Human rights’ lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, has backed Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State and his Lagos State counterpart, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, for championing the agitation for fiscal federalism for states in the country.

Adegboruwa, in a statement, said the collection of Value Added Tax by states is a “form of restructuring.”

The lawyer who said the country should get rid of “feeding-bottle federalism and Abuja financial pilgrimage” commended the Rivers State governor for starting a “revolution.”

Adegboruwa in a statement titled, ‘State VAT Laws Is A Form Of Restructuring’ noted that those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

“It is restructuring and I support it 100%. We’ve been shouting and crying for this lopsided federalism to be made equitable. Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

“I commend Gov Wike who started this revolution. I also commend Gov Sanwoolu, my LBS and Hon A-G, Onigbanjo and the Lagos House of Assembly.

“Other laws should follow. LASG should go to Lagos High Court to seek an order for immediate compliance with the VAT law by all persons and authorities doing business in Lagos State.

“It’s a good beginning; enough of feeding-bottle federalism and Abuja financial pilgrimage!”

When you come to power with a campaign to fight corruption, you cannot afford to be silent when your government is being accused of aiding and abetting impropriety; and certainly not when the accusers are members of your own political party or their agents. It is for that reason that President Muhammadu Buhari may have to take a second look at his authorization for the payment of a controversial $418 million in Paris Club refund-related judgment debts to six claimants, which both the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) strongly dispute.

For the record, 20 of the 36 Governors today belong to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The NGF chairman, Dr Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State is also a member of the party. Yet, he has been vociferous in the last two years about what he alleges to be a desperate attempt to hand over such humongous sum of money to some consultants. In their 30th August letter, the NGF practically indicted the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Mrs Zainab Ahmed. After making the point that she was “illegally authorising” questionable deductions from the allocations due to the states that would take over a period of ten (10) years from statutory allocations to defray, the NGF lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, concluded: “We hold the strong view that this in itself is the height of corruption and lawlessness.”

I understand that when it comes to money matters involving our big men and women, one would never know the backstory nor even the real story, beyond whatever they want you to hear. But contending issues in this payment are quite troubling. I have seen various correspondences (some contradictory of one another) emanating from the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief of Staff to the President, the NGF chairman and Director General (past and current, including factional ones), Minister of Finance (past and present), numerous lawyers/consultants and the Debt Management Office (DMO). And they raise several questions bordering on transparency and accountability in Nigeria.

In a November 2018 letter to the office of the AGF, a breakdown of the claims by the consultants and lawyers was provided by the NGF, even when many of the cases remain pending in court. Ned Nwoko Solicitors was seeking a fee of $369,932,117.26 for financial consultancy work he claimed to have done for 14 states. The states are Niger, Adamawa, Taraba, Abia, Anambra, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, Oyo, Ondo, Zamfara, Edo and Kogi. Although Kayode Ajulo & Co sought N900 million for the legal services it claimed to have provided the Jonah Jang faction of NGF, the case has been settled out of court. Riverdale Financial Services Ltd was seeking N12,912,574,537.06 on grounds that their financial consultancy services were engaged by eight states. Interestingly, the states included Zamfara that had signed on to Nwoko for the same services. Others are Bauchi, Osun, Ekiti, Sokoto, Kogi, Kwara and Katsina. Riok Nigeria Limited was seeking $318,807,950.596 for the boreholes it claimed to have constructed for 774 local governments. It is indeed very telling that these contracts were awarded not by the local governments but by ALGON secretariat in Abuja! Allied Plus Consulting & Logistics Limited/Azinge & Azinge were demanding N4,232,400,000, for consultancy services they claimed to have rendered to Bayelsa State. Balsa A.B.S. Nigeria Limited/Azinge & Azinge were seeking N2,024,567,441.15 for financial consultancy they claimed to have provided Kebbi State. Udembgba Maduka & Associates/Azinge & Azinge were seeking N1,389,768,631.07 for financial consultancy they also claimed to have provided Zamfara State. George Uboh’s Panic Alert System was seeking $47,821,920.00 for consultancy services it claimed to have rendered the Jonah Jang faction of NGF while Nipal Consulting Network/Njemanze & Njemanze were seeking $6,966,000.00 for services they claimed to have provided ALGON.

I have read many of the correspondences and the only conclusion to draw is that it is so easy to become a billionaire in Nigeria through government. Some of the work these consultants and lawyers claimed to have done to table such crazy bills include granting interviews to newspapers and television stations! But the main concern is about the quantum of public funds being transferred to private entities. Against the background that on 14th September, the then Minister of Finance, Mrs Kemi Adeosun, wrote the CBN Governor, Mr Godwin Emefiele, requesting him to “credit Escrow Account domiciled with the CBN with the sum of USD350 million” to settle “legal/consultancy fees” (for the first tranche already paid to these contractors, consultants, lawyers and the NGF secretariat), we are already talking of fees exceeding $750.

By way of background, this whole business started in 2006 under President Olusegun Obasanjo, in a Paris Club Debt Buy Back deal totaling about $18 billion. But with the money taken from the federation account, there was a lacuna. Since many states owed little or no foreign debts and were made to bear the responsibility with others, it was clear that there were legal issues to be explored. One of those smart enough to realise this was a certain Ned Nwoko. He moved from state to state to convince the governors that he could secure billions of Naira for them, and that they only needed to sign agreement with him on certain percentages of whatever he recovered. Apparently thinking they had nothing to lose, many governors were too eager to sign onto the deal that would give away 20 percent of their states’ money to the consultant. In the case of the 774 local governments, none had any foreign loan yet by statutory allocation, 15 percent of the money deducted for the Debt Buy Back deal belonged to them. Nwoko also approached ALGON with the same proposition and he got a deal. Having calculated the sum due the 774 local governments to be $3,188,079,505.96, Nwoko assembled a team of lawyers and in 2008, he went to court against the federal government. In December 2013, he finally got judgement at the federal high court in Abuja, affirming that the federal government utilization of the federation account “for London Club Debt Buy Back in 1992 and 2002; and London Club Debt Exit in 2006 without the authorization of the other tiers of government, including the local government councils and area councils of Nigeria, is contrary to section 162 (1), (3), (5) of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).” Other reliefs he got included that the federal government should pay the sum of $3,188,078,505.96 to the local governments as well as “deduct at source 20% of the judgement sum and pay same to the 1st plaintiff (Nwoko’s consultancy) through its solicitors, Joe Agi, SAN into (bank details withheld) being the agreed consultancy fees.”

It was that initial breakthrough by Nwoko that opened the floodgates of court cases, claims and counter claims by sundry cartels of lawyers, contractors and the usual Abuja middlemen who are adept at forging documents whenever they see what they consider a slush fund.
I do not want to go into all the legal and extra-legal cases that have arisen since, but it is important to situate how President Buhari was dragged into the mess. In July 2016, Abdulaziz Yari, then governor of Zamfara State, wrote Mrs Adeosun, reminding her that the NGF (which he then chaired) had at its May 2016 meeting appointed a consortium of financial consultants to reconcile and recover over-deductions from the Paris and London Clubs’ loans due to states and local governments. Yari stated further that the president had, in a meeting with governors, “graciously agreed to pay 50% of the monies due and the balance of 50% paid after due and diligent reconciliation of the accounts.” He added, “At the last meeting of the NGF held in July 2016, the Forum unanimously resolved to pay a fee of 2% to the consultants as their professional fees for the services rendered.” Based on this decision, Yari requested that “the payment of the consultant fees should be deducted at source from each state’s entitlement and paid directly to the account details of the consultants as attached with.”

These consultants, by the way, were engaged directly by the NGF and quite different from the ones (genuine or fake) appointed by many of the states. But the moment they were paid, several other people with claims of having worked for some states or the Jang faction of the NGF moved in. They also filed a multiplicity of cases in various courts that have resulted in several judgements. It was in a bid to discharge the federal government of all obligations in the claims made by these consultants and contractors that the out-of-court settlement of $418 million was arrived at by the office of the AGF and Justice Minister, Abubakar Malami, SAN.

However, whatever may be the justification, there are serious issues here. The idea that huge chunks of public resources can be cynically signed off to some people in doubtful circumstances calls to question the basis of government. This is more so when ALGON has sent letters to the AGF that the borehole contracts (for which one of the claimants would earn $159 million in the $418 deal) were not executed. That requires a thorough investigation. To escape from the claws of the Paris and London Clubs of creditors only to land in the hands of some domestic racketeers reads like a script from any gangster chronicle. It speaks of the existence of a virtual industry of shadow commission agents that target government agencies for easy money. Unfortunately, there is nothing new in this deal and it is not peculiar to this administration. That is what government has been reduced to in Nigeria, which then explains why the Federal Executive Council (FEC) is no more than a contract awarding body where policies are hardly discussed.

To wean government, at all levels, of this transactional ethos, we need to have a genuine conversation about the minimal expectation of governance, and the values that should drive public office in Nigeria. But I must also point out that I believe in the sanctity of contracts. So, if the consultants were able to hoodwink governors to agree to sign off such scandalous amounts of public funds in their states, I do not begrudge them their luck. But I find it rather disturbing that the federal government will be defending the interest of private citizens against that of the 36 states. While both the AGF and the Finance Minister see the issue as upholding the law and meeting obligations, there is a problem with shutting out the NGF and ALGON in the manner they are doing.

Last Friday, (3rd September), through another SAN, P.H Ogbole, the NGF wrote to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, AGF, the finance minister, DG of DMO and MD/CEOS/compliance officers of all commercial banks in Nigeria. The letter particularly noted that “custodians and managers of public funds are public trustees and must at all times act in the public interest. In this case, the interest of all the states and local governments of the federation are involved and ought to be protected by the hon. minister of finance.” It continued: “The issuance of promissory notes of a humongous sum of over $418million to private persons for alleged consultancy work demands not only caution but strict due diligence; particularly when the judgements which gave rise to the payments sought to be enforced are the subject of pending litigation.”

At the end, there are several lessons we must learn about the use of consultancy in the conduct of government business, including the need to put a cap on how much they can be paid for helping to collect either judgement debts or taxes. This is a problem that you find in many of the states and even in the federal government. But there is also something peculiar to the current administration. In the past few years, people and institutions that should ordinarily work together not only squabble openly, they call to question the transparency of those at the apex of power in our country and the integrity of the Nigerian system. That should worry President Buhari.

On the immediate issue of the contentious $418 million payment, the minimal expectation is for the president to direct the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate the allegations by both the NGF and ALGON before any payment can be made. I hope that is not already too late!

Kaduna Language Class
On 17th June 2014, I received a mail from respected senior journalist, Mr Taiwo Obe, inviting me to speak at a ‘Summit on Functional Social Networking for Nigerian Journalists’ in Abuja that his ‘EverythingJournalism Group’ was organizing in partnership with the United Bank for Africa (UBA). I found the invitation rather strange; so, I sent egbon Taiwo a response that it was directed at the wrong person because I was not on social media and had resolved not to join any of the platforms. He replied that I was invited for same reason, and that I should come and explain why, at the Journalism Clinic. I went and delivered my presentation titled, ‘Why social media is not for me,’ which explained my misgivings. Less than a year later, I joined Twitter.

While my fears about the toxicity of the Nigerian social media space remain valid, I have enjoyed my time on Twitter, and in the process, even gained some 57,000 followers. Beyond posting my column every Thursday, I avoid ‘Political Twitter’ so I am a marginal player on the platform. But I have cultivated my own space. I like to know what the neighbours of Baba Samu’s wife, aka Iyalaya (@lollylarry1) are doing behind the curtains within and outside their apartments, I have a ringside seat at the radio station of the Cinderella Man (@osi¬¬¬_Suave) to defend, with all aluta brutality, the interest of ‘Sharon from Marketing’, I take judicial notice of how Irene (@cremechic11) has transferred her ‘love for short men’ from Kenya to Nigeria and @biolakazeem never ceases to entertain with the way he goes after OGS who took over from his friend, ‘The Special One’ at Old Trafford. Since Aguntasolo (@DoubleEph) has stopped throwing his usual bazookas, I now watch ‘with one eye’ as ‘Daddy Wa’ (@mrmacaroni1) encounters all the ‘omo komo’ in Lagos and environ and, like Charles (@9jabloke) and all Arsenal fans, our longsuffering has been made bearable by the occasional banters we share on Twitter to drown our disappointment.

However, the space I enjoy most is the one created by Mrs Hadiza Isma El-Rufai in December 2019 to teach English language. What transpires there, even though I am one of the protagonists, is a reminder of ‘Mind Your Language’, a British sitcom of the seventies and eighties which depicted an adult education classroom where people from different countries and diverse social and ethno-religious backgrounds shared the same classroom to learn English as a foreign language. With the #Kaduna Language Class, Mrs El-Rufai generates fun while at the same time imparting knowledge. She recently compiled her Twitter teachings into a book, and I got an autographed copy addressed to “the naughtiest boy in #KLClass” with a pledge to “continue praying” for me.

An architect by profession, Mrs El-Rufai has already authored an interesting novel, ‘An Abundance of Scorpions’. But this book is different. Small and easy to read, it highlights some of the basic errors people make, either when speaking or writing in English language. While the foreword by Kola Tubosun sums up the significance of the book, Mrs El-Rufai explains why she wrote it: “I am not a graduate of English language; neither am I a linguist. I am just someone who believes that every language should be respected enough to be spoken and written properly.”

Whenever the federal government is ‘magnanimous’ enough to unban Twitter in Nigeria, I will resume to take my SIT in the class!
Tramadol Miracle!
On Monday, PUNCH Metro published a very revealing story of a 28-year-old man in Gombe State, Umar Abubakar, who reportedly spent over seven hours on a telecoms mast, threatening to kill himself. Abubakar had climbed to the top of the mast located at Checheniya within the Gombe metropolis around 7am and refused to come down despite entreaties from security agents and the local government chairman, Aliyu Haruna. He insisted that only Governor Darius Ishaku could make him come down until his friend, Aladeen Mohammed, eventually showed up. He persuaded Abubakar to come down by, in his own words, “offering him a cigarette and tramadol.” It is very telling that Abubakar’s friend knew what to prescribe to solve a problem of attempted suicide. More importantly, it worked!
• You can follow me on my Twitter handle, @Olusegunverdict and on www.olusegunadeniyi.com

By Ikechukwu Amaechi

For some time now, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has been embroiled in an acrimonious tax liability tango with MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, owners of the popular subscription-based satellite television platforms – DStv and Gotv – and its parent company, MultiChoice Africa.

And the tango is not only untidy, it has become messy.
The brouhaha started on April 7, 2021 when FIRS issued tax liability notice of assessment and demand note in the sum of N1.8 trillion to the pay-tv company.

Apparently, MultiChoice disputed the figures and in August, the executive chairman of FIRS, Muhammad Nami, directed banks to freeze all accounts of MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and MultiChoice Africa in order to recover the alleged N1.8 trillion tax liability.

Nami claimed that MultiChoice’s performance does not reflect in its tax obligations and compliance level in Nigeria and frowned at what he described as the penchant of foreign-based companies conducting businesses in Nigeria refusing to pay taxes after making a kill in profits.

“They do with impunity in Nigeria what they dare not try in their countries of origin,” the tax czar, who took over from Tunde Fowler, lamented.

Alarmed at FIRS’ seeming self-help, MultiChoice Nigeria Limited filed an appeal against the companies income tax and value added tax assessment notice at the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT).

The organisation not only objected to the FIRS assessment which it insisted was based on presumed and inaccurate turnover figures but also stated unequivocally that it provided an audited financial statement prepared by a well-known reputable global firm and attached same to its annual tax returns filed at the FIRS.

Multichoice also complained about the tax agency’s post no debit directive to banks and alleged the breach of the statutory limit of six years for tax audits and investigations as stated in section 66 of the Companies Income Tax Act (CITA).

Why not responding specifically to any of the charges, FIRS only insisted that they had the power under Section 65 of CITA to issue a best of judgment assessment on any tax payer, including Multichoice Nigeria.

The five-member TAT, chaired by Prof. A.B. Ahmed, sat on August 24 and after hearing the matter in appeal, adjourned to September 23 after invoking Order XI of the TAT Procedure Rules 2010, which requires any taxpayer who disputes tax assessments, to make the statutory deposit required under Paragraph 15(7) of the Fifth Schedule to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007 (FIRS Act).

The paragraph states: “The Tribunal may adjourn the hearing of the appeal to any subsequent day and order the appellant to deposit with the Service, before the day of the adjourned hearing, an amount, on account of the tax charged by the assessment under appeal, equal to the tax charged upon the appellant for the preceding year of assessment or one half of the tax charged by the assessment under appeal, whichever is the lesser plus a sum equal to ten percent of the said deposit, and if the appellant fails to comply with the order, the assessment against which he has appealed shall be confirmed and the appellant shall have no further right of appeal with respect to that assessment.”

Ironically, the interpretation of the TAT ruling added another layer of controversy to the saga.

FIRS went to town claiming in a statement by its Director, Communications and Liaison Department, Abdullahi Ahmad, that the Tribunal had ordered Multichoice to pay the Federal Government N900 billion, which will be 50 per cent of the alleged N1.8 trillion tax backlog.

Expectedly, Multichoice punched back: “The directive issued by the TAT in accordance with paragraph 15(7) of the Fifth Schedule to the FIRS Establishment Act requires Multichoice Nigeria to deposit with FIRS an amount equal to the tax paid by Multichoice Nigeria in the preceding year of assessment or one half of the disputed tax assessment under appeal, whichever is the lesser amount plus ten per cent.

“The lesser amount is the tax paid by Multichoice Nigeria in the previous assessed year, which is substantially less than the disputed assessment,” the pay-tv group said. And enlightened self-interest dictated the option that offered the lesser amount.

FIRS interpretation of the court ruling has raised some fundamental questions. Why did it commit such a faux-pas by putting a spin on it intended to mislead the public? If it could deliberately do that, how reliable was its tax assessment technics?

Simply put, how did FIRS arrive at the contentious N1.8 trillion figure?

To be sure, it is unacceptable that companies operating in Nigeria infringe on tax laws. It also goes without saying that all companies operating in the country must do so in accordance with the extant laws. Tax evasion is a serious crime globally. Nigeria should not be an exception.

Therefore, FIRS is absolutely right to insist that all companies in the country must be held accountable and made to pay their fair share of relevant taxes.

But in doing so, care must be taken not to inject the notorious sloppiness of the country’s institution into the process because that is counterproductive. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case in this instance.

The narratives must also be straightforward and credible. That seems not to be the case here.

For instance, while FIRS is claiming that Multichoice denied it access to its servers, it is at the same time boasting of carrying out thorough forensic audit.

How was the forensic audit carried out? What computational magic did FIRS use in arriving at the N1.8 trillion figure?

While it may be true that Nigeria contributes 34 per cent of Multichoice’s total revenue and the rest of Africa where they have presence accounts for 45, does that make the N1.8 trillion figure believable?

What is the total turnover of the company? Given the fact that tax is on profit, can this figure be correct? Any company with a tax portfolio of N1.8 trillion must be in the A-list. Definitely, Multichoice does not play in that league.

So, could it be that FIRS is simply bandying figures, hoping to arm-twist Multichoice into making some concessions?

Besides, as the multinational professional services firm, Pricewaterhousecoopers (PwC), noted in a tax alert posted on its website, TAT seemed to have focused only on the order for statutory deposit while ignoring other issues that are relevant to arriving at that decision.

These conditions include failure by the appellant to file tax returns for the year concerned and evidence that the appeal is frivolous or an abuse of the appeal process.

In other words, the burden is on the FIRS to put forward relevant materials and facts before the tribunal to prove Multichoice’s guilt.

So far, what suffices as evidence are mere conjectures and inferences.

So, while FIRS is right to insist that companies pay statutory taxes, it must be wary of the perception of regulatory onslaught. Tax matters must be based on evidence, not assumptions.

This is the crux of the matter.

Multichoice’s subscriber base in Nigeria should not be a matter of conjecture. In fact, FIRS should not even wait for Multichoice to supply the numbers because Multichoice is reputed as the first company to allow FIRS real-time access to its earnings for Value Added Tax (VAT) computation.

While it is expected that a country as cash-strapped as Nigeria is right now would embark on aggressive revenue generation drive, care must be taken to avoid committing regulatory harakiri.

By creating the impression that it didn’t do the homework required in the circumstance but only a simple straight-line calculation of what it thinks should be the revenue of Multichoice and the tax obligations therefrom, FIRS is only being disingenuous.

No doubt, Multichoice is hurting. A report by Bloomberg indicated that FIRS regulatory onslaught prompted shares offload of the Johannesburg-based company and erased $240 million of its market value in less than two hours and the stock declined eight per cent to a near 11-month low. It only took MultiChoice’s explanation for the stock to claw back 3.6 per cent.

But the Nigerian economy will be the ultimate loser because the global investment community, always wary of opaque regulatory environment, is watching.

Clarity is the name of the game. The much needed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) will be negatively impacted particularly if it becomes evident that the computational metrics used by FIRS to arrive at the tax liability figures are questionable.

The actions of FIRS may impress an excitable nation whose citizens are in perpetual hunt for thieves, but the hemorrhaging economy will pay the ultimate price when the confidence of foreign investors to do business in Nigeria is completely eroded.

Rather than playing to the gallery in the court of public opinion, FIRS should assemble all its evidence and prove same in the TAT.

Nigerians will be interested in knowing how the same Multichoice, which FIRS commended in the past as a good corporate citizen, suddenly became a tax renegade to the tune of N1.8 trillion and what it was doing while the alleged tax liability was mounting.

By Sonnie Ekwowusi

Forcing citizens to take the COVID-19 vaccination which has caused the death of some people and severe adverse reactions and blood clot in the body and brain, known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) of other people, is, to say the least, a crime against humanity. Why force Nigerians to take COVID-19 vaccination when the manufacturers/profiteers and suppliers of the COVID-19 vaccines had expressly exempted or absorbed themselves from any liability for any death, injury, bodily impairment or any other damages directly or indirectly traceable or resulting from taking the vaccination?. Why compel Nigerians to take COVID-19 vaccination which a priori had not been subjected to clinical test or trial by Nigerian physicians and NAFDAC to first ascertain whether it is good for Nigerians?. Why force Nigerians to take the COVID-19 vaccination which is not a cure for COVID-19 but only a preventive measure competing with other preventive measures? Why force Nigerians to take the COVID-19 vaccination when the manufacturers/profiteers and suppliers of COVID-19 vaccines had expressly stated that they would not indemnify any taker of the vaccination or his or her legal representatives and assigns for any losses, damages and detriments whatsoever caused or to be suffered and/or incurred by the taker of the vaccination?

It is no longer news that Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki has commanded from his Olympian height that with effect from the second week of September 2021 all unvaccinated people in Edo State would be barred from worshipping in Churches and Mosques and even entering banks and other public places in Edo State. In other words, no vaccination, no freedom of religious worship, no freedom of movement. But ruling on an application brought by an aggrieved citizen Charles Osaretin against Governor Obaseki and five others, the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has granted an ex-parte restraining the Governor from enforcing his command pending the determination of the substantive Motion on Notice of the applicant to enforce his fundamental human right. But apparently undeterred by the restraining ex-parte order, Governor Obaseki is still talking tough and has vowed to enforce his command no matter whose ox is gored. As if this is not enough, the Federal government is threatening to make the COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for all public servants in Nigeria.

Considering that the case of Charles Osaretin V Governor Obaseki & others is still sub-judice I would refrain from commenting on the merit or demerit of the case until it is determined by the court. But suffice it to say that it is trite law that a court order must be obeyed to the letter until it is set aside or lapses by effluxion of time. Disobedience to a court order or ridiculing a court order or subjecting it to scathing criticisms or disparaging the integrity of the court in public or in the media is not only contemptuous of the court but a recipe for anarchy. The rule of law ought to reign supreme above any arbitrary or capricious exercise of executive power. More importantly, the function of the judiciary as a dispenser of justice, sustainer of good governance and a bulwark of justice in the causes of the citizenry is endangered by the growing incidence of executive lawlessness and executive disobedience to court orders.

Neither the Federal government nor a State government nor any employer of labour can force or compel any Nigerian to take any COVID vaccination. Why? Because there is no known Nigerian law backing compulsory vaccination or compulsory medical treatment. A Governor’s directive is not a law and therefore not binding on the citizens. Everyone has to give his or her informed consent before receiving any vaccination. This is the law in Nigeria. Relying on the case of Denloye v Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal the Nigerian Supreme Court held in the case of Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Dr. John Emewulu Nicholas Okonkwo(2002) AHRLR 159 that failure to extract a patient’s informed consent before administering a blood transfusion on him constituted an infraction of his fundamental human rights to privacy (section 37) and right to freedom of religion and conscience (section 38). The Supreme Court held that the patient’s constitutional right to object to medical treatment or, particularly, as in this case, to his tissue, blood or blood products or his organ being taken away from his body is founded on fundamental rights protected in the 1999 Constitution under the (i) right to privacy: section 37; (ii) right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: section 38. The Court further held that the right to privacy “implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience or religious belief and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion; and, one’s body from unauthorized invasion. The right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion implies a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification, from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to religious belief…”.

Under the English Law, the consent of a living person to medical treatment or for vaccination is absolutely mandatory. In fact the person can maintain an action in tort or civil wrong for damages for trespass against his person against a medical practitioner or a hospital for forcing him to undergo any medical treatment or take a vaccination against his consent. The UK Vaccination Act of 1853 compelled parents to vaccinate their children. But the Vaccination Act of 1853 has since been repealed. The current law in the UK is that a patient cannot be vaccinated without his or her informed consent. A combined reading of the UK Coronavirus Act 1984 and that of 2020 reveals that the Minister is not allowed by law to compel anybody to take the COVID-19 vaccination.

It is obvious that the COVID-19 vaccination media propaganda was prompted and propelled ab initio by a huge commercial interest. The COVID-19 vaccines manufacturers/profiteers and suppliers simply want to rake up huge profit from selling their vaccines. This is why they are discrediting other COVID-19 preventive measures. Which means that these manufacturers/profiteers and suppliers have placed their financial gains over and above the precious lives of the citizens. Sad. In the video which has gone viral, Dr. Sean Brooks, PhD Oxford, author of about 48 medical publications and 23 books on health matters, says that the people who have taken the COVID-19 vaccination are eligible to die in the next one year; that the vaccination cause body organ failure, blood clot; 35% immune system decrease and sterilization of men and women. But impelled by commercial profit, the promoters of COVID-19 vaccines care less about the danger of the vaccines. All they are after is to maximize their profit even if it means destroying other people’s lives. As far as they are concerned, the government should make the taking of the vaccination compulsory so that they can sell the vaccines and make more profit.

Therefore the government and employers of labour have no right to force the citizens to take the COVID-19 vaccination. No citizen should be deprived of anything or suffer anything or any discrimination on account of his or her refusal/failure to take the vaccines. Federal and State governments and employers of labour should obey the law and allow the citizens to freely decide whether or not they want to take the COVID-19 vaccination or subscribe to other competing COVID-19 preventive measures.

By Bola Bolawole

Straddling the last day in August and the first in September 2021, a two-day national dialogue on girls was held at the Sheraton Abuja Hotel; it was jointly organised by the Ethiopia-based African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) and their Nigerian counterparts, namely, Africawide Movement for Children (AMC) and Women Arise for Change Initiative (aka Women Arise). Dr. Joe Okei-Odumakin of Women Arise and Dr. Joan Nyanyuki, Executive Director, ACPF were host and co-host respectively. Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, declared the dialogue open. Osinbajo’s fluidity as he made his speech “lai wo’we” (without a prepared speech) could only have surprised the foreign guests at the event. It demonstrated that the VP was on top of his assignment and needed not belabour himself fumbling and wobbling through a speech prepared for him. I am sure you understand what I mean! Minister for Women Affairs and Social Development, Dame Pauline Tallen, chaired the occasion and also gave a good account.

Issues affecting the Nigerian girl-child were discussed – their rights and challenges; the efforts of the government as well as its failures; the role of civil society organisations; and the duties of parents as well as the responsibilities of the girl-child herself. Representatives of state governments, diplomats, Labour leaders and civil society groups brainstormed on how to improve the quality of life of the Nigerian girl-child. The Ethiopians came with their own professionals who shared their own experience. As the rapporteur at the event, I worked closely with the Ethiopian specialist, Yehualashet Mekonen, who was a delight to work with. The girl-child was represented by a 16-year-old girl who drew tears from many eyes as she narrated her harrowing experience after her father jumped ship on the family.

To bring the national dialogue to a close, a communique was adopted. Titled “Towards a girl-friendly Nigeria: Urgent call for action”, the participants “recognize the efforts that the Federal and State Governments of Nigeria have made towards ensuring a girl-friendly Nigeria. Commendable as these efforts are, we, however, have come to the painful conclusion that these efforts are insufficient and incommensurate with what is required to make Nigeria a better place for girls.

“We note with a great concern that millions of girls in Nigeria are being robbed of their childhood and are thereby condemned to a lifetime of discrimination and inequality. We note with great concern that they are being denied education; are getting married too young; are sexually and emotionally abused at home, in school and communities; are being barred from owning and inheriting property; and are, usually, the last in the queue when it comes to State spending on health, education and social protection.

“We further note that girls in Nigeria have endured harmful cultural beliefs, patriarchal gender attitudes and discriminatory laws, policies and practices. Despite slow progress in some areas, girls across the country continue to wake up to the daily reality of gender- and age-based injustice.

“We realize that entire generations of girls and young women are being let down. We further realize that vulnerable girls of Nigeria bear the brunt of discrimination and marginalization. Girls in sub-optimal circumstances are the most discriminated against, marginalized and excluded. Girls with disabilities and those living in poverty, in conflict areas and disaster or humanitarian emergency situations bear the greatest burden of multi-layered, multi-faceted experiences of exclusion and marginalization.

“We note with great disappointment that Covid-19 pandemic is already clawing back on some of the gains made in girls’ rights and wellbeing. There are major concerns about the potential slowing down or even reversal of progress towards gender equality in Nigeria.

“We note that every dollar invested in a girl’s education or healthcare benefits society many times over, and is essential to achieve Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We equally note that failure to invest in girls, on the other hand, causes huge economic losses. Girls are key drivers of transformation and helping them can trigger a chain reaction that ultimately leads towards a peaceful and prosperous Africa.

“Girls attend school in unfriendly school environments where hygiene is a major concern. The poor condition of school facilities is so serious that girls feel embarrassed to have to learn in such facilities. Not only these poor facilities have made it difficult for girls to manage their menstrual hygiene, it also could predispose them to infections and other transmitted diseases.

“We fully share the call made in the African Report on Child Wellbeing 2020 that governments must act quickly to avoid significantly damaging the long-term economic and social development prospects of countries.

“We are convinced that investment in girls will lead to more sustainable development and societal prosperity and that breaking the cycle of gender-based discrimination and inequality will promote empowerment of girls and women.

“We note that countries must aspire to nothing less than a country where every girl develops to her full potential in an atmosphere of dignity and equality. To this effect, we make an urgent call for the Federal and State Governments to take action, particularly in the following areas: Ensure gender sensitivity in legal and policy frameworks for girls as well as pay greater attention to the implementation and enforcement of laws and policies relating to the girl child. Establishment of Special Courts for cases of child abuse such as rape, child trafficking, etc will go a long way in this direction; increased investment in girls’ education at all levels by ramping up spending to a minimum of 10 percent of GDP. These investments need to be targeted to improve school facilities, particularly hygiene and access to clean water and toilet facilities. Budget allocation should be matched by budget performance; increased investment in girls’ health and nutrition by meeting the Abuja Declaration target of increasing health spending to 15 percent of total government budget. Sexual and reproductive health and services need to be improved to enhance access to adolescent girls; commit to the International Labour Organization’s target of investing at least 6.4 percent of GDP in social protection with particular focus on girls living in poor households and remote rural areas without access to essential services; eliminate all gender-based violence in both public and private settings against especially vulnerable girls such as those with disabilities, those living in poverty, in conflict areas and in disaster or humanitarian emergencies ; Create safe space for girls at all levels of administration to enable them share their concerns and perspectives, play active role in the realization of their rights and have their voices heard so they can influence policies and programmes affecting them; and ensure full implementation of the Nigerian Child’s Rights Act 2003 all over the country ”.

It was in the middle of the event that my brother and professional colleague, Habib Aruna, Chief Press Secretary to ex-Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, called to say the online publication quoted in last week’s “Ambode: Guilty as charged?” was “fake news”. I promised him I would reflect that in this column today. I will, however, do more because other media gurus also called, among others, Mr. Isaac Okoroafor, Dr. Reuben Abati; and one person that never stopped surprising me, Steve Ayorinde, Ambode’s Commissioner for Information and later Commissioner for Tourism. Steve did not meet me at The PUNCH where he, too, sat on the Editor’s chair “generations” after I had vacated it; he accords me so much respect and calls me “boss” all the same. I will never stop appreciating him. So, I send my best wishes to Ambode through Habib and Steve and wish the former governor the very best now and always. I have said it before and it bears repeating here that the unsavoury events of 2019 may simply have helped to postpone Ambode’s second term to a more opportune occasion in future as it happened to Ayo Fayose and Kayode Fayemi (both in Ekiti).

I will, however, advise that any time “fake news” pops up its ugly and dangerous head, quickly “shoot” it down! Do not ignore it because the medium that peddled it is little known, lest it becomes a banana peel or your silence is taken to mean consent,more so since bits and pieces of information the online publication in question sewed together into a whole piece have been in the public domain for quite some time. Pa Edwin Clarke has done very well with the “fake news” about the alleged award of a multi-billion Naira NDDC contract to his company. He promptly “shot down” the allegation and gave his own side of the story wide publicity. Secondly, the best antidote for “fake news” is “true” or “original” news. I have suggested to Abati to consider having Ambode on Arise Television to tell his own side of the story. We have heard from Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who said Ambode made a good governor but bad politician. We need to hear from Ambode. The time may not be auspicious now so as not to pile misery upon an ailing Tinubu – and I wish him quick recovery – but at the opportune time Ambode should speak up. Otherwise, he should forever keep his peace, fake news or no fake news

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN

Very recently, President Muhammadu Buhari shocked the entire nation when he announced that he had discovered 368 grazing routes across the country. It was also reported that the President will proceed to take over these grazing routes, demarcate them appropriately and ultimately develop them for the use of herders and their cattle. This development came a few months after the Southern governors banned open grazing in the entire region. Let me share with you the plans of Mr. President on this project, as reported.

“President Muhammadu Buhari has approved the recommendations of a committee to review “with dispatch,” 368 grazing sites, across 25 states in the country, “to determine the levels of encroachment. The move, according to a statement by presidential spokesperson, Femi Adesina, was to curb the bloody clashes between herders and farmers across the country.

“The President’s directive followed his approval of the recommendations of a committee chaired by the Chief of Staff to the President, Prof. Ibrahim Gambari,” Adesina said in a statement.

“Among others, the committee had recommended the collection of field data on 368 Grazing Reserves across 25 States to assess encroachment and encroachers, stakeholder engagements and sensitization. The Committee also recommended production of maps and geo-mapping/tagging of sites, analysis of findings and report preparations as well as design appropriate communication on Grazing Reserves and operations.

“The number of the Grazing Reserves and States were deduced from considerations of existing security concerns and other pre-existing socio-economic conditions. The President directed that the assignment be undertaken with dispatch to bring more understanding on the Grazing Reserves, and implementation.

Members of the committee include, Governor of Kebbi State and Vice Chairman, National Food Security Council, Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, Governor of Ebonyi State and Chairman of NEC Sub-Committee for National Livestock Transformation Plan, David Umahi, Minister of Water Resources, Suleiman Adamu, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Sabo Nanono, Minister of Environment, Dr. Mohammad Mahmood Abubakar and Deputy Chief of Staff, Ade Ipaye.

“The Technical Sub-Committee consists of representatives from the seven members of the main committee in addition to representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Surveyor General of the Federation, National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) and National Space Research Development Agency (NASRDA).”

Nigerians in their multitudes have reacted in total condemnation of this latest policy of the Buhari administration. Let us now examine the legality of this project, by determining ownership of the land upon which the grazing routes are to be established. The law governing the use and administration of land in Nigeria today is the Land Use Act, which came into effect on March 29, 1978. Section 1 of the LUA provides as follows:

Vesting of land in the State

“1. Subject to the provisions of this Act, all land comprising the territory of each State in the Federation is hereby vested in the Governor of that State, and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

Control and management of land

(1) As from the commencement of this Act –
(a) all land in urban areas shall be under the control and management of the Governor of each State; and

(b) all other land shall, subject to this Act, be under the control and management of the local government within the area of jurisdiction of which the land is situated.”

The above provisions are clear and unambiguous in terms of the meaning and intendment of the LUA to vest land use management in the Governor of the State on behalf of the people. The powers of the President are clearly defined under the Constitution, especially in section 5 thereof. Furthermore, the Exclusive Legislative List does not list land as part of items vested in the federal government of Nigeria, for which the President could claim to exercise any right or power over land located in various States of the federation. It therefore means that the President has no power or authority over the use, management or control of land anywhere in Nigeria. Even for the Governors, power over the use and control of land is subject to certain statutory conditions, such as stipulated under the Constitution. It has thus remained a wonder to me where the President derived his powers to dabble into the issue of land management. For effect, the Land Use Act now enjoys the protection of the Constitution under and by virtue of section 315 (5) thereof:

“(5) Nothing in this Constitution shall invalidate the following enactments, that is to say –

(a) The National Youth Service Corps Decree 1993;

(b) The Public Complaints Commission Act;

(c) The National Security Agencies Act;

(d) The Land Use Act.

And the provisions of those enactments shall continue to apply and have full effect in accordance with their tenor and to the like extent as any other provisions forming part of this Constitution and shall not be altered or repealed except in accordance with the provisions of section 9 (2) of this Constitution.”

Going by the provisions of the Constitution and the LUA quoted above, the President cannot forcefully and compulsorily take over land in any State as grazing route as there is no such power granted to him by any of these vital laws. Whatever law the President is relying upon to trace the so-called grazing routes is totally repugnant to equity and natural justice, and inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and even the LUA. And since the Land Use Act came into force after the purported gazette being touted as the source of grazing routes, it automatically repeals the said gazette by necessary implication.

It is important to highlight the provisions of section 34 of the LUA, in relation to the ownership of land prior to the commencement of the Act in 1978. It states as follows:

“34. (1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect in respect of land in an urban area vested in any person immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Where the land is developed, it shall continue to be held by the person in whom it was vested immediately before the commencement of this Act as if the holder of the land was the holder of a statutory right of occupancy issued by the Governor under this Act.”

Without any doubt therefore, the LUA preserves and protects land vested in citizens prior to its commencement in 1978, as such persons have deemed right of occupancy even though it has not been issued officially by the Governor. All they need do is to apply for it. If this is the case (and no doubt it is), the President cannot extinguish the right of land ownership granted under the LUA for the purpose of imposing grazing routes on land owners.

Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution are clear on the right to own immovable property (land) and freedom from compulsory acquisition, whether for grazing or any other purpose.

“43. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.”

(1) No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purpose prescribed by a law that, among other things:
(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefor; and

(b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.”

The zeal with which the President has been pursuing the establishment of grazing routes can only mean that he is working in line with a hidden agenda which he has not openly declared to the people of Nigeria that elected him into office. The governors who have control of use and management of land have openly condemned and opposed unrestrained open grazing as being impracticable and unsustainable. In whose interest therefore, is the President then acting, if I may ask?

The concept of open grazing, which the President is propagating with all his energy, is totally outdated. If the President had summoned the same zeal with which he has granted several media chats in support of open grasing, if the President had mobilized the same strength with which he is presently pursuing the recovery of the so-called grazing routes, to tackle insurgency and the mindless invasion by bandits, Nigeria would have been a peaceful place to live in.

According to Wikipedia, grazing is “a method of animal husbandry whereby domestic livestock are allowed outdoors to consume wild vegetation in order to convert grass and other forages into meat, milk, wool and other animal products, often on land unsuitable for arable farming.”

In Nigeria, the animals being referred to are the cows, assembled together by herdsmen who are itinerant livestock farmers. From the Wikipedia definition, the grass to be grazed is usually on land not suitable for arable farming. This then takes us to the very important question of ownership of land.

Generally, grazing is not expected to be a free for all exercise embarked upon openly and with reckless abandon, not giving care to ownership of land and farmlands. This is the major difference between the position of the President and the people of Nigeria.

Open grazing simply means that herdsmen will be free to trespass upon land anywhere and at any time, with their cattle, whether or not that may lead to destruction of crops on farmlands is immaterial.

In order to preserve the provisions of the Land Use Act, it has been inserted into the 1999 Constitution as one of the laws that cannot be easily amended.

The right of occupancy granted under the LUA has been held to be sacrosanct, by the Supreme Court and it cannot be overreached even by the Governor, without following due process of law through proper acquisition and compensation.

If the Governor cannot take over land without following due process of law, how will it be possible for herdsmen to take over people’s land without their consent and even proceed to destroy their crops, at will and unquestioned?

0This is what the President is defending with our meagre resources. It is simply unacceptable and I urge the President to drop the idea of compulsory and illegal grazing routes.

By Kassim Afegbua

I am gradually becoming exposed to the real problems of President Buhari and those who are masterminds of his colourless and tactless presidency that has continued to destroy the very fabric that knit us together. His real problems are his coterie of aides who have become sycophants from the pit of hell, announcing president Buhari’s so-called achievements in the gale of several rivers of blood. They even dared to tell us that president Buhari is a miracle worker. Yes, he is indeed a miracle worker, because we are only existing as Nigeria by sheer miracle in the face of a heavily polarised country with nepotism and selective amnesia reigning supreme. They sing songs of hosanna over the claim that NNPC, the nation’s cash cow posted a profit of N287b, the first in 44 years according to his publicists. This is happening after six years of Buhari presidency and as petroleum minister. They tell us that the villa is very lean in terms of visitors because Buhari does not cut deals. In their fertile imagination, they think we are not aware of their double-edged hypocrisy. Ask them to tell us where President Buhari got his funding for election in 2015 and 2019, you are likely going to get threat calls. Ask them to declare publicly the details of president Buhari’s asset form, you might be denied sleep perpetually.

Ask them to tell us the source of funding for Yussuf Buhari’s ostentatious wedding, you might hear “maigaskia” at the background with punctured tones of murmurs and grumblings. Ask them the source of funding for the iPhone and iPad that were generously shared during the wedding of the president’s unemployed son, you might get a fatwa. Pretenses and hypocrisy flourish well when people are forced by circumstances to live a false lifestyle. During the campaigns in 2015 and 2019, we heard of jets ferrying monies around at late nights and under coded trips. We saw video clips of how underaged children were thumb printing ballots in certain locations to score unmerited votes. We saw the drama in Kano, Yobe, Borno and Kaduna states. We saw the 84% voters attendance in states that were predominantly troubled by insurgents and armed bandits against the supposed low turn-out of voters in otherwise peaceful environment. The beneficiary of such flawed elections is the man they called “maigaskia”, such self-serving hypocritical nomenclature that dribbles through the corridors of power. Why the pretense? All the foreign medical trips by a president who promised to fix our health sector is an insult on our collective psyche. But in a country where leadership weakness is being celebrated as a mark of courage, miracle workers are easy to come by.

Let us recalibrate the Buhari persona before he became president in terms of his utterances, maybe that may give us a scintilla of his belief system. In November 2012, The Nation newspaper reported that Book Haram picked Buhari to moderate talks with the government of Nigeria under President Goodluck Jonathan. Pointblank news also reported that in June 2013 that Buhari had told the Federal Government to stop killing book haram members. The Nation newspaper also reportedly stated in June 2013 that Buhari had faulted clampdown on Book Haram members. As reported in The Guardian newspaper in November 2018, a South African mercenary had declared how Buhari stopped them from fighting Book Haram. The Cable had reported in February 2020 how soldiers complained about Federal Government setting free killers in the name of Book Haram, as suspects were being released. Sahara Reporters in June 2020, also reported the planned release of 603 repentant Book Haram back to the society. The Nation in July, 2020 reported how 601 ex-Boko Haram combatants graduated in Gombe and to be reintegrated into the society. They were also being reportedly paid N20,000 naira as stipend. The exercise of demobilisation and reintegration is still ongoing while armed banditry and terrorism are still spreading like wild fire across the country.

Kidnapping has assumed the status of an industry that has grown in lips and bounds, with very disturbing “GDP” ratio, that readily exposes the spinelessness of this government. Now, given the above information which spoke to the mindset of the president, is anybody surprised that these crimes and criminalities have continued to flourish in more devastating manner since 2015? So, when you reconcile the so-called achievements with the twin-evil of bloodletting and kidnapping, and subtract the X-factor from the equation, what you get is a leadership subtraction that would render all the integers impotent. The algorithms of these summations tell us that our equation has assumed a quadratic status. And that explains the complexities of a Buhari presidency loaded with incompetence and taciturnity, at a time when we ought to be on the superhighway. It is not just about physical achievements that should worry us or lack of it, it is the mental breakdown and the demolition of our collective psyche that is most disturbing and worrisome. Those who are mourning their loved ones, the mass burials, the growing hardship in the country, the high unemployment rate, the untold suffering in the land, the atmosphere of palpable fear and insecurity, the anxiety, the killings and bloodlettings, the agitations across the land, the ominous silence of the number one citizen, the selective application of anti-corruption laws, the deep-seated hypocrisy and the polarisation of the country, are the real issues that have dominated public discourse since Buhari climbed the leadership rostrum.

It has been a country of broken tongues, broken hearts and wailing consciences. This has also made the presidency to become experts in condolence messages, as well as chief mourner in a country that is heavily troubled and beleaguered. So, when President Buhari’s publicists dare to confront us, they should be reminded of the real issues and not the erection of a building that would end up unoccupied because the would-be occupants have been killed or kidnapped. The forest are oozing with smells of decaying bodies of victims of kidnapping. The farmlands have been abandoned for the fear factor. The new fond slavery that has become our second nature, and series of other dare-devil crises threatening the very foundation of the country. It is a matter of fact that in spite of the claimed achievements mentioned by Buhari’s publicists, Nigeria has never been this pummelled on all fronts. The dislocations are tellingly explosive in our individual lives. The poverty and hunger that stare us in the face is symptomatic of the failures of leadership under a 79-year old retired General, who in all ramifications, should actually be retired and resting.

The real jinx that president Buhari should break are the vexatious incidents of kidnapping and terrorism that have ravaged us for too long. He should break the jinx of growing and unsustainable unemployment rate of 33.8% in a country that is still heavily dependent on imports. He should break the jinx of nepotism that makes some citizens second and third class citizens in their country by the sheer fact of their state of origin. He should break the jinx of disunity that has created fractures in the walls of unity that hitherto bind us. He should break the jinx of selective amnesia that dominates public discourse on anti-corruption fight. He should break the bogey of corruption and financial malfeasance that is still being treated with kid gloves right before the very eyes of the president. He should reach out to all geopolitical zones, feel the pulse of their suffering and bloodletting, seek penitence, and generate dialogue that would help mitigate all the halitosis his weak leadership has brought upon us. He should break the jinx of hunger, poverty, Internally Displace Persons, deprivations, and want occasioned by poor economic policies that are neither here nor there. He should break the jinx of armed banditry and terrorism that has made life most devastating for the average Nigerian. The blood must cease to flow.

The rivers of blood should dry up. Insecurity should be broken. The welfare and security of lives and property which is the primary responsibility of government should be upheld with seriousness of purpose. Cataloguing some projects before us when our people for whom the projects are meant and dying in droves, is an insult upon injury. When people are not united, when there are social, political and economic dislocations across board, when people cannot pursue their daily legitimate endeavours, when the rule of gun has dominated public life, there is little or nothing to appreciate in physical properties or projects. Nigeria is bleeding profusely and the responsibility to stop this stops at the decorated table of the Commander-in-Chief. Telling me food is ready when my family members have been slaughtered is the height of insensitivity and wickedness, which Buhari’s spokesmen are rubbing on our face. Tufiakwa! Tufiakwa!! Tufiakwa!!!.

Very recently, President Muhammadu Buhari shocked the entire nation when he announced that he had discovered 368 grazing routes across the country. It was also reported that the President will proceed to take over these grazing routes, demarcate them appropriately and ultimately develop them for the use of herders and their cattle. This development came a few months after the Southern governors banned open grazing in the entire region. Let me share with you the plans of Mr. President on this project, as reported.

“President Muhammadu Buhari has approved the recommendations of a committee to review “with dispatch,” 368 grazing sites, across 25 states in the country, “to determine the levels of encroachment. The move, according to a statement by presidential spokesperson, Femi Adesina, was to curb the bloody clashes between herders and farmers across the country.
“The President’s directive followed his approval of the recommendations of a committee chaired by the Chief of Staff to the President, Prof. Ibrahim Gambari,” Adesina said in a statement.
“Among others, the committee had recommended the collection of field data on 368 Grazing Reserves across 25 States to assess encroachment and encroachers, stakeholder engagements and sensitization. The Committee also recommended production of maps and geo-mapping/tagging of sites, analysis of findings and report preparations as well as design appropriate communication on Grazing Reserves and operations.
“The number of the Grazing Reserves and States were deduced from considerations of existing security concerns and other pre-existing socio-economic conditions. The President directed that the assignment be undertaken with dispatch to bring more understanding on the Grazing Reserves, and implementation.
Members of the committee include, Governor of Kebbi State and Vice Chairman, National Food Security Council, Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, Governor of Ebonyi State and Chairman of NEC Sub-Committee for National Livestock Transformation Plan, David Umahi, Minister of Water Resources, Suleiman Adamu, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Sabo Nanono, Minister of Environment, Dr. Mohammad Mahmood Abubakar and Deputy Chief of Staff, Ade Ipaye.
“The Technical Sub-Committee consists of representatives from the seven members of the main committee in addition to representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Surveyor General of the Federation, National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) and National Space Research Development Agency (NASRDA).”

Nigerians in their multitudes have reacted in total condemnation of this latest policy of the Buhari administration. Let us now examine the legality of this project, by determining ownership of the land upon which the grazing routes are to be established. The law governing the use and administration of land in Nigeria today is the Land Use Act, which came into effect on March 29, 1978. Section 1 of the LUA provides as follows:

Vesting of land in the State

“1. Subject to the provisions of this Act, all land comprising the territory of each State in the Federation is hereby vested in the Governor of that State, and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

Control and management of land

2. (1) As from the commencement of this Act –

(a) all land in urban areas shall be under the control and management of the Governor of each State; and

(b) all other land shall, subject to this Act, be under the control and management of the local government within the area of jurisdiction of which the land is situated.”

The above provisions are clear and unambiguous in terms of the meaning and intendment of the LUA to vest land use management in the Governor of the State on behalf of the people. The powers of the President are clearly defined under the Constitution, especially in section 5 thereof. Furthermore, the Exclusive Legislative List does not list land as part of items vested in the federal government of Nigeria, for which the President could claim to exercise any right or power over land located in various States of the federation. It therefore means that the President has no power or authority over the use, management or control of land anywhere in Nigeria. Even for the Governors, power over the use and control of land is subject to certain statutory conditions, such as stipulated under the Constitution. It has thus remained a wonder to me where the President derived his powers to dabble into the issue of land management. For effect, the Land Use Act now enjoys the protection of the Constitution under and by virtue of section 315 (5) thereof:

“(5) Nothing in this Constitution shall invalidate the following enactments, that is to say –

(a) The National Youth Service Corps Decree 1993;

(b) The Public Complaints Commission Act;

(c) The National Security Agencies Act;

(d) The Land Use Act.

And the provisions of those enactments shall continue to apply and have full effect in accordance with their tenor and to the like extent as any other provisions forming part of this Constitution and shall not be altered or repealed except in accordance with the provisions of section 9 (2) of this Constitution.”

Going by the provisions of the Constitution and the LUA quoted above, the President cannot forcefully and compulsorily take over land in any State as grazing route as there is no such power granted to him by any of these vital laws. Whatever law the President is relying upon to trace the so-called grazing routes is totally repugnant to equity and natural justice, and inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and even the LUA. And since the Land Use Act came into force after the purported gazette being touted as the source of grazing routes, it automatically repeals the said gazette by necessary implication.

It is important to highlight the provisions of section 34 of the LUA, in relation to the ownership of land prior to the commencement of the Act in 1978. It states as follows:

“34. (1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect in respect of land in an urban area vested in any person immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Where the land is developed the shall continue to be held by the person in whom it was vested immediately before the commencement of this Act as if the holder of the land was the holder of a statutory right of occupancy issued by the Governor under this Act.”

Without any doubt therefore, the LUA preserves and protects land vested in citizens prior to its commencement in 1978, as such persons have deemed right of occupancy even though it has not been issued officially by the Governor. All they need do is to apply for it. If this is the case (and no doubt it is), the President cannot extinguish the right of land ownership granted under the LUA for the purpose of imposing grazing routes on land owners.

Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution are clear on the right to own immovable property (land) and freedom from compulsory acquisition, whether for grazing or any other purpose.

“43. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.”

44. (1) No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purpose prescribed by a law that, among other things:

(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefor; and

(b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.”

The zeal with which the President has been pursuing the establishment of grazing routes can only mean that he is working in line with a hidden agenda which he has not openly declared to the people of Nigeria that elected him into office. The governors who have control of use and management of land have openly condemned and opposed unrestrained open grazing as being impracticable and unsustainable. In whose interest therefore, is the President then acting, if I may ask?

The concept of open grazing, which the President is propagating with all his energy, is totally outdated. If the President had summoned the same zeal with which he has granted several media chats in support of open grazing, if the President had mobilized the same strength with which he is presently pursuing the recovery of the so-called grazing routes, to tackle insurgency and the mindless invasion by bandits, Nigeria would have been a peaceful place to live in. According to Wikipedia, grazing is “a method of animal husbandry whereby domestic livestock are allowed outdoors to consume wild vegetation in order to convert grass and other forages into meat, milk, wool and other animal products, often on land unsuitable for arable farming.” In Nigeria, the animals being referred to are the cows, assembled together by herdsmen who are itinerant livestock farmers. From the Wikipedia definition, the grass to be grazed is usually on land not suitable for arable farming. This then takes us to the very important question of ownership of land.

Generally, grazing is not expected to be a free for all exercise embarked upon openly and with reckless abandon, not giving care to ownership of land and farmlands. This is the major difference between the position of the President and the people of Nigeria. Open grazing simply means that herdsmen will be free to trespass upon land anywhere and at any time, with their cattle, whether or not that may lead to destruction of crops on farmlands is immaterial. In order to preserve the provisions of the Land Use Act, it has been inserted into the 1999 Constitution as one of the laws that cannot be easily amended. The right of occupancy granted under the LUA has been held to be sacrosanct, by the Supreme Court and it cannot be overreached even by the Governor, without following due process of law through proper acquisition and compensation. If the Governor cannot take over land without following due process of law, how will it be possible for herdsmen to take over people’s land without their consent and even proceed to destroy their crops, at will and unquestioned? This is what the President is defending, with our meager resources. It is simply unacceptable and I urge the President to drop the idea of compulsory and illegal grazing routes.

– Adegboruwa is a senior advocate of Nigeria