these officers, their conditions of service and their ability to deliver rather than their numbers. I dare say that the number of these magistrates and law officers is surplus to need, and, a big drain on the scarce resources of our dear State. Every lawyer in Abia State must not be either a law officer or a magistrate.

GOVERNMENT AS BUSINESS:

While the act of governance cannot be applied strictu sensu to the principles of everyday business, it must be emphasized that certain business principles must and should be employed in the act of governance, more so, as it relates to the management of scarce resources. From my experience in government, resources that accrue to government include but are not limited to the following: Monthly Federal Allocation (FAAC), Monthly Local Government Allocation (JAAC), Internally Generated Revenue (Formal and Informal), 13% oil derivation, Ecological Fund, Multiple Federal Government Intervention Funds, Loans from banks and other financial institutions; all these and many more from my estimation are the inflows into the resources of the government.

The difference between one state and the other is the level of prudence engaged in and the effectiveness to which available funds are applied. Priority must be given to areas that touch the daily lives of the citizens, which in my consideration should be payment of salaries and emoluments, pension, gratuity, infrastructure, and investments in critical areas like education, health and agriculture. I am aware that the average inflow to the government of Abia State on FAAC is in the neighbourhood of 4 billion Naira per month.

This is without recourse to other sources as enumerated hereinbefore, which are all within the premise of the government to spend. It is said that despite the huge potential which Aba portends in internal revenue generation, we have been unable to take advantage of the enormous economic activities in that city towards increasing our IGR. Past efforts have failed due to the self–interest of those managing our IGR.

Placing a whooping sum of between 500 – 700 million Naira as security vote for the governor alone, 25 – 30 million Naira to the deputy governor and another 20 – 30 million Naira for the speaker of the House of Assembly, all in the name of security vote per month, amounts to ascribing about 25% of our entire monthly FAAC collection to these three principal government officials to the detriment of other areas of dire need in the State. Official government records put the security votes for the governor at 7.4 billion Naira (2019) and 6.1 billion Naira (2020); deputy governor at 291 million Naira (2019) and 442 million Naira (2020), and the speaker of the House of Assembly at 325 million Naira (2019) and 260 million Naira (2020).

It remains a mystery to me and other well discerning individuals, the use to which over 500 million Naira will be employed in the security of the State within 30 days. All the security forces in Abia State apart from the State Vigilante Service are paid by the federal government. State intervention on federal security agencies and other miscellaneous security expenses cannot justify this monthly drain on the scarce resources of the State.

Lately, the sustained monthly collection of the sum of not less than 500 million Naira from the coffers of the State as security vote by your predecessor for the 96 months he was in the saddle as governor of the State has been made an issue in public discourse and commentary. I recall that on your assumption of office as governor, you directed a reduction in the exco allowance due to the members of the State executive council from 1 million Naira to 500, 000 Naira. This is my view remains commendable considering the prevailing depressed economy. It is however surprising that you have over these years sustained the collection of over 500 million Naira per month and 20 – 30 million Naira for the deputy governor and speaker of the House of Assembly respectively, as security vote.

Allocating 30 million Naira each per month to the deputy governor and the speaker, which transmits to 1 million naira per day, cannot in any circumstance be justified. A 50% cut on all these security votes which have been running for the past 14 years can vividly change the infrastructural landscape of our State and provide needed funds for the payment of salaries and emoluments of public officers, including payment of their pension and gratuity.

I urge you to show good faith and sensitivity to the plight of so many deprived Abians, especially public servants by directing a 50% reduction on these security votes. These government officials to whom these whooping security votes are paid to live in secured government quarters at an added cost to the State and therefore do not need this colossal amount of money in the form of security votes.

I am alarmed at the appointment of 28 Commissioners, most of whom with portfolios hitherto unknown in the history of the State. What will a motley crowd of 28 persons, exclusive of other aides, be doing in a cramped executive chamber like the one we have? Abia State in my thinking does not require more than 16 Commissioners, while the rest could be made advisers in order to reduce the cost of governance and enhance effectiveness. Our continuous penchant for weekly employment of persons into the service of Abia State under the guise of governor’s waiver, even with an embargo in place, amounts to gross abuse of extant civil service procedure, guidelines and practice.

The notion of the governor’s waiver for employment does not give room for merit and spread, as only those who have access to the governor can get these waivers, even without subjecting these persons to the crucible of qualification and suitability for the job.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, this letter is not intended to pass a judgment on you or query how you have handled the affairs of the State and the destinies of the over five million Abians, graciously entrusted to you by God. I am not competent to do so. What I have done so far is to express my candid view as an Abia citizen, an interested party in the affairs of the State and one who offered service to the State for an uninterrupted period of ten (10) years.

All those who have been in governance, including myself, owe the people of Abia State an explanation as to how we got our State to this sordid state. Governance is all about responsibility and accountability. Our State has indeed been turned into a laughing stock in the comity of States. I make bold to say, however, that while we all take responsibility, those of you who hold the mandate of the people and in actual fact manage our commonwealth, have greater responsibility.

Factors that have actually contributed to the situation we find ourselves in corruption, greed, self–interest above public interest, mediocrity, lack of vision and capacity, nepotism, zero tolerance to dissent and alternate view, and, enthronement of falsehood and sycophancy in the activities of governance.

Those in authority, I observe, find relief and succor in the company of hirelings whose duty it is to malign, abuse, intimidate and even threaten the lives of those who proffer alternate views as a means of keeping their jobs. While I remain mindful of the likely consequences of this my well-intended piece, devoid of any malice whatsoever, I am prepared to engage all those that may consider it their duty to silence every opposing view in our dear State. I will definitely give in conjunction with other patriots a run for their time and money.

Ordinarily, it may seem difficult to change the narrative within the time available to you, but I sincerely believe that so much can still be done between now and the 29th of May, 2023. Some of the issues I have raised above may be tasking but not impossible to achieve within the available time. I am aware that the majority of Abians are unhappy with the unpleasant state of affairs in our State and are praying fervently for God’s intervention to enable you to address some of the issues I have raised above. Not addressing this letter to you and raising the issues that I have raised will make me oblivious of the saying of Martin Luther King Jr. who opines that “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”. All that I have said above do matter.

I know that I have stirred the hornet’s nest by the contents of this letter. I am conversant with the modus operandi of the mighty ones in Abia State, whose operating principle is hinged on the doctrine of “see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil”. The seeming resolve of most Abians to abide by this principle has contributed to the situation we find ourselves presently. Your power and the powers of the persons I may have unsettled in this letter, though awesome, remain subject to the supreme powers of God the creator of man and the Universe. It is to this supreme being that I subject myself to His will and judgment.

I have christened this letter part 1 because I know that there may be a need for succeeding letters, in response to the avalanche of abusive write-ups by paid agents, hirelings, and attack dogs whose job it is to proceed against any form of dissent or opposing views. I promise these hirelings and attack dogs busy days ahead, as some of us are fortunate to have seen it all from the inception and were goalkeepers in the field of play, from which vantage position we witnessed the game. The choice of silence over these years has been hinged on the expectation for repentance on the part of our traducers, which presently appears obviously misplaced, even as those who have held us down this long are gearing up and preparing for yet another onslaught in the coming season.

I will end this letter by referring all those that have held Abia down for so long to the Scriptural readings as contained in James Chapter 5 Vs. 1 – 6.: “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.

2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.

3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last few days.

4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.

5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.”

Let us devote a little time to read and comprehend every word in these verses for they speak to our situation.

May God give you the grace to heed good counsel.

Dated this 1st Day of December 2021

UMEH KALU, SAN, LIFE BENCHER

By Dr.Muiz Banire SAN.

Some few weeks ago, precisely on the 22nd day of October, 2021, I had the opportunity of witnessing and listening to the presentation by one of the great legal minds of our time, Yusuf Alli, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, at the 36th Convocation Lecture of the University of Ilorin, in Nigeria featuring, ‘Tertiary Education and the Future of Nigeria’. It was a very rich paper, well researched with sufficient statistics, expected of a lawyer, to back up his assertions and conclusions. The presentation was scintillating and well-articulated, often spiced and interjected with humour.

The paper, which was introduced with the purpose of tertiary education in Nigeria and the ranking of the Nigerian universities which he used interchangeably with tertiary institutions, both locally and internationally, was a great delight. In the paper, he emphasized the complimentary roles of the universities in terms of the provision of technology, particularly information technology, promotion of social development, economic prosperity, agricultural innovation, medical and health innovation in society. After a seemingly exhaustive evaluation of the contributions of the universities, he concluded by lamenting the poor outing of the Nigerian universities both globally and regionally. According to him, “It is really disheartening to note that the latest World University Rankings for 2021, by all ranking bodies like Times Higher Education, USN News, OS World University Rankings, Shanghai Rankings and CWUE, has no Nigerian University in the top 500 positions.

This can only be interpreted to mean that, according to the latest World University Rankings, Nigeria is “incompetent” to provide globally accepted degrees that can be presented and used anywhere in the world”. Continuing, he asserted that in Africa, only the University of Lagos and the University of Nigeria, Nzukka are able to fall within the first 50 Universities in Africa. In articulating the factors responsible for this abysmal failure of the Nigerian universities, he identified funding, collapsed infrastructure, political interference, poor motivation, unionism, incompetent management, cultism and anti-social behaviour, obsolete curricular, leakages and waste in the management of resources, lack of interaction between the society and the academia, wrongful composition of councils, corruption, externalization of internal affairs, multiple regulators.

Of course, he didn’t close the conversation without propounding solutions to the myriads of challenges identified in the management of our university system. As expected, more funding, infrastructural upgrade, private endowments, reduction of political interference, beefing up internally generated revenue, deregulation of wages, application of “no work, no pay” principle as captured in section 43 of the Trade Disputes Act etc.

Notwithstanding the strenuous attempt by the presenter to cover the field of discussion, he still, out of objectivity, concluded that the paper was meant to be thought-provoking and, therefore, not exhaustive in any manner. In his words, “What we have done in this presentation is essentially to raise issues for further debates on the issue of standardization of tertiary education in our country. The points raised are to whet our appetite for more robust discussions in future. No one possesses the solutions to all the problems discussed in this paper”. It is in this connection that that we intend to interrogate some of the issues raised and others omitted. Let me start by commending the industry of the presenter and the pragmatic manner in which he addressed the issues militating against the competitive status of Nigerian universities. Having listened to the presentation, I must concede that he substantially covered the areas except for some arears that I intend to interrogate further and others that I intend to fill the noticeable gaps by me.

In this regard, I commence with the issue of the application of Section 43 of the Trade Disputes Act which the speaker reiterated several times for application to striking university workers. In as much as I quite agree with the rationale behind the provision and the objective, I am not too convinced that the application is targeted at circumstances as that of the academics. This is so because the issues around those strike actions most times, go beyond the traditional boundary of improved welfare; it often bothers on lack of working tools essential to the performance of their jobs. Where those tools are lacking as recognized by even the speaker, how do you command performance?

I am sure the university lecturers are not miracle workers. Hence, you cannot compel them to work where there is no tool. Additionally, I notice that the speaker did not address the main issue of conditions of service of the workers and by extension, their welfare which, indisputably, is appalling. Their take home pay certainly cannot take them home. As much I would have been sold into the argument on the deregulation of determination of emoluments by the Councils, I believe that regardless of the wisdom in the reasoning, there is still compelling need to have a minimum standard upon which improvements, in terms of peculiarities, can be built.

I recall my days in the academia that there used to be discriminatory housing allowances for university workers in States like Rivers, Lagos and even Abuja. I am not current with what obtains presently but just an illustration of the way it can work. Hence, I am of the strong opinion that without comfortable wages to take the workers home and imbue them with necessary stamina to perform their tasks, it would be foolhardy and callous to penalize them for inability to work arising from systemic failures. University workers need to survive first before they can work. They need the stamina to teach and research as captured in the Yoruba proverb that , “okun inu ni a fi n gbe ti’ta” which literally means “it is the internal strength that sustains the external efforts”. Hence, in advocating the implementation of the provision against the university lecturers in particular, we need to guarantee minimum comfort of survival first and ensure that the teaching and research infrastructures are available.

In the absence of these basics, the problem of distortion of academic programs cannot be arrested, the implication of which is that the standard will continue to fall. A good narrative is that commonly experienced with the secondary and primary school teachers who spend more times in merchandising than teaching the pupils. At the university level now, you find lecturers more engaged in external presentation of papers for pecuniary gains and involvement in other activities, crucial to their survival, than dedicating their lives and times to the research and teaching that ought to be their primary occupation. Let me remind us that except we are deluding ourselves, I make bold to say that we are in huge deficit of qualified and competent teaching personnel in the country. A sizeable number of those in the University system today has no business being there, barring lack of alternative and dearth of qualified ones. This is reflected in the products that we all continue to be astounded with. The university continues to unleash dangers on the society through substandard products. Stemming from the above, the country can, therefore, not afford to intimidate the few competent personnel that are available. Rather than doing this, let the relevant authorities address the basic needs of the university first. Another area of deficiency in the paper is the failure to address the implication for the future of the country from the scenario or the picture painted by the speaker.

The gloomy picture in the presentation depicts hopelessness for the country. As contended by the speaker, the quality of our graduates is largely nothing to write home about globally and regionally. Just days ago, the federal government made the same observations that the skills acquired in our institutions render the graduates ‘unemployed or unemployable’, thereby advocating complimentary vocational and skills training. In the light of these revelations, my expectation is that the speaker will forecast the future of the country arising from the deteriorating state of the university system. In my view, if the deplorable conditions continue, there is absolutely no future for the country as no knowledge essential to the growth of the country will be available. These are the basic areas of my observations on the paper. However, beyond all that the speaker has analyzed in his paper, I believe that there are two more key areas deserving of our attention.

The first area is the continuous proliferation of universities. Practically every day, the National Universities Commission (NUC) continues to dish out licenses for the establishment of universities to the governments, federal and states as well as private entities. This licensing is without regard to the needs of the nation. Little wonder that the number of unemployed ‘graduates’ continues to soar as there is no linkage between the areas of need and the ‘graduates’ that are produced. One would have expected that such licensing would have been tailored along the needs of the nation but alas!, that is not so. Beyond this mismatch is the challenge of funding.

Most of these universities lack the required fund to sustain the institutions. Take the federal universities, for example, we are all living witnesses to the incessant strike actions punctuating academic activities as a result of inadequate funding for both infrastructure and conditions of service. Same thing applies to the various state governments who could not even afford payment of basic workers’ salaries but end up establishing universities, just like their counterpart, the federal government, for political reasons. Most of these universities end up being glorified secondary schools, dishing out substandard degrees and endangering the society.

Till date, the extant universities continue to degenerate and fade away. Obsolete libraries, lack of quality personnel, non-conducive classrooms, no teaching facilities, inadequate research grants etc. characterize our universities. The private universities are not much better off except for some few ones. Notwithstanding, the National Universities Commission continues to license more and more. I am not oblivious of the demand for admission to universities but whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well.

There are other ways to skin a cat, one of which is the forced merger of these institutions through regulations. We must encourage this by stalling further licensing which will force new promoters to invest in the existing ones and promote the expansion and upgrade the existing ones. The sad aspect again is the non-promotion of specialized universities.

Despite the fact that some of the universities from the onset are licensed as specialist institutions, they end up with distractions and veering into other areas of irrelevancies. A university of Agriculture or that of technology suddenly becomes a university with a Law Faculty and Faculty of Humanities. Ideally, such universities should have been restricted to such specialization but no, lack of focus continues to haunt the system. More than ever before, what the country requires are specialized universities in our areas of need and not just university for the sake of one.

To my mind, it is not even late to revert the specialized universities to what they were conceived to be. It will aid the system and boost the quality of our graduates. This is the way to develop the country and assure a future for the nation through the university system. The other aspect that I alluded to earlier is the dearth of qualified lecturers. As we continue to license more universities daily, we discount the aspect of competent personnel, particularly lecturers. I reiterate again that there are insufficient qualified personnel in the nation today to match the number of universities we are establishing. It is not enough to have a post-graduate degree but to possess the research and teaching capability.

A sizeable number of those claiming to be lecturers today are unable to deliver anything in terms of impacting knowledge. They are in the institutions for lack of what to do, survival most times. Another critical point is the challenge of brain drain as our competent ones have all practically left the country in search of greener pastures in foreign lands. They excel in those countries and become the shining stars of the foreign academia leaving our own in intellectual devastation. In the circumstance, it is garbage in, garbage out. We continue to suffer degradation in output. Consequently, we need to pay attention to this aspect in licensing more universities and even pruning down the existing ones. With the current state of the facilities, both hard and software in the universities today, nothing much credible can emerge from the institutions.