I am an admirer of Malala Yousafzai, the young Pashtun girl who was literally shot into fame, allegedly by the Taliban. Since fate got me to write my Ph.D dissertation, submitted to UCLA, on Pakistan, I have always had a soft spot for the country. I spent about six months of field trip in the country in 1981 and it was a beautiful learning experience.

Malala was shot for daring to continue going to school when the Taliban had decreed an end to schooling by the girl-child. The gunman had thought he ended Malala’s life for it to serve as lesson to others. But British repaired Malala to the extent that one can hardly notice the damage. Malala lived to continue her education in Britain and became the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize that she won with Kailash Satyarthi in 2014.

So much has been written about her and there are many quotes of her’s. I once listened to Malala on audio talking about how her mum rebuked her as she pressed Malala to cover her face because men are looking at her and Malala quipped to the effect that she also wanted to look at the men. Described as the “bravest girl in the world” by Christiane Amanpour in a CNN interview, her response to a question has become a compelling CNN promo: Christiane Amanpour had noted that she still has huge dreams in spite of being shot to which she responded: “They only shot a body but they cannot shoot my dreams.”

Sunday Adeyemo, a.k.a Sunday Igboho, was arrested in Cotonou on July 19, 2021, ostensibly by security agents acting on the request of Nigeria. Like the stunningly beautiful Yoruba heroine, Moremi, saved Ile-Ife from its tormentors in Yoruba folklore, Sunday Igboho decided to save his people at Igangan from Fulani herders who were being led by a so-called Sarkin Fulani. The reportedly gun-wielding herdsmen had been kidnapping, maiming, raping and collecting ransom that Sarkin Fulani of Igangan reportedly used to facilitate.

Sunday Igboho organized his people and disarmed the tormentors and put them on the run. The so-called Sarkin Fulani of Igangan confessed in an interview that the name of Sunday Igboho instils fear into him. Like Malala did on the Taliban, Sunday Igboho exposed to his people that there was no reason to be afraid of a bully. Sunday Igboho, overnight, acquired the status of the bravest Yoruba man even if the Yoruba traditional authorities went quiet as if nothing happened.

Prior to the disarming the Sarkin Igangan, Sunday Igboho had been a local agitator for the realization of an independent Yoruba nation. On October 1, 2020, a rally in support of the self-determination position was avoided by many, including those who were expected to lead the peaceful rally. But Sunday Igboho showed up and led a small number of people. Sunday Igboho’s extraordinary achievement at Igangan rubbed on some of the so-called Yoruba leaders who, all of a sudden, started to join Professor Banji Akintoye to speak up on Yoruba self-determination.

The voice of Yoruba fat cats who wanted restructuring were being drowned. Even compromise positions like a confederal Nigeria that I continue to advocate as superior to both the current militarized centralist federation of Nigeria and an independent Oduduwa Republic was pushed back. The rallies being called by the bravest Yoruba man were being attended by many. He drew large crowds that did not provoke disorder. Political, religious and traditional authorities were not enthused but started to notice the popular warmth towards Sunday Igboho.

Sunday Igboho was a grass-root mobilizer for bigger politicians like former Governor Rasheed Ladoja. He lacked finesse. So, he spoke as he saw it. He condemned and even cursed many Yoruba leaders irrespective of whether they were revered traditional, political or religious authorities. This was costly.
Aside from the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), many wanted Sunday Igboho dead. Though he is not a saint as most of us are not, he definitely was bad for the lucrative business of courting the FGN to keep or acquire access to the steady looting of national patrimony and other forms of corruption.

It was no surprise that the FGN deployed all sorts of security capacities at the beginning of July 2021 to, once and for all, “crush” Sunday Igboho in an overnight attack. The jury is still out on the constitutionality of this attack that violated many aspects of the rule of law. Two of the people reportedly preparing for a peaceful rally in Lagos were killed as others were arrested and remain in detention. But Sunday Igboho escaped. This escape further boosted the myth around the bravest Yoruba man. He was eventually arrested in Cotonou, Benin Republic on Monday July 19, 2021.

It is still not clear as to if he would be freed to continue his journey or extradited. Even if he is exile, extradited, jailed or killed, the solace would have been in the quote from Malala Yousafzai. The FGN can only shoot a body or jail a person. They cannot shoot his/her dreams. Moremi had to be captured before returning to save Ile-Ife, the spiritual headquarters of the Yoruba people. Madiba Mandela’s dreams continued to burn beyond his incarceration. The Yoruba sage, Obafemi Awolowo who was incarcerated till he was released to be Deputy to General Yakubu Gowon showed leadership.

The need to jettison the 1999 Constitution is clear. Exile, incarceration or killing Igboho can no longer change that. The Governors from the South of Nigeria have already caught the bug for change even if there are differences on what the aftermath should look like. Furthermore, the Yoruba Governors are showing more assertiveness over lands that were constitutionally granted to them to hold in public trust in their respective states.

For instance, Yoruba Governors threw all caution to the wind and joined other Southern states’ Governors to issue the Asaba declaration on May 11, 2021, that has 11 points of concern for the continued corporate existence of Nigeria. Affirming their commitment to a just, fair, equitable one Nigeria in peaceful co-existence, the Governors pointed to the incursions of armed herders, criminals and bandits into Southern Nigeria threatening food security, the meeting resolved that open grazing of cattle be banned and such ban be implemented across Southern Nigeria by ensuring a stop to the movement of cattle to the South on the hoof and instead urged the Federal Government to invest on modern livestock management systems. Perhaps very politically crucial were recommendations (v) and (vi) that:

“agreed that the progress of the nation requires that urgent and bold steps be taken to restructure the Nigerian Federation leading to the evolution of state police, review of revenue allocation formula in favour of the sub-national governments and creation of other institutions which legitimately advance our commitment to and practice of true federalism;
recommended that in view of widespread agitations among our various peoples for greater inclusiveness in existing governance arrangements, the Federal Government should convoke a national dialogue as a matter of urgency;”

The Southern Governors rounded up their communique by expressing concern on the spate of insecurity plaguing the nation and called on the President to address the nation in boosting popular confidence.

The Asaba Declaration was very popular in Southern Nigeria. The positive spirit was reiterated at a follow-up meeting of the Governors in Lagos on July 5, 2021, when a deadline for legislations on banning of open grazing of cattle should be in place in all the Southern states. This position from the follow-up meeting was in spite of the President of Nigeria, the President of the Senate of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation leading the chorus from Northern Nigeria to denounce the position of the 17 Governors from the South.

It is high time that the meeting of the 17 Governors from the South of Nigeria be thrown open to embrace other devolutionist Governors all over Nigeria, but especially from the North-Central geopolitical zone. The Benue state Governor should be readily welcomed into the devolutionist meetings. I would not call them progressive governors because they are not, since none of them is controlling corruption by, for instance, transparently making open how they are spending the security votes allocated to their respective states.
For me, demands for restructuring of the polity must be preceded by the restructuring of Nigerian values away from the current emphasis on materialism at the expense of integrity and character. The issue is not whether a President is from the South of Nigeria in 2023 as the Governors from the South of Nigeria demanded at their Lagos meeting. It is to realise a critical mass of ungreedy National and State Assembly members in conjunction with a visionary leader who is an epitome of integrity with great selfless serving spirit. The emphasis being on the people as opposed to a few friends to be enriched as national patrimony continues to be looted.

Sunday Igboho’s dream of a just, fair, equitable treatment for his people is already kindled and it cannot be killed through incarceration or elimination. In fact, the FGN is unwittingly making Sunday Igboho a martyr when he should not have been one among a sophisticated and highly educated people. But since the Yoruba lack self-less visionary leaders, there is room for an activist like Sunday Igboho.

Should Sunday Igboho be released by the Republic of Benin authorities, he would thank his stars that he would only be in exile. And if he is extradited and jailed but not killed, he would need to be strong and accept that only few Yoruba leaders will speak up and stand by him. The sizable Yoruba diaspora would help Sunday Igboho’s heroic leadership. He should expect that his millions of supporters at home would be relatively unorganized and actively disorganized by the greedy Yoruba bad leaders of whatever category. But the tide is already turning.

Babafemi A. Badejo, former Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Somalia is currently a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Chrisland University, Abeokuta, Nigeria.

Privately and publicly, people have been asking why I remain skeptical about the Oduduwa Republic agitation and I always take people back to the emergence and consolidation of the Buhari regime.

We Yorubas made Buhari president. Igbos never pretended that they didn’t want him.

And we called them names. A major monarch in the South-west asked them to do and drown in the lagoon.

We clapped.

In promoting and defending Buhari, we nearly ruined the reputation, and to some extent, lives of fellow Yorubas who didn’t join the bandwagon then.

I don’t want to recollect the kind of unprintable names my compatriots called me.

After Buhari emerged and we saw the disaster unfolding under his Presidency, I expected my people to rise up and live up to our reputation as a principled race.

But we didn’t.

No one SUSTAINED and HELPED the Buhari regime to become the monster that it is today than its Yoruba defenders and supporters!

When, in June 2015, there was this claim that TAM of Port-Harcourt refinery was done under TWO weeks, we raised alarm that this was not possible.

This is what someone said:

“It was not possible under the thieves that you supported. But by mere body language of Buhari, things are falling into place. Just watch.”

In July 2015, after 48 houses were returned to Timpreye Sylva (who paid for Buhari’s nomination form) by the EFCC, I raised alarm that Buhari’s anti-corruption, was nothing but a ruse.

They descended on me.

“You have to get over your loss. It is too early to stop crying. We know free money has stopped; so we expect corruption to fight back.”

When his appointments were becoming glaringly lopsided, we also raised alarm.

Hear them again:

“He can only appoint those he can trust and work with. You are pained because there is no free money again. Get over your loss.”

When (Vice President Yemi) Osibajo and (Asiwaju Bola) Tinubu openly repudiated the agitation for restructuring and true federalism and we reminded them that this had been Yoruba’s position since Babangida days, they snapped at us:

” Why didn’t you raise the issue of restructuring under your clueless Jonathan?”

When herdsmen were trying to start the menace they constitute in the South-west today, one Buharist from Ekiti State said to me:

“Egbon, stop making noise. Buhari has nothing to do with this. Let our governors rise up and stop playing politics. Buhari will not give them any special money.”

Under Jonathan, Tinubu and his party convinced Yorubas to boycott the 2014 Political and Constitutional Conference in Abuja.

Let the present agitators go and check the recommendations of that Conference.

If Yorubas had not made it their duty to be the chief defenders on Buhari, we would have PROBABLY put this man on his toes from day one and FORCE him to behave.

And you know what?

There may even not be need for any Oduduwa Republic agitation!

But when you create a Frankenstein Monster, learn to live with its consequences…

•Source: Facebook

Ayo Olukotun

“The Emir of Kajuru, 30 minutes drive from Kaduna and 12 of his family members were forcefully kidnapped last night. The bandits operated freely for one hour. In my Kaduna state nowadays, it’s no more about who is safe, but who is the next victim.”

Senator Shehu Sani, The Punch, Monday, July 11, 2021.

Kaduna is or used to be an urban planner’s delight combining the laid-back and leisurely aspects of suburbia with the features of a well laid-out city providing spare room for orderly expansion. It was the political and social bastion of the Kaduna mafia, an interconnected group of influential business, bureaucratic and political leaders who called the shots not only in northern Nigeria but well beyond it. Sadly, even tragically, as Senator Shehu Sani described it in the opening quote, Kaduna and its environs are now at the mercy of a republic of bandits inching perilously close to the jugular of that once aesthetically-arresting city.

For the better part of this year, the Kaduna state has witnessed spectacular raids on schools, institutions of tertiary education as well as prominent individuals, the latest of which is the Emir of Kajuru, who, along with his throne and family members were captured and forcibly moved to a kidnapper’s den. The 85-year-old emir was released a day or two later but the bandits cruelly held on to his dependants demanding a ransom of 200 million naira as price for securing their release. Grievously but characteristically, there was no police presence throughout the duration of the nocturnal seizure of Kajuru, notwithstanding the fact that it warehouses a local government secretariat and is a mere half-an-hour drive from the Kaduna metropolis which boasts established police and military presence.

This columnist has returned again and again to the topic of insecurity, not least because it holds the key to economic and social growth, political stability, the prospects of the 2023 elections, and indeed the very survival of the country and its tormented citizens. The Emir’s capture and ordeal are metaphors of a state in the throes of demystification and anguish, its law enforcement apparatus hollowed out and unable or incapable of averting worst case scenarios until they have transpired with momentous consequences. The 85-year-old emir, Alhaji Alhassan Adamu, reportedly wept after his release; it is likely that he wept more for a country so intimately violated and yet unable to offer any resistance even at the highest echelons of political and traditional power. It is unlikely that the emir had lived through such a period of turmoil and arrogant incompetence.

Doubtless, we have always known that the police are undermanned, underequipped and easily overwhelmed by hostile forces. When some weeks back, for example, bandits attacked the Bethel Baptist Secondary School in Kaduna and made away with 121 students, the feeble resistance offered by security agents was easily repelled leading to the death of two policemen, a disturbing memento of inefficiency and shortage of human and material resources. In the same connection, there was this report published in The Punch on Sunday (July 11, 2021) about the breakdown of equipment meant for tracking the whereabouts of kidnappers and locating their dens. The equipment had broken down for several months because of the lack of system upgrade, and apparently, nobody had exercised the sense of urgency required to fix such strategic ammunition in the fight against spreading banditry and high-profile kidnapping.

Ordinarily, beefing up the institutional capacity, fighting teeth and logistical backup of law enforcement should have been part of a state-building project for a visionary political elite. What we get however, are a torrent of words, promises, boastfulness wrapped up in vain assurances in the midst of deepening quagmire. If there is any time to rise to the occasion of a fast degenerating circumstance, it is now.

OSUN STATE UNIVERSITY’S VC’S RACE: REPEATING THE LASU CRISIS

Osun State University, arguably one of our best state-owned higher institutions, has done well for itself in the last five years spanning the tenures of Professor Labode Popoola, Vice-Chancellor; Council Chairman, Yusuf Ali, SAN; and Chancellor, Folorunsho Alakija. To show for their industry, the student population has expanded phenomenally while the institution has transited from an off-campus status to residential standing both in its main and satellite campuses. Admirably, infrastructural development has soared providing for staff and students a more conducive environment for learning and research. This beneficial uptake notwithstanding, there are danger signals flashing a miasma in the ongoing attempt to appoint a new vice-chancellor for the university, a successor to Popoola.

A recent advert for the position of vice-chancellor departs from the norm and the standard of such publications in a number of ways that have not just raised eyebrows but led to insinuations that the conditions stipulated may have been tailor-made to preclude the majority of professors and include a candidate in waiting. Over-stipulating the qualifications of the next vice-chancellor, the advert demands that such a person should have published a minimum of “fifty research (journal) articles with at least 20 of the articles published in high-impact journals as defined by Thomson Reuters, ISI and Web of Science”. As if those were not exclusive enough and ostentatiously peaked above the ken of the majority of academics, the advert went on to demand that the candidates must have published “at least ten research articles in the last three years in high-impact journals as defined by Thomson Reuters, ISI and Web of Science”.

This columnist’s recent experience in serving as a member of the Special Visitation Panel to Lagos State University on the choice of a vice-chancellor made me sensitive to the possibility of pre-selection of candidates through the skewing of criteria advertised for the post. It all begins this way but if not arrested easily snowballs into an unmanageable crisis.

Perusing a similar advert by the University of Ibadan and the one by Osun State University which brought in the incumbent, those conditions mentioned above are remarkably absent from them. The problem is that the advert is over-determined and renders as initial conditions what should have been the assignment of the Joint Committee of Council and Senate acting as a screening panel to separate excellent applicants from also-rans. What this means is that the majority of prospective candidates who do not meet these extraordinary barometers would be prevented from applying with the field left open for possibly favoured candidates who fit the bill.

Beyond that, the advert raises the question whether the work of the vice-chancellor who presides over academic and nonacademic staff is the same as that of an outstanding research director who is expected to stay at the cutting-edge of high-impact scientific publications. This may be an ideal of a kind in years to come, but the current state of academic infrastructure in Nigerian universities makes it, at least for now, an obstacle course and an impossible ideal.

At any rate, why erect hurdles which discriminate against those in the humanities and social sciences as requirements for applications? To avoid another full-blown crisis, it is advised that the current highfalutin advert be withdrawn and be replaced by a more usual one which will spread the dragnet more widely. For effect, the visitor to the university as well as the council should take interest in the matter before it degenerates.

Professor Ayo Olukotun is a director at the Oba (Dr.) S. K. Adetona Institute of Governance Studies, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye.

The Ninth Assembly has been carrying on its duties in a way that frustrates true democracy. It has so prostrated itself as the Executive’s foot mat that all it would leave for Nigerians is just a legacy of cowardice.

And like the ruling party itself, it has hypocritically been praising itself to high heavens. Sometimes, one would just wish that the All Progressives Congress would just change that middle word in its name, call itself anything it would choose as long as it is not “progressives”.

Has anybody in the top echelon of the Senate and the House of Representatives asked themselves whether their passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) and the Electoral Act would strengthen the bonds that bind the various sections of Nigeria together or would they further slash into pierces those weather-beaten bonds? Will they make Nigeria a better place?

ABUJA DOCTOR REVEALS THE UNIQUE WAY TO PERMANENTLY CURE WEAK ERECTION, SMALL AND SHAMEFUL MANHOOD AND INFERTILITY ISSUES WITHOUT SIDE-EFFECTS WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD. CLICK NOW TO SEE!
Whatever happened to the independent national legislature that many of their predecessors struggled mightily to build? Just a few years ago, the Dr. Bukola Saraki-led Senate was as independent as it should be. And the Dogara-led House of Representatives was worthy of the records the House of Representatives had set when the Lion of the National Assembly, Ghali Umar Na’Abba occupied the seat of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Perhaps, I should begin by giving you an example.

On 16th July 2021, the House of Representatives hosted the Nigerian Communications Commission in its chambers to answer some questions. This was subsequent to the House Resolution of 15th July, that the NCC should appear before it to brief/guide the entire house on the reality of Electronic Transmission of Election Results.

I saw on a WhatsApp forum a version of what transpired when the NCC officials showed up. It was purportedly a verbatim report of what the Chairman, House Committee on Communications, Hon. Prince Akem Adeniyi Adeyemi himself wrote. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the report, so, I will treat it with great circumspection, and so I will ask, is it true that…. Hon. Adeyemi wrote words to this effect?

“I asked the NCC two questions to open the floor and guide us accordingly

Question 1: Could the NCC provide the House with the detailed analysis of coverage of the entire nation in this regard?

Question 2: Does the NCC have the technology to avert hacking of the electronic transmission of results by hackers?

Answer 1: Based on NCC and INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) exercises of the entire 120, 000 polling units in Nigeria in 2018, 50% of Nigeria is covered with 2G/3G network, while 40% of Nigeria is covered with 2G network only and 10% is not covered at all.

Electronic transmission of results could only occur via 3G network. Hence only 50% of Nigeria is where electronic transmission can take place.

Answer 2: Developed countries are battling with hackers. Therefore, NCC cannot guarantee non-hacking of the system.

These, however, guided the House of Representatives accordingly, and we took a safe decision to reject the amendment”.

Sincerely, I hope that Hon. Prince Akeem Adeniyi Adeyemi did not write the words credited to him and that a good for nothing impersonator dreamed up those question and answers and the comments that followed.

I say this because I would not in a million years bring myself to imagine that Nigeria would ever witness such a day, when a member of the House of Representatives, let alone a Chairman of a Committee would so advertise his queasy service o his fatherland.

This bill had been in the National Assembly for years. It has been debated for a long time. The Committee had deliberated on it before it would have been brought to the main floor of the Committee of the whole for the final decision on it before it would progress to the level of harmonization with the Senate.

So, that should not and would not have been the time to ask the NCC or telephone industry experts the questions so pertinent to the bill that they should have been asked at the very beginning of the Committee’s deliberations.

So, if the Communications Committee was just getting such answers on the day the Committee of the whole House sat to cast the final votes, what input did the House Committee on Communications make into the bill? Exactly what had the Committee been deliberating on?

Sincerely, had the House of Representatives been a private enterprise owned by Prince Adeyemi and a worker in his company, who had been paid for months to, among other projects, help amend an Electoral Act for the company, did not bother to find the answers to some burring questions that should help the company take the right decisions on which its getting the right Chief Executive officers depend?

Instead, if that staff would begin to ask such questions on the final decision making day, won’t he sack the laggardly and slacker staff? Or would he in all sincerity give him an award for waiting till the dying minutes when the company was closing shop after many months’ countdown?

And just for the sake of argument, what if the NCC’s representative misinformed the house in any way? What if the person lied? How was the House Communications Committee Chairman to know if the NCC representative was talking arrant nonsense or the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Has he cross-check such claims? Or is there no need for such?

It is even a cause for worse shame that the second answer from the NCC’s representative was given any weight by the House of Representative. Who on Earth does not know that computer hackers do exist and that they can hack into even a central bank’ account? Yet, have closed every bank on planet Earth?

It is globally known that the US election which threw up Donald Trump as President has remained controversial because of the accusations that it was hacked. And Russia has been at the end of the United States of America’s finger pointing. Yet, five years later, didn’t the US conduct another election in the same way it did when Trump won? And didn’t Trump lose this time around?

I’m surprised that a Chairman of a House of Representatives Committee on Communications could have asked such an inane question. His inquiries should have gone to a totally opposite direction; what to do to minimise hacking of the INEC electoral communication system, especially its result uploading system. If the House of Representatives was so scared stiff of the possibility of hacking, why would it allow INEC to have anything at all to do with computers in its entire voting and result collating system?

I pray that the level of keenness of spirit to duty Prince Adeyemi has exhibited is not exactly the sign of how dead things are in the present Communications Committee of House of Representatives or of that House itself, or of the National Assembly, even.

Ah, why would memory so torment me? It is sheer torture just remembering the zest with which a former Chairman of that same Committee had approached his duties. Thank God that Nigeria had Hon. Nduka Irabor in that duty post when Nigeria was welcoming the GSM companies and technology into the country.

Chief Irabor went at the task before him with the total commitment that he could sum up; and he fought stoutly for the common Nigerian. Had last Friday’s interaction between the House of Reps and the NCC taken place by 2001, 2002 or 2003, Irabor would not have been asking the sort of useless questions his successor asked.

Irabor would have already obtained some answers that would make electronic transmission of results feasible in Nigeria. Or are we saying that no African or Latin American or even Third World country transmits election results electronically?

In those heady days of GSM’s entry into Nigeria, Irabor made it plain that his Committee was committed to the good of the citizenry and was ready to defend the people from the hands of an administration that was colluding with the GSM companies. The Presidency made it look like those companies were doing Nigeria some charitable work by setting up shop on our shores. And once Nigerians knew they could trust him, those with some experience and competence in telephony issues started bombarding him with information and a road map to an effective and cheap telephony system for Nigeria.

Of course, Irabor was not alone. He had the support of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ghali Na’Abba. At the time when the National Assembly enjoyed its greatest independence, the late Chuba Okadigbo was Senate President. With Na’Abba, they kept President Obasanjo on his toes. Even during the session that ended in 2015, the National Assembly was still independent – thanks to Senate President Bukola Saraki and Speaker Yakubu Dogara.

Now, the National Assembly has become a branch of the presidency. Whenever the President sends a request for an approval for a loan, he gets it automatically. Senate confirmation hearings are predictable for it is almost a charade – except for a Ms Lauretta Onochie who could have been taught a lesson that there must be a limit to lusciousness.

There was once a National Assembly in Nigeria; vibrant, independent, assiduous and concerned for the needs of the ordinary citizen. Now, it is just an outpost of the APC political party. Yet, it is pertinent to point out that when Okadigbo and Na’Abba turned the heat against former President Obasanjo the most, just to keep him in check, the National Assembly was overwhelmingly of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) members.

It was a PDP controlled National Assembly that tossed out Obasanjo’s veto of the NDDC bill by a two-thirds majority vote against a PDP President. And it was a PDP controlled Senate, under Senate President Ken Nnamani, that threw out the Third Term bill that should have benefitted Obasanjo, a PDP President.

Such a National Assembly has since been buried. And history will remember the NASS leaders under whose watch this happened. There was a National Assembly! What exists now in its place is a shameful imitation.

By Sylvester C. Udemezue

Because of the pride of place the judiciary occupies in society, the courts of law have come to be applauded as the temple of justice, the last hope of the common man, a bastion of hope for sustenance of true democracy, rule of law and due administration of justice, the impartial arbiter, et cetera. This is because of public belief and confidence in the disposition and ability of the courts to dispense justice with utmost impartiality, notwithstanding whose ox is gored and ensure that in all cases, justice is not only done, but is seen clearly to be done. Judicial and other officers involved in the administration of justice must therefore engage and be seen to engage only in conducts and pronouncements that inspire, promote and sustain, rather retard, public confidence and respect.

Bearing this in mind, I now ask, what manner of recklessness is this displayed by the learned trial judge of the FHC Jigawa, in the Soludo/APGA case in re the upcoming Anambra Governorship elections? Is this not the type of scenario that could ground a disciplinary procedure against a sitting judge to serve as a deterrent to other Please, don’t tell me that “as the court pleases” should apply here!

And I do not think the learned Judge’s privileges or immunity extends to absolve him from blame in the present instance.

ThisDay Newspaper of July 17, 2021 had reported as follows: “Citing obedience to court rulings, the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), yesterday dropped Prof. Chukwuma Soludo of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), and Valentine Ozigbo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from the unveiled list of candidates for the November 6 Governorship Election in Anambra State.In the originating summons, a chieftain of the party, Okoye Nwabuogo, is seeking an order of court setting aside the election and nomination of Soludo as the party’s candidate for the November election.The suit dated July 6, 2021, and filed the same day by counsel to the plaintiff, Okoro Nkemakolam, is further seeking an order restraining Soludo from parading himself as the validly or duly elected candidate of the party for the said election.Listed as defendants in the pre-election suit, are APGA, Prof Charles Soludo and INEC. While urging the court to invalidate and set aside the entire primary election of the party held on June 23, the plaintiff is equally seeking an order of injunction restraining INEC, listed as 3rd defendant, from accepting the name of or recognising Prof Soludo (the 2nd Defendant), as the candidate of APGA (the 1st defendant), for the Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled to hold on November 6, 2021”. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/07/17/anambra-election-inec-excludes-soludo-ozigbo-apga-kicks/amp/)

2️⃣ If all obvious necessary parties were not joined to the suit, the judge in the interest of justice, should have, before making any order against any person, ensured/ordered that all obvious necessary parties must be joined and duly served with all court processes, for an effectual, effective, and just determination of the suit? Order 9 Rule 5 of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019: “Any person may be joined as defendant against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative. Judgment may be given against one or more of the defendants as may be found to be liable, according to their respective liabilities, without any amendment”.

Although by virtue of Order 9 Rule 14.(1) of the FHC Rules, ”No proceeding shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and a judge may deal with the matter controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before him”, yet, Order 9 Rule 14.(3) provides that a judge may at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party be added, who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the proceedings. Upon adding such a party, the judge should order that “every party whose name is added as defendant shall be served with the originating processes or notice in the manner prescribed in these Rules or in such manner as may be prescribed by a judge and the proceedings against such person shall be deemed to have begun on the service of such originating processes or notice”_. Order 9 Rule 14 (5) FHC Civil Procedure Rules 2019). By Order 9 Rule 16, Where a defendant is added or substituted the originating processes shall be amended accordingly and the plaintiff shall unless otherwise ordered by a judge file an amended originating process and cause the new defendant to be served in the same manner as the original defendant.

The necessary parties in this suit include the winner of the APGA primary election whose name had been submitted to the INEC s the part’s flag bearer for the November 2021 gubernatorial elections in Anambra State, the political party itself (APGA) and the electoral umpire (INEC). If the suit was asking the FHC to recognize a faction of APGA as the authentic faction, then the FHC judge ought to have ordered all court processes to be served on all other factions or factional chairmen (if any) of the same political party and on INEC and the declared winner of the primary elections.

However, if Soludo and his segment of APGA were already parties to the suit, then because of the nature of this case, the court should never have issued an order disqualifying Soludo or recognizing the other faction, without first (1). Ordering service of the processes on all the defendants and also hearing from them. This is because there was actually no emergency. Even if Soludo goes ahead to contest and win, he could still be sacked if it turns out he ought to not be the rightfully candidate of APGA. See Peter Obi V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (S.C. 123/2007 ) [2007] NGSC 180 (13 July 2007). See also AMAECHI v. INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-446(SC); Amaechi v. INEC III (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 170. So, why the rush by the Federal High Court to issue an order disqualifying a party it had not heard from? How could a Court grant an order recognizing a particular person (a factional chairman of a political party) as the authentic chairman of that party without hearing from the factional chairmen of the same party? That’s pure judicial recklessness that shouldn’t be tolerated in a civilized system if we want our fledgling democracy to grow to maturity and stability.

With due respect, the trial judge was wrong to have entertained a suit seeking to disqualify a political party’s candidate or to have substituted with another person’s name, the name of the declared winner of a primary election whose name has already been submitted to the electoral umpire by the political party, without hearing from the said disqualified candidate or substituted aspirant before the court order . Such is awkward, against the rule of law and natural justice. The Jigawa FHC shouldn’t have removed Soludo behind his back and replacing his name with another’s! Does our law permit a man’s hair to be shaved behind his back? Why did the judge allow such an awkward procedure? Prof Soludo and his segment of APGA were a necessary parties to the suit and no order should have been given without hearing from those two.

Anyway, this is the era of judicial rascality and recklessness! The other day, precisely on July 07, 2021, without joining the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) itself, which was a necessary party and without whose presence the issues for determination in that suit couldn’t reasonably be said to have been determined with finality, another FHC had entertained and delivered judgment in a suit seeking to determine the fate of Mrs Kemi Adeosun over the latter’s NYSC evasion scandal. Further, earlier in the first quarter of 2019, the CCT Chairman for Nigeria had granted an ex parte order directing FG to suspend Nigeria’s CJN from office.

Note: ▪️a). The CCT ordinarily has no power to entertain such an application or to grant such an order. Hence, with due respect, the order was ultra vires and therefore illegal, and should have been treated as null and of no effect. Yet, thay was the order the FG relied upon to suspend Hon Justice Onnoghen from office.▪️b). According to unrefuted reports, no lawyer had moved the said ex Parte Motion before the CCT Chairman. ▪️c). There was no report of any public hearing of the motion ex parte. Yet, all other restraining orders of the competent Federal High Court (FHC ) were ignored in preference for the illegal, surreptitious and suspicious order of the CCT Chairman.

Anyway, as it stands, the order of the FHC, Jigawa, suspicious and laughable as it may be, must be obeyed by the INEC, the order being that of a competent court of law. This is in line with the directive of the Supreme Court that an order of a competent court remains binding and effective unless and until set aside or overruled by the same or a coordinate Court, or otherwise reversed by a higher or repealed by a legislation. See Military Governor of Lagos State v Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu (1986-LCER-3600-SC); (1986) JELR 51747 (SC); (1986) 2 NWLR (PT 18) 621, It is for this reason that Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr had declared in his book, “The Path Of The Law” thus: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law“ (see http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm).

WHAT’S THE WAY OUT FOR PARTIES NOT DENIED A FAIR HEARING? OR ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE JIGAWA FHC ORDER?

For the reasons I have given above, the case is not res judicata. The Jigawa FHC judgment or order obviously adversely affects the interest of both Prof Soludo and the Victor Oye-led APGA. Both and each are entitled to have that court order set aside in order for both and each to be afforded an opportunity of being heard as required by section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which provides as follows: “36.(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”.

◼️Are Soludo and the Victor Oye-led APGA entitled to join the suit for purposes of protecting their own interests? If they’re not already joined, then the answer is a resounding YES. They’re necessary parties who ought to have been joined from Day One. Their non jointer is fatal to application of res judicata, estoppel band natural justice. Neither of them is estoppel from reopening or joining the case. See Ladoja’s (HON. MUYIWA V HON. ADELEKE) (SC 272/2006)[2007] NGSC 30; (2007) 1 All N.L.R. 65.

◼️The next question is, would they (Soludo and APGA) succeed in having the disqualifying FHC order set aside? My respectful answer is, “most probably”, based on breach of Soludo’s and APGA’s right to a fair hearing in line with section 36(1) afore-cited. When the court or any authority is required to observe the principle of natural justice in passing an order but fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is void. See also R. University of Cambridge ex parte Dr. Bentley (1723) 1 Str. 757. See also Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) A.C. 40 where the court held the decision of the authority void on the ground of the breach of the rule of fair hearing. The principle of natural justice must be observed irrespective of the reason, whether the purpose would be served or not. See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597. For this purpose, please see also BBthe following Nigerian cases: Baba v Civil Aviation (1991) 7 SCNJ, Pt. 1, 1; Ogundoyin v Adeyemi (2001) 13 NWLR, Pt. 730, 403; Kotoye v CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98), 419 at 444; Bamgboye v University of Ilorin (1999) 6 SCNJ 295 at 331; Salu v Egeibon (1994) 6 SCNJ 223 at 234; and Kim v State (1992) 4 SCNJ 81.The simplest connotation of the requirement of Fair hearing is that every affected/interested party must be given unhindered opportunity to present his case before a court, tribunal, or body that will dispassionately determine his right, failing which any order made against him is liable to be set aside. See Newswatch Communication Ltd v Atta (2006) 2 NWLR, Pt. 993, 144 at 181 – 182; Ekpeto v Wanogho

(2004) 18 NWLR, Pt. 905, 394. If we take care of rule of law, rule of law will take care of us. No court of law had the right to do whatever it likes unless what it likes is liked by the law!

Respectfully,
Sylvester C. Udemezue (udems). 08109024556.
[email protected]. (18/July/2021)