BY DELE ADESINA, SAN, LL.M, FCI Arb.

The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has set up a 56 Member Constitution Reviewing Committee under the leadership of the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, with a view to embarking on yet another round of Amendment of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The areas of focus according to publication on this subject-matter include but are not limited to devolution of powers, state creation, the Nigerian Police and Nigerian Security Architecture, judicial reform, electoral reform, local government structure, public revenue, federal structure and fiscal federalism, revenue allocation, the socio-economic and cultural rights, immunity, indigene-ship and the National Assembly. The Committee has therefore called for memoranda and/or proposals for further alteration of the Constitution from the civil society organizations, professional bodies, executive and judicial bodies, and the general public.

According to the Deputy Senate President, the process shall not only be all inclusive but the Committee will guarantee full participation of Nigerians. The Report of the Constitution Reviewing Committee according to the publication is expected to be presented to the Senate at a plenary session in the first quarter of 2021. The Committee was inaugurated in February 12, 2020 by the President of the Senate, Senator Ahmad Lawan. As at the time of writing this essay, it has been reported that the Committee has not only received 68 memos on the proposed amendment, but also, that due to sustained pressure to extend the closing date of submission of memorandum, the Committee had extended the closing date for submission of memoranda to September 18, 2020.

Let me highlight two issues arising from the publications immediately. First, the clamour for extension of the closing date for submission of memorandum in spite of the huge number that have already been submitted is indicative of the enormous interest that the exercise will generate among Nigerians. Secondly, the expansive areas in focus as enumerated by the Committee suggest that the amendment is going to be far-reaching and will touch several sections of the Constitution. The purpose of this write up is to commend the Initiative of the Senate for finding it worthy to carry out what promises to be a sweeping re-examination, re-assessment and re-consideration of the 1999 Constitution. However, this is a restrained commendation in view of the observations, suggestions and recommendations I intend to make in this paper for the consideration of the Constitution Reviewing Committee, the Senate and indeed the general public.

First, it is to be recalled that we have successfully carried out 4 Amendments through 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Alteration exercises. Several Sections of the Constitution were altered in the course of the four (4) exercises, all these within approximately a period of 21 years of the existence and operation of the Constitution. The question is if we find it desirable to embark on another exercise as profound and expansive as the one being contemplated here, whether it is not far better and more desirable to think about a holistic replacement of the 1999 Constitution?

Second, I noted with satisfaction that some of the issues scheduled to be considered in the review exercise constitute fundamental and existential issues for Nigeria as a safe and secured Nation, as a Federation and lastly as a successful Constitutional Democracy. I am referring here to such items as devolution of powers, Federal Structure and true Federalism, the Nigeria Police and Nigerian Security Architecture, comprehensive Judicial Reform, Local Government autonomy and the National Assembly itself. Once these foundational issues are going to form the cornerstone of this review which has been promised to be all-inclusive and fully participatory, the question is whether it is not better and preferable to garner the thoughts, feelings, visions and aspirations of the people with the goal of embarking on the process of making a new Constitution for Nigeria?

Third, in the words of the Supreme Court: “the Constitution is the heart and soul of the people. That explains why the Constitution commences (with the word) ‘We the people…’ all provisions in the Constitution were put in by the accredited representatives of the people.” (See Ugba v. Suswam (2014) All FWLR [Pt. 748] page 825 at 863).

Disagreeing with the second part of the above quotation, my Learned Brother Silk and Constitutional Law expert, S.T. Hon, SAN, had this to say in his book titled ‘Constitutional Law and Migration Law’: “there is no doubt that the 1999 Constitution was enacted by the military. That the apex Court merely imputed this exercise to the Nigerian people.”

Many Nigerians including erudite Constitutional Law Lawyers have expressed serious reservation about the process leading to the making of the 1999 Constitution and the resultant lack of popular acceptability occasioned by the process of its making. For instance, Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, a foremost Constitutional Law Lawyer described the 1999 Constitution as a “document that tells lie against itself.” Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, categorically described the Constitution as a “fraud.” The erudite Constitutional Law Lawyer and a foremost Professor of Law, Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN, described the Constitution as an “illogicality”. That the 1999 Constitution is a “Unitary Constitution for a Federal System of Government.”

The Constitution was described as a fraud and a document that lies against itself at a Seminar on the new Constitution organised by the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja Branch, on the 18th of June, 1999 because the Constitution purportedly stated in its opening recital that “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having firmly and solemnly resolved… do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution.” Since the enactment of the 1999 Constitution, the question has been asked repeatedly, where and when did that resolution take place? How did the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria arrive at that firm and solid resolution purportedly expressed in the recital to the 1999 Constitution? It must be recalled that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was midwifed by the then Military Government of General Abdusallam Abubakar, GCFR, pursuant to the promulgation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Decree No. 24 of 1999. The question is whether Decree No. 24 of 1999 can take the place of a referendum by the people in the making of a people’s Constitution recognising that the ultimate sovereignty lies with the people?

Fourth, in the case of Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, the Supreme Court stated the meaning and scope of Federalism in the following words: “Federalism as a legal concept generally connotes an association of states formed for certain common purposes, but the state retains a large measure of their original independence or autonomy. It is the co-ordinate relationship of power between the individual states and the National Government which is at the centre. Federalism as a viable concept of organising a pluralistic society such as Nigeria for governance does not encourage so much concentration of power in the centre which is the Federal Government. In federalism, the component states do not play the role of errand boys.” The point was also made by the Supreme Court in Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, that each Government in a Federation “exists not as an appendage of another Government but as an autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will in the conduct of its affairs, free from direction from another Government.” None of these essential characteristics of a true Federalism can be said to exist in Nigerian in real and practical terms.

I am fully persuaded by the opinion of Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN, that “one single Constitution for all the governments involved both Federal and State in a Federation is a manifest contradiction.” For instance, in 1960, we had the Independence Constitution. There were separate Constitutions for both the Federation and the Regions as separate Schedules to the Independence Order-in-Council. Similarly, the 1963 Republican Constitution made provisions for the establishment of regional Constitutions for the three regions that composed the Federation. Section 5 (1) thereof stated as follows: “Subject to the provision of this Constitution (Federal Constitution) the Constitution of each region shall have the force of law throughout the region.”

There was also a specific provision in that Constitution which stated that the Executive Authority of a Region (which extended to the execution and maintenance of the Regional Constitution) shall be exercised so as not “to impede or prejudice the exercise of the Executive Authority of the Federation or endanger the continuance of the Federation.” It therefore follows that in an ideal Federal system, apart from sharing of powers, both the Federal and the Federating units must have their own Constitutions. The question is whether we truly want a Federal or a Unitary System of Government in Nigeria and whether an elaborate discussion on the desirability or otherwise of this initiative can be undertaken under an amendment process such as the one being contemplated?

Everyone in this Nation today accepts the fact that the Nation is faced with a lot of structural and systemic challenges, a good number of which are the products of the inadequacies of the 1999 Constitution. It is no longer news that there has been over concentration of powers at the centre at the detriment of the federating units. Indeed, over the years the centre has been grabbing and grabbing powers at the expense of the federating units. The long years of military adventure in governance has not helped the situation. For the sake of comparison, the 1954 Constitution donated 43 items to the centre in the Exclusive Legislative List, 45 items in the 1960 and 1963 Independence and Republican Constitutions, 66 items in the 1979 Constitution and 68 items to the centre in the 1999 Constitution as amended. The reality of our Constitutional structure and power sharing today is that simple items such as census, labour, trade unions and industrial relations, mines, minerals, natural gas, drugs, evidence, trade and commerce are in the Exclusive Legislative List. Not to talk of the Policing system. This is in addition to 30 items under the Concurrent Legislative List for which both the Federating States and the Federal Government have powers to make laws subject of course to the supremacy of the Federal Law over the State Law on any such matter where one is inconsistent with the other.

The issue of Nigeria Police and the security architecture in particular is very germane. It is not an over statement to say that the greatest challenge confronting our Nation today and particularly the security and sustenance of our Constitutional democracy is that of insecurity. I believe that nobody is left in any doubt that the centralized and monolithic Police structure established by Sections 214 and 215 of the Constitution can no longer guarantee the security of this Nation and its component parts and this explains why the other security agencies like the Military, the Airforce and the Navy are now directly involved in the maintenance of law and order in different parts of the country.

The process of making the 1999 Constitution as stated earlier falls short of guaranteeing its popular legitimacy and acceptability. No amendments no matter how many times can in a retroactive manner cure this foundational defect in the making of the 1999 Constitution. It remains a military-donated Constitution. A deliberate effort to embark on the making of a new Constitution will offer an opportunity to Nigerians for popular participation in the Constitution making process of their Country. Scholars of Constitutional Law have argued and I wholeheartedly agree with their reasoning that the scope of making a Constitution should not be determined by the rulers or those who govern them. Professor Julius Ihombere, talking about the value of participatory/ people driven Constitution making approach had this to say: “political elites and leaders have not come to fully appreciate the importance of a participatory or people driven Constitution making approach to their own survival in office and to the reduction of conflicts and pressures on the State, its institutions and custodians. Asides from using the process to resolve burning national issues, a participatory approach is probably one of the best panaceas to instability, public cynicisms and alienation from government. It is equally the best way to cultivate a culture and tradition of reliance on dialogue and consensus rather than the result to violence in the political process.”

The contemporary challenges being faced in the Nation today such as the wide spread insecurity, various sectional loyalty and allegiances instead of loyalty and commitment to the cause of the Nation on the basis of nationalism and patriotism, lack of properly focused political system cloaked in ideology and the uncountable number of political parties jostling for power, the agitation for true federalism, both fiscal and structural, make the call for a new Constitution not only worthy of consideration but I submit makes it compelling. The Constitution of 1999 falls short in many aspects of what a Federal Constitution should be. It is my humble view that the time to take the bull by the horn and drive a wholesale replacement of the 1999 Constitution through the instrumentality of an autonomous and independent body is now. Such body must emanate from the people. Like I stated earlier the ultimate sovereignty lies with the people. It is my contention that we have gotten to a point in Nigeria when we should subject the Nation to the sovereign will of the people by making a people driven Constitution.

The materials for this exercise abound in Nigeria. These include men and women of good standing in their immediate society who can be elected from their constituencies to constitute a Constitution Drafting Committee to identify and collate the aggregate will and expressions of the people. The Report of the National Political Reform Conference of 2005 set-up by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR, (which I was privileged to be a member), the Report of the Constitutional Conference of 2014 set-up by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, GCFR, the 1979 and 1985 which heralded the 1999 Constitution midwifed by General Abdulsallam Abubakar, GCFR. The workings of the Constitutional Drafting Committee shall be submitted to a Constituent Assembly and the final product emanating from the Constituent Assembly shall be submitted for people’s referendum. Through this process, the people take ownership of the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the argument that we cannot have two sovereigns in a nation in the sense of having a Sovereign National Conference as well as a Sovereign Government and Sovereign National Assembly. Going by the example we have seen in South Africa, I think both can coexist without one impeding or obstructing the workings of the other. Let it be recalled that the agitation and resistance against the Apartheid System of Government in South Africa was what led to the setting up of the Convention for Democratic South Africa (CODESA). At the time of formulating a new Constitution by the Convention for Democratic South Africa (CODESA), the Republican Constitution of South Africa 1961 was in place and a democratically elected government led by the National Party was also in place. History recorded that it was the Convention for Democratic South Africa that fashioned a new Constitution that ultimately removed discrimination and all forms of apartheid rule in South Africa. It is time for us to recognise that no problem is ever solved by technically avoiding the problem.

Besides, there has been no mentioning of a Sovereign National Conference at all in my consideration, advisedly, so as to address the fears of those opposed to a Sovereign National Conference coexisting with a Sovereign Government. It will be a great day for Nigeria if we can take this giant step to fashion out a new Constitution that will satisfy the yearnings, aspirations and inspirations of all Nigerians rather than embarking on limitless amendments. A Constitution that will enjoy a buy-in of all Nigerians. A Constitution that Nigerians can take ownership of by their participation in the process of its making. Somebody says that no matter how long you persist on a wrong route, you can never arrive at your desired destination. The time for us to take our destiny in our own hands is now. With all its noticeable inadequacies, the 1999 Constitution has tried to give us a Constitutional democracy albeit in a limited sense, we can have a full blown democracy and democratisation process run and administered by full democrats with a well-rounded Federal Constitution by its name and provisions.

Professor Julius Ihombere in his paper titled ‘Towards Participatory Mechanisms and Principles of Constitutional Making in Africa’ published in 2000 said: “rather than just seeing the Constitution as a power map focusing exclusively on the question of power (which is what we may achieve by the various Amendments) we must see the Constitution as an instrument for addressing pressing socio-economic, cultural and economic questions as well as an embodiment of consensus around constitutionalism.” The Constitution must be seen and regarded as “an expression of the general will of the Nation, a reflection of its history, fears, concerns, aspirations, vision and indeed, the soul of the Nation. Furthermore, the Constitution is not just an elite affair rather it must be seen as a single document under which diverse and ideologically opposed people unite and rally in defence of democracy.”

A new Constitution will translate: “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having firmly and solemnly resolved… do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution” from hypothesis into reality. May I conclude that if we must decisively address the inadequacies, distortions, confusions, fundamental omissions and the inherent contradictions in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, if we must establish a true and functional Federation that will guarantee National cohesion through the Rule of Law – our focus must be to give to ourselves a new Constitution. This is the truth, no matter how inconvenient.

By Prince I. Ubochi

It is a trite law that every matter is decided on the strength of its own merit. One must thus be careful as not to be lost in the labyrinth of peculiarities which Courts may consider before the just determination of a suit.

At this juncture, I dare state straight away, that it is not inutile to explain by way of example what it generally means for a party to open and/or close (special emphasis) his case.

On the foundation of acceptable procedure, a party is said to open his case when the facts of the matter before the Court is stated and goes ahead to call witnesses as well as give evidence in support of a cause of action.

WHEN IS A PARTY SAID TO HAVE CLOSED HIS CASE?

Stricto sensu, a party is said to have closed his case when an evidence or pieces of evidence and a final witness is deemed to have been called in the just determination of a matter. To my mind, and to stretch it further, a party does not contemplate to adduce evidence or call on another or any other witness if he wishes to close his case. This practice is peculiar to Civil matters, also, it is not alien to Criminal proceedings.

Let it not appear that I have been running away from a concise definition. Simpliciter, a party is deemed to have closed his case when he has concluded his evidence.

Whether a witness can be called or recalled after a party has closed his case is not a one way traffic route.

We shall now scoop from the mind of the Court what the law may be one way or the other.

First off, in the case of Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Idowu (1971) LPELR-SC.157/1970, a sharp contention arose as to when a party closes his case versus when a case was not completed, i.e without the addresses by counsel on both sides; however, the Court safely injected a principle of law into our legal soil, in doing so, the Court referred to the case of Dr. E.O.A. Denloye v. Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, SC.91/68, and held in its exact verbals that: “… The Tribunal, in its judgement, sought to distinguish the present case from Denloye’s case on the point that the case had been completed in Denloye’s case and could not be re-opened, but that in the present case, there was still the addresses of counsel on both sides and the case was not completed without the addresses. We do not see the difference in the two cases. At the close of the case of the defence, that was an end of the complaint before the court, and the only evidence which could be allowed, at the discretion of the court, was evidence of rebuttal if the accused person had given evidence. We are clearly of the view that in the present case the Tribunal had erred to have allowed evidence of the two witnesses or to have called this evidence itself in order to strengthen the case against the practitioner. We find support for our view in a case decided in the West African Court of Appeal in 1952. We refer to the case Dickson Ejukoleru v. Inspector-General of Police, 15 W.A.C.A. 161.” Per ADEMOLA, C.J.N. (Pp. 10-12, paras. D-C)

In furtherance, the Court while determining whether the calling back of witnesses can amount to a miscarriage of justice, held in the case of ONUOHA & ORS. V. THE STATE (1989) LPELR-SC.55/1987, that the calling of additional witnesses after the close of the defence was a grave irregularity which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the basis that the additional witnesses called after the defence has closed its case was not called on any matter arising ex improviso from the defence. Another is that the additional evidence was used to strengthen the case for the prosecution and to weaken that for the defence. See also: Bassey v. Ekanem (2001) 1 NWLR (pt. 694) pg. 376, para. B-D, F-H.

Interestingly, the Court provided more answers as to whether a witness can be called or recalled after a party has closed his case in OMODARA V. THE STATE (2008) LPELR-CA/L/656/2005, in this case, the issue was as regards whether it is only where the defence has set up a case ex improviso that the Court can have power to call or recall a witness at any stage of any proceedings. The Court firmly planted a principle in the following words: “In Onuora vs. The State issue no. 1 for determination was “Whether the calling of witnesses by the trial Court after the close of the case of both the prosecution and defence, when there was nothing arising ex-improviso in the case presented by the defence, was proper and did not occasion miscarriage of justice.” The Supreme Court as per Oputa JSC provided the answer thus:- “Under the Adversary System which operate in Nigeria, parties alone take issues with one another. The court as the judex cannot and does not, The need to call witnesses arises from the onus on a party to establish its own side of any given issue. Since the court does not take issues with either party, the court has no business calling witnesses except as, and where so provided by any written law. Is there any such law in criminal cases? The answer appears to be yes.” He then identities S.200 of the Criminal Procedure Law Caps 31 Laws of Eastern Nigeria as the applicable law. The said S.200 is in pari material with S.200 of the Criminal Procedure Law Laws of Lagos State 2003, the contentious provision in this appeal. Oputa JSC proceeded further ‘This Section 200 CPL – has been the subject of many judicial decisions explaining the need for this judicial interference and also setting them as follows: After the close of the case for the defence, the trial judge can call a witness pruprio motu or suo mutu if, and only if, the defence has set up a case ex improviso, which no human ingenuity can foresee. But even here it should be made quite clear that the evidence is not such as is only calculated to do an injustice to the accused but one essential to a just decision of the case: R. VS. Dora Harris (1927) en. APP. R. 86. The point being made here is that when the prosecution has been closed the prosecution stand or fall by the evidence it has adduced.” Per AGBO, J.C.A.(Pp. 10-12, paras. F-A).

For want of proper words, I shall reproduce the considerations and reasoning of the Court in the case of CHUKWUMA v. F.R.N (2011) LPELR-SC.253/2007 ipsissima verba: “I think the pertinent questions which require potent answers, in my view, in relation to the issue of reopening the case by taking evidence after the case has been closed and a date fixed for judgment, are as follows: (i) Whether a trial court can re-open a case after it has been closed. (ii) if it can, what are the rights, open to the other party (the appellant in this case)? (iii) Has the trial court in this case afforded the (accused) appellant such rights? The general principle of law and practice in our adversarial system is that after the close of a case, no further evidence ought to ordinarily be given by any of the parties. This court, in the case of DENLOYE VS. M & DPDC (1968) NSCC 260, held as follows: There can be no doubt about the general rule that in a case in which the guilty of a man is an issue judgment is being considered it is too late to allow further evidence to be given. If this were allowed it is difficult to see what limitation could be put on it’” (Per ADEMOLA (CJN) who delivered the judgment of the court). The above dictum itself was based upon the case of HARVOT VS. POLICE 20 NLR 53, where it was held on appeal from the Magistrate court that section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Cap. 43) cannot be invoked when the case before the court had been closed. Section 200 of the CPA provided that the court at any stage of any trial, inquiry or other proceedings under the Act may call any person as a witness or recall any person already examined for re-examination if his evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 26-27, Paras. F-G).

As a matter of necessity, the case of ADO (DANGAJERE) V. STATE (2017) LPELR-SC.139/2013 is instructive. In this case, the prosecution was unable to proceed with the hearing of the case, due to persistent absence in spite of several hearing notices served on them, the Court closed their case and the appellant and his co-accused opened their defence. They were cross-examined and at the close of their defence, the matter was adjourned to 10 November 2009 for judgment.  The written addresses of counsel were to be deemed adopted. On 2 February 2010, learned counsel for the prosecution moved a motion filed on 28 January 2010 for leave to call eight of its witnesses who were yet to testify and for an order staying the filing and adoption of final addresses pending the closure of the prosecution’s case after the evidence of the witnesses sought to be called. It is noted at page 32 of the record that learned counsel for the appellant, A. Lawal Esq., did not oppose the application. It was accordingly granted as prayed and the prosecution was given two consecutive days, 25 and 26 February 2010 for continuation of hearing. The prosecution called PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. All of them except PW5 were cross-examined by learned defence counsel. On 21 April 2010, learned counsel for the prosecution closed its case. Learned counsel for the accused persons stated thus at page 41 of the record: “Gambo: The defence has closed its case before the prosecution re-open (sic) its case. We are also done. We ask for a date for address.” (Emphasis mine). Both counsel urged the Court to deem the written addresses to be filed as adopted so that a date for judgment could be given. The Court obliged and adjourned the matter to 21 June 2010 for judgment. The appellant was found guilty on all three counts and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for conspiracy, 5 years imprisonment for robbery and death by hanging for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death. It is noteworthy that there was no appeal to the lower Court against the order made on 2 February 2010. There was also no attempt by the defence to call any other witnesses after PWs 3-7 testified. Indeed, as shown above, learned counsel was content to rely on the case put forward by the defence prior to the evidence of the additional prosecution witnesses.  The law being that a party who has an opportunity of being heard but failed to utilise it, cannot be heard to complain of lack of fair hearing thereafter. See Darma v. Ecobank (2007) LPELR-41663 (SC) at pages 18-19, paragraphs A-D; Okike v. Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 266) 1176, (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 949) 471; Attorney-General, Rivers State v. Gregory Ude (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 436, (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 347) 598. The Court further reasoned that since the appellant’s counsel had reasonable opportunities, all of which he couldn’t utilize; that first, at the stage when the application to call further witnesses was made, he could have stoutly oppose same, but did not avail himself of the opportunity; that another opportunity presented itself to discredit the evidence of the witnesses during cross-examination; that the appellant had yet another opportunity after the prosecution closed its case to reopen his defence and call evidence to repair whatever damage might have been done to his case by the evidence of these witnesses. The Supreme Court held, that the lower Courts were right to have allowed the calling of additional witnesses after parties have closed their case.

More so, the Supreme Court has established a principle which in my view will stand the test of time.

In KAJAWA v. STATE (2018) LPELR-SC.744/2013, the Court answered a pertinent question: what is the position of the law as regards re-calling of witnesses?

Held: “… the trial Court was right when it acted under Section 200 of the CPL of Lagos State, 2003, to reopen the prosecution’s case at the stage it did. By the provision of Section 200 of the CPL of Lagos State, 2003, a Court is empowered to either call a fresh witness or recall a witness that has already given evidence where the pieces of evidence to be given are essential for the just determination of the case …”

CONCLUSION

Circumstances of a particular matter determine whether a Court can hold in one way or another in the interest of justice. The Courts have always exercised judicial and judicious discretion in determining a matter, and where a lower Court makes a law in error, higher Courts are always awake as to wash off the stain of the said error from the white robe of the Court’s status.

This article was written by Prince I. Ubochi; [email protected], 07065434356; Intern at St. Sen Solicitors, Abakaliki.

Sonnie Ekwowusi admires Trump for bringing back God to the White House

Once upon a time, narrates a bosom friend, there lived in his village a certain mad man called Papauwa. Like most village madmen and women, this one is ill-attired. He eats from the gutter, drinks from the gutter and sleeps in the gutter. Although Papauwa was held captive by insanity, he was distinguished by his exceptional brilliance in expanding and expounding any subject matter that casually comes out from his mouth. Small wonder he commanded an incredible large village followership. On any Eke or any market day, Papauwa is seen standing in the heart of the village market lecturing a motley crowd on any subject matter under the earth ranging from politics, law, to religion to the thrills of the crowd.

On a day he elects to lecture on politics, he copiously quote, ex-tempore, Plato, Socrates Zik, Awo, Abraham Lincoln. Martin Luther King (Jr) and others to buttress his arguments to the delight of his listeners. And if he was discussing religion, he speaks at length on the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ for mankind, interlacing his arguments with quotations from different parts of the Sacred Scripture.

The aforesaid village mad man is a metaphor for the paradoxes that are common place in our contemporary society. Those who boasts that they are intelligent or learned or wise are filled with ignorance and stupidity whereas those whom we contemptuously treat as the lowly, the ignorant and idiots are filled with the spirit of wisdom, great learning and discernment. Papauwa, by all definitions, was a madman. But paradoxically, he was the merchant of light in the village, a public intellectual commanding public respect.

Everyone who intelligently looks at the history of the world today would clearly understand that modern democratic liberalism is emerging out of the desire to snuff out the old order and replace it with laissez-faire economic and political principles. The idea is that the rise of modernism, and secularism necessitated the decline of religious values and those communally-binding principles remains a fundamental postulate of European and American intellectual life. Surely, something terrible has definitely happened to our political intelligentsia and elites. Our elites are made up of intellectuals of a sort including some who carry the label: “progressives”. Their political thinking is therefore dominated by ideologies. While some of these ideologies are useful in some ways and to some extent true, others are just mere trash. And amazingly enough, the intelligentsia and elites are bent on imposing these suffocating ideologies on everybody as the new liberal culture to the peril of the society. The idea is to promote transgression and destroy traditional cultural norms. Children are taught that they have a right to enjoy unrestrained freedom-enjoyed fully in contraceptive “safe-sex”- and, that it is good for them to be freed from inherited authorities of parents, community, Church and Mosque because the aforesaid impose “outdated values” which inhibit child’s growth. In dictatorship of relativism, which is now a part and parcel of the today’s new liberal, the cardinal virtue is affirmation of one’s “personal choices”, non-judgmentalism, transgenderism, non-binarism, abortion, bisexuality, intersexuality, queer sexuality, animalism and bestiality.

Talking about Barack Obama legalizing bestiality as the U.S President, President Trump is loathed by the CNN, BBC, New York Times and other liberal media directly opposed to what Obama stood for at the White House. For refusing to imbibe “political correctness”, Trump is accused of being unrefined, insolent, brash and rude. He is a racist. He is a mad man. He is an idiot. Unfortunately the undiscerning who have no foggiest idea why the left is calumniating Trump are ready to indulge their prejudices by believing anything said against Trump. At the greatest height of these unsubstantiated accusations in 2016, the white voters, non-white voters, Latino voters, college educated white voters, young adult white voters in the age bracket of 18-29, black voters and even American women voters stunned the left and voted for Trump.

Now, with only few weeks to the American Presidential election, Trump remains the loathsome man in the liberal media. Many still wonder why many Americans elected Trump in 2016 in the first place, and, still poised to elect him again in 2020. If you want to understand why Trump is a sign of contradiction, you should read F.H. Buckley’s The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed. In this work, Buckley, who is a professor of law at George Mason’s Scalia School of Law and an erudite writer, explains that Trump keeps triumphing because those opposing him fail to understand the meaning of the “American dream”. The “American dream” is often misunderstood as driven by materialism and economic prosperity. This misconception dates back to the time Alexis de Tocqueville took up the assignment of studying the American democracy. But as far as Buckley is concerned, the “American dream” goes beyond economic prosperity: Americans also clamour for enduring fundamental principles. They want to leave good legacies for their children, who they hope—or used to hope—would achieve greatness.

Trump may be an idiot. But he is a useful idiot. I prefer a useful idiot who brings back the Almighty God to the White House, American public space and American schools to a clever-by-half orator who through his oratorical skills imposes gods of sexual licentiousness, carnality, eroticism, transgenderism, occultism, Satanism and mammonism in America. I prefer a useful idiot who will not be afraid to look at a Nigerian leader in his face and ask him, “Why are you killing Christians in Nigeria?” to a “politically correct” leader who tacitly supports the killing of Nigerian Christians. I prefer a useful idiot who guarantees my right to religious freedom to a deceitful and pretentious leader who allows the killers of the infidels to kill me and my family. “If you remove the word ‘human’ and all that the belief in the supernatural has given to man, you can view him finally as no more than an extremely clever, adaptable, and mischievous little animal,” said T.S. Elliot. In the same vein, if you give a man all the material possessions in this world in exchange for his soul, you would have succeeded in reducing him to the level of a clever animal.