By Sonnie Ekwowusi

The CAC should sit up

It is unfortunate that despite the revolutionary technological innovation brought about by the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (CAMA 2020) coupled with the innovative technology at the disposal of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Abuja, the Commission is still dysfunctional, inefficient and incompetent. Instead of enhancing the ease of doing business and promoting entrepreneurship and economic prosperity, the CAC has become a big obstacle to doing business in Nigeria. For example, company documents filed at the CAC oftentimes are lost within the precinct of the CAC. Searches for availability of company names at the CAC, which is supposed to be a very simple exercise, now drags on for about four months. You cannot apply for ordinary certified true copies of documents at the CAC and get them within a reasonable time. Confusion reigns at the CAC. Things got so bad at the CAC last year that some Abuja lawyers staged a peaceful protest in front of the commission’s headquarters at Maitama, Abuja. Whereas registration of private limited liability companies lasts not more than one day in other countries, at our CAC it could take between six months and one year unless the applicant is to ready to pay “extortion fee”.

On several occasions the CAC had announced to the public that company registration in Nigeria could be expeditiously done on-line and that the certificate of such registered company could be printed online in one’s office or bedroom. But this is just a ruse. In practice, online company registration is still a mirage. You may succeed in filling the requisite forms for the company incorporation online quite alright but you can hardly complete the incorporation exercise in one month or even two months. Why? Because the CAC Server is epileptic. Ditto for the CAC Portal. Some 50% of company information on the CAC portal are incorrect and need to be updated. Right now the complaint unit of the CAC is inundated with endless customers’ complaints. It is obvious that the Commission can no longer cope with the numerous customers’ complaints lodged every day. The CAC does not even acknowledge receipt of these complaints. The matter is worsened by the fact that the Commission does not have dedicated phone lines to address customers’ numerous complaints. More importantly, under the watch of CAC, many scammers operate fictitious companies and even use them to commit all sorts of scam undetected.

The scandalising aspect is that under the guise of exercising its statutory powers, especially its power under section 41 (7) of CAMA 2020, the CAC is now undermining the integrity of the judiciary and disobeying court orders. For example, you may be aware of the sporadic shooting that took place at the Balogun Market, Lagos last two weeks. That shooting indirectly sprang from the abuse of powers of the CAC. Lately there has been simmering leadership tussle between the Balogun Business Association and some disgruntled officers and members of the association. This tussle has so deteriorated that it has given rise to multiple law suits in courts: the Balogun Business Association has instituted several law suits against some of its disgruntled officers and members as well as the CAC. Specifically, in one law suit brought at the Court of Appeal, the Balogun Business Association seeks, inter alia, an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the CAC from meddling with the subject matters of the suits brought by the Association against some disgruntled officers and members of the association.

Despite being a party to these suits pending in law courts and being served with the necessary court processes relating to the suits, the CAC has been resorting to self-help in order to foist on the courts a fiat accompli – the CAC has cancelled the certificate of the Balogun Business Association as well as imposed some new officers on the association whilst the suits are still pending in courts. Rather than wait for the determination of the suits instituted by the association against the CAC and others as required by law, the CAC, in violation of the doctrine of lis pendens, threw probity, due process and self-restraint to the wind and brazenly resorted to self-help in order to overreach the courts and foist a fiat accompli on the courts. In other words, while the aforesaid suits were still pending in law courts, the CAC proceeded to cancel the certificate of the association and took other actions evidently to usurp the powers and functions of the court. It is instructive that prior to the usurpation of the powers of the court, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the pending court cases instituted against it in courts as well as the court orders in the matter yet the CAC still proceeded to usurp the powers and undermine the integrity of the courts. Ostensibly emboldened by the Commission’s self-help, the aforesaid disgruntled officers and members of the Balogun Market Association recently recruited some Area E, FESTAC policemen and went to the Balogun Market, Lagos to forcibly foist an illegal leadership on the association. In order to accomplish this illegality, the FESTAC police invaded the Balogun Market and sporadically opened fire in the market resulting in many traders and their customers scampering for safety.

It is incomprehensible that a statutory body such as the CAC which is a party to a law suit can throw decency overboard and descend to the level of resorting to self-help and over-reaching itself both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and other litigating parties in the suits. It is trite law that once a party submits himself to the jurisdiction of a court for the purpose of adjudication of a suit, whatever actual or perceived rights he has or may think he has are subsumed under the jurisdiction of the court and the parties must maintain the status quo until the court pronounces on their rights. The party must not dispose of or tamper or attempt to tamper in anyway with the res or the subject matter of the dispute through self-help or otherwise, so as to render the courts’ decisions on the suit nugatory. See the popular case of Ojukwu v Governor of Lagos State (1986)1 SC. Pages 227-324: John A Osagie v Alhaji S. O Oyeyinka and Ors SC 194/1985; Ogundami v Arabia & Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1978) 6 & 7 SC; Alakija v Abdulai (1998) 5 SC 1 at page 7; Iheka V Njoku (2017) LPELR-42002. Specifically in the case of Ezegbu v First African Trust Bank Limited (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 220) page 699 at 724 the court held: “It is trite law that where a matter is before a court of law, none of the parties can legally or wrongfully take any unilateral action that will prejudice or tend to prejudice the hearing or adjudication of the matter by the court. Parties who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court are under a legal duty not to do anything to frustrate or make nonsense a possible court order… They must, whether they like it or not, wait for the court to take a decision one way or the other…the parties cannot jump the gun and do their own thing in their own way. That will be tantamount to undermining the integrity of the court.”

It is high time the CAC sat up to discharge its duties efficiently, diligently, competently, timeously and incorruptibly. The Commission should adorn the breastplates of efficiency, competence and integrity in the discharge of its duties in order to enhance the ease of doing business in Nigeria. It should desist from usurping the functions of the court and undermining the integrity of the court. It should obey court orders. Resort to self-help or force in the settlement of disputes is a recipe for anarchy. The function of the judiciary as a dispenser of justice, sustainer of good governance and economic growth is endangered by undermining of the integrity of the court and disobedience to court orders.

Let’s begin with a quick question: Was there anything that could have been done as far back as 1999 to douse the National Restructuring tension that has gripped Nigeria recently? Why did I choose the year 1999? Well, Chance handed us that year to begin afresh.

Remember that the regional leaders attended Constitutional Conferences in London prior to our becoming an independent nation. Thus even before independence Nigeria had become a Federation with very strong Regions – regions that had representatives in the UK, though the central government had a High Commissioner there.

The military changed that regional arrangement in 1966, to a unitary government – with the so-called group of provinces. The leaders then might have thought that Nigeria’s glaring disunity of 1966 was caused by the acrimony between the regions and the discord among the leaders and members of the different regions. But the discord turned into a dissonance that led to a bloody civil war.

In 1979, as Nigeria prepared to return to civil rule, a chance came and was seized to write a new constitution and was approved by a Constitutional Assembly. The second chance to make amends came in 1999. But the resultant constitution was a hush-hush affair. Nigeria was really disunited then as Gen Ibrahim Babangida’s annulment of the June 12 1993 election had set Nigeria on the precipice. And an insensitive Gen. Sani Abacha, who succeeded Babangida thought his strong arm tactics was enough to bring Nigeria under his jack boots. He died in the attempt!

So, when the 1999 return to civil rule came, a group of politicians had for the first time attempted to think like nationalists. A few leading lights formed the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and planned it to be so national that it could not by any flight of imagination be accused of being a sectional party. From this, it was also a given that only a modicum of a national party could ever snatch power from it.

That brings us to the road not taken. Even as the party primaries had yet to start, the PDO had a gentlemanly leader who had guided it to assume a nationalist philosophy; Dr. Alex Ekwueme (of fragrant memories) a former Vice President. But just as some soldiers had THOUGH in 1966 that they knew what was best for Nigeria, and refused to organize a constitutional talk before changing the erstwhile regional constitution to a unitary one, a few Generals decided that they would not allow Ekwueme to be President. One may not blame them a lot because they had a point in believing that allowing a Yoruba to emerge President would assuage the feeling of the Yoruba for the presidency that was denied M K O Abiola. So, Obasanjo became President.

Then another opportunity came in 2003. By then four Governors, Delta’s Chief James Onanefe Ibori, Bayelsa’s late D S P Alamieysegha and Akwa-Ibom’s Dr. David Attah and Edo’s Lucky Igbenedion called for restructuring. Their two other South-South colleagues – Rivers’ Dr. Peter Odili and Cross-Rivers’ Donald Duke – could not be bothered. They were Obasanjo’s blue-eyed boys and they the beloved of the crusading-for the worst-reasons journalists who demonised Ibori, Attah, Igbenedion and Alamieyeseigha and reduced their reason for the struggle to Resource Control. They were lambasted at every point. They gained no support whatsoever. Today, the same journalists are busy writing nonsense as though they didn’t support a “hurricane Obasanjo”, who was obdurate to such calls. Now, they have “hurricane Mohammadu Buhari” to contend with. Just like Obasanjo, Buhari believes that he who has the power of coercion is right.

2003!!! That was when there would have been a paradigm shift. Chief Ibori did something audacious; he moved to make Ekwueme President. No Governor of the Igbo states supported him. On Sunday 6th January 2003, he beckoned on me at the Eagle Square PDP National Convention venue, Abuja and said, “Tony, see the text message I sent to your Igbo brothers, the governors of the South- East States concerning Ekwueme, on the need not to disgrace him, but none has replied. I know some of them must have shown it to Obasanjo by now. Tony, you and your Igbo brothers and sisters will wipe a lot of sweet from your brows before you get the Igbo President. That was in 2003. Had Ekweueme become President then, talk of Igbo maginilisation would not be coming up now.

When Ibori visited the Villa and congratulated Obasanjo for the victory, Obasanjo told him: “you had said I was unelectable, unmarketable and unsaleable; all your days I will make you unelectable, unmarketable and unsalable”.

A few days later, an Igbo state Governor said triumphantly concerning Ekwueme’s defeat; “when it is time for an Igbo President, we wouldn’t need a non-Igbo South-Southerner to tell us. He was referring to Ibori. Some people are far sighted; some are myopic.

By Isaac Adeyanju2

INTRODUCTION.

A decade old legal battle between Google and Oracle arose over Google’s use of about 11,500 lines of source codes owned by Oracle from its Java Application Programming Interface (API) in the development of Google’s Android operating system in a familiar coding language. Application Programming Interface are features that enables programs to interface, and communicate with one another, to enable a smooth delivery of users’ instructions.

Following the above, Oracle instituted an action in 2010 at the Northern District Court of California for Copyright enforcement, against Google for infringements, claiming the sum of $8.8 Million (Dollars) in damages.

In May 2012, the Northern District Court of California following a deadlock from the Jury, decided in favour of Google Inc. where it held that the source codes are not subject to copyright protections. The philosophy and reasoning of the decision was founded on the Court reasoning thus;

“. . .There is only one way to declare a given method functionality, (so that) everyone using that function must write that specific line of code in the same way. . .” such coding language or functionality cannot be given the privilege of copyrightability.

The above decision of the Northern District of California, began a vicious cycle of Judicial actions, appeals and cross appeals which has today framed the U.S regime of Copyrights enforcement within its Silicon Valley and Technology market.

Oracle, ensuing from the decision of the District Court of California appealed to the U.S Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit Court on 30 May, 2013 where they argued that the source codes where copyrightable and that the unauthorized use of their source codes by Google had amounted to a Copyright infringement.

Ensuing from the above legal tussles and the multiplicity of attempts to resolve this issue at the District Court, the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit Court in March 2018 reversed the

18-956 Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc
Associate Omaplex Law Firm, Team lead, Fintech and Cybersecurity. Contact: [email protected], +234
8074 267 218

District Court’s decision declaring that the source codes and organizational structures are copyrightable and remanded for a Jury trial as to Fair Use. On remand, the Jury found in favour of Google for Fair Use. The Federal Circuit Court however, held that Google’s use did not amount to Fair use as a matter of law and held that Google had infringed Oracle’s copyright.

In January 2019, Google petitioned the Supreme Court for a Certiorari and review of the United States Court of Appeal decision in favour of Oracle. The petition was granted in November 2019, Oral arguments were heard on the merits of the case in October 2020.

In April 2021, the U.S Supreme court delivered a judgement reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal holding that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java API, amounted to Fair use as a matter of Law, and as such no Copyright Breach had occurred.

THE US. SUPREME COURT DECISION

A judgement which has been lauded by Software developers, Programmers, Startups and members of the American innovation community alike, and described by members of her Technology industry as a victory for Innovation in the High-tech space, has perhaps been viewed as a spite on Intellectual Property Rights, protection and enforcement on all fronts.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in determining what many has termed the “Copyright case of the Century”, by a 6-2 legal opinion, reached a decision on the propriety or otherwise of the issues in contentions, when it assumed that the codes in contention were copyrightable and instead focused the crux of its decision on the Principle of Fair Use, under the American Copyrights Protection System to determine whether or not a breach had arisen.

THE COPYRIGHTS PRINCIPLE OF FAIR USE.

To adequately appreciate the decision of the SCOTUS, it is imperative to appreciate the principle off Fair Use under the American Intellectual property rights protection, as same represents the philosophy of the Courts decision.

The Common Law principle of Fair Use as recognized under the American legal system, has been established by the provisions of Section 17 and 107 of the U.S. Codes, as “Fair Use” provides a defense for a party accused of Copyrights violations, where such party reasonably believes that such copyright violation was within the ambit of a Fair usage of such content, or material component, subject to the elements provided in the above provision.

The above principle, is capable of exculpating a Defendant from liabilities under a Copyrights claim, where the accused individual discharges the burden of establishing the following elements of Fair use in his/her favour namely;

The Purpose and Character of the Use,
The nature of the Copyrighted work used,
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: and
The effect which the use will have on the market value or potential market value of the Copyrighted Work.
The above, were the indices considered by SCOTUS, in reaching its decisions, in favour of Google.

On the first element, The Purpose and Character of the Use of Oracle’s codes by Google; SCOTUS held that the codes copied, were mere declaring codes rather than implementation codes, and only served as an organizational function in the context of copyright. It noted further on the above element, that Google had copied the Java Codes not because of its lack of creativity, but because Programmers had learnt to work with Java SE, and as such needed to copy the above lines to help adapt its software’s to Java trained Developers.

On the second element, the Court noted that Google’s use of Java’s codes was intended to expand the use and usefulness of Android based smart phones which was characterized by creating a new platform that could be readily used by programmers and consistent with the very objective of Copyrights itself, being creativity.

Furthermore, in resolving the third element, the amount and substantiality, the Court opined, that those 11,500 codes were quite a bit of codes, but it amounted to a tiny fraction (about 0.4 %) of 2.86 Million lines of Java source codes in the relevant programs for the purpose of easing programmers’ interface, with their products (Android smart phones). In light of the above, the element of amount and substantiality was determined in favour of Google.

On the final element, the Court noted, that it was unclear that Java SE would have been successful in the Smartphone market, and that Android should not be regarded as a market substitute for Java’s software, but rather as a mobile operating stack (that is) a very different type of product. Suggesting that Java-based mobile phone business was declining because the market increasingly demanded a new form of smartphone technology, as such concluding that Google (and Android) are not responsible for that decline, since Google’s Android could not be seen as a market replacement for Java products.

In resolving the above issues in favour of Google, the Court noted summarily, that allowing the enforcement of Oracle’s copyright would risk harm to the public, where it opined that, “. . . such would create a lock limiting the future creativity of new programs to which Oracle alone would hold the keys, which will interfere with Copyrights fundamental objectives, Creativity . . . “

THE NIGERIAN PERSPECTIVE.

The resolution of the above legal controversy has created an interesting legal angle in the application of copyright in the technology ecosystem and it is important for Nigerian Technological outfits, to understand where we stand, in light of the above decision.

By the combined import of Section 6 (1) and Par. A of the Second Schedule to the Nigerian Copyright Act, the Common Law principle of Fair use, has been incorporated as the principle of “Fair Dealing” which serves as a defense in the Nigerians Copyright’s liability regime. This principle of “Fair Dealing” will apply where such copyrightable material is used for the following purpose:

Research,
Private use,
Criticism, or review of the reporting of current events.
While the American Supreme Court decision in Google LLC. v. Oracle American Inc. has expanded the principle of Fair Use from the domain of mere literary, research and entertainment copyrightability, and infused it into the domain of Technology and software innovations, it is yet to be determined whether same is the case in Nigerian Courts as espoused under our Copyright regime. At present, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might at best be a persuasive decision for Courts in Nigeria.

Thus, it is imprudent to submit that the doctrine of Fair dealing has gained recognition for the purposes of creating a defense to copyright liability in Software and innovation industries, as against the present domain of Copyright protection presently recognized and in force in Nigeria (I.E., in literary, research and entertainment Copyright’s enforcement).

Following the above decision, it is imperative to note that notwithstanding the possible defense of Fair dealing against Copyright liabilities in the Nigerian software and innovation space, intellectual property protection remains a fundamental tool in the development and protection of innovative intellectual capitals in our technology space.

Here are few things for Nigerian Tech Platforms to note going forward, with respect to the expedience of Copyrighting their Innovations:

Nigerian Tech Companies must understand that unless their Technological innovations, codes, algorithms, designs, and ideas are appropriately registered either as Patents, Copyrights, or Trade secrets, they do not stand a chance to initiate a lawsuit for enforcement of such intellectual property rights against possible breaches.
Copyright protection is not restricted to the legal protection of Intellectual property rights against literal copying of source codes. Tech innovators can further protect the structures, sequence and organization of their computer software, algorithms, and innovations from potential infringement.
The best way to ensure that intellectual capitals, such as software Ideas, designs and innovations can command maximal productivity in Tech markets through Venture investments, is to assure investors that innovations and software products have the requisite intellectual protection afforded under local and international I.P laws.
Finally, registration of an author’s intellectual properties entitles same to a claim for financial compensation (damages) in court, in the event that there is an identified breach of such right.
CONCLUSION

It is imperative to note that while the U.S Supreme Court decision in Google LLC. V. Oracle America, Inc. has been lauded for its impact in shaping the American Silicon Valley, and by extension, the global technology and innovations eco-system, for its affirmation of the Developers rights to explore and reimplement API’s, Nigeria’s Judicial system must take this cue and assume the responsibility of exploring and developing a better Legal environment and ecosystem for innovations and Technological ingenuities of Programmers in our markets to thrive.

Our Legal and judicial system in itself, must completely depart from its archaic roles wherein it stifled innovations, and rather Disciple them.

It is clear that the African market is fast becoming a market for software products and innovations, following the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. It is thus expedient that Nigeria positions itself and develops a favorable platform for Software exports across the African and global market space.

By Reuben Abati

It is not often that cases before a court of law become so important that they get discussed in beer parlours, open places, other rooms and generate so much public attention beyond the court room, even after judgment has been delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction. But it happens, presenting, relative to context, the spectacle of concurrence and/or populism or a conflict between the court of law and the court of public opinion. This in itself is a reaffirmation of the role of the judicial system as a social modulator, beyond strict positivism, rather than a derogation from the relevance of the judiciary. Such cases are known in legal circles as “cause celebre” either for the attendant popularity and public interest or the precedence that they establish. Nigeria found itself confronted with such a case recently with the decision taken by the Court of Justice Taiwo Taiwo (Federal High Court, Abuja) in the matter between Oluwakemi Adeosun, former Minister of Finance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation. This is an interesting case that has the prospects of becoming a locus classicus, in its present form or on appeal (if that happens) with regard to the issues of citizenship, appointments into public office and participation in Nigeria’s National Youth Service Corps Scheme (NYSC). I will tone down the legalisms involved, but what are the facts before us and what conclusions can we draw from this particular case?

In November 2015, Kemi Adeosun, born in 1967 in London, England, to Nigerian parents from Ogun State Nigeria, was appointed Nigeria’s Minister of Finance by the Muhammadu Buhari administration. Before that appointment, she had worked in the United Kingdom as an accounting assistant at British Telecom, London, also at Goodman Jones as a senior audit officer, as a manager at London Underground, and later at Prisms Consulting. She was also a senior manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers. In 2002, she returned to Nigeria and took up an appointment as a Financial Controller with Chapel Hill Denham Management. She became Managing Director of that company in 2010. In 2011, Adeosun was appointed Commissioner of Finance in Ogun State by then Governor Ibikunle Amosun who promised to turn around the fortunes of his home-state. Four years later, Kemi Adeosun was further elevated when she ended up as Nigeria’s Minister of Finance, after President Buhari and Governor Amosun won a second term in office as President and Governor respectively.

It was widely assumed Mrs Adeosun earned that promotion due to Amosun’s influence. Amosun is a well-known Buhari ally and a prominent member of the ruling party. As Minister of Finance of Nigeria, Adeosun, an Economics graduate of the University of East London and a Chartered Accountant with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, further ended up as Chairman of the Board of the African Export-Import Bank (AfreximBank). Her profile was something made out of a fairy tale: amazing, well supported.

In 2018, that fairy-tale turned sour when an online newspaper, Premium Times Online alleged that Mrs Adeosun illegally obtained her NYSC exemption certificate. In Nigeria, no citizen, who is a graduate, is allowed to be employed in either the private or public sector, without having gone through a mandatory one-year national service.

This requirement is spelled out in Section 12 of the NYSC Act and embedded in the 1999 Constitution. Premium Times, after calling out Mrs Adeosun, promised to conduct an investigation. And it did, with unsavoury outcomes.

This generated tension, ethnic politicking and a heavy dose of blame game. In the middle of all that, and the ugly implications for the integrity of the Buhari administration, Kemi Adeosun resigned from her position as Nigeria’s Minister of Finance on September 14, 2018. Her resignation letter, addressed to President Muhammadu Buhari is available online. But let me quote the following paragraph from it. She writes: “I have today become privy to the findings of the investigation into the allegation made in an online medium that the Certificate of Exemption from National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) that I had presented was not genuine. This has come as a shock to me and I believe that in line with this administration’s focus on integrity, I must do the honourable thing and resign.”
Kemi Adeosun’s resignation was an unusual thing to do in Nigeria. Most of her compatriots would never have done so.

Resign from such a “juicy position” as Nigerians call it? No! But she did. And there were questions about whether she jumped or she was pushed. Other questions were asked: was she set up and sacrificed by the same man who made her Minister of Finance, her former boss, Governor Amosun? Did she herself get too big for her boots, and forgot her own beginnings? Who blew the whistle about her NYSC Exemption Certificate? As pundits went to town, Adeosun left town. She has now returned three years later, with a bang. A month ago, she got a generous mention in the newspapers as the founder of a Foundation – “the Dash Me Store”, an online thrift-for-charity initiative that she has now established to support the vulnerable in society. It was her first major public appearance in 3 years. And it wasn’t meant to be just one of those events. Vice President Yemi Osinbajo was in attendance for all the possible symbolic reasons, as Chair of the occasion. That was great optics. Adeosun may have left the country in 2018 for controversial reasons, but she has returned on a high note, with perfect timing.

For me, this was particularly confirmed by the court ruling dated the 7th Day of July 2021 in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CR/303/2021 between Folakemi Adeosun – (Plaintiff) and Attorney General of the Federation – (Defendant) before His Lordship Hon. Justice Taiwo O. Taiwo in the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division. As it were, Kemi Adeosun had approached the Federal High Court to seek declaratory reliefs to the effect that (i) she was not under any constitutional disadvantage or prohibition at the time of her appointment as Minister with regard to her participation in the NYSC scheme, (ii) she cannot be subjected to any disability or disadvantage on the ground that she did not participate in the NYSC and that ((iii) being a United Kingdom Citizen as at 1989 when she graduated from the University of East London, UK, at the age of 22 years, she was ineligible to participate in Nigeria’s NYSC. The learned Judge observed as follows: “In brief the fact of this case is that sometime in 2018, while the plaintiff was serving as the Minister of Finance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it was being paraded in the public space that she did not participate in the NYSC scheme and as such ought to have been disqualified from holding the office. It was further alleged that the said insinuations have remained unabated, thereby, consistently putting the plaintiff at disadvantageous positions in the pursuit of her career, both within and outside the country, this has therefore necessitated the plaintiff to file this action.” Counsel for the defendant relying on Section 12 of the NYSC Act and Sections 147 (5) and 192 (4) of the 1999 Constitution responded accordingly. The Court decided in favour of the plaintiff and granted the declaratory reliefs in her prayers before the Court. The ruling has been heavily criticised in the court of public opinion, and that has generated as much interest as the substance of the case itself.

First, there is this argument that the court did not address the issue of certificate forgery which was the basis for Mrs Adeosun’s resignation in the first place. Those who push this line of argument forget that this was not the matter before the court. A court of law is not duty bound to embark on a voyage of discovery or offer what has not been pleaded before it with admissible evidence. Procedure is critical in law and in common parlance, the court is not a Father Christmas. In this matter, a civil suit by the way, Kemi Adeosun had approached the court to protect her reputation, to which she claims much damage had been done by the circumstances of her exit from the Nigerian government in September 2018. It is perfectly within her rights to do so, one’s reputation being so fundamental to everything else.

Second, some persons have expressed concern about the citizenship question raised in the ruling. They ask: Granted that as of 1989, when she graduated Kemi Adeosun was not a citizen of Nigeria, and therefore ineligible for participation in the NYSC scheme, under the then extant 1979 Constitution, when she then returned to Nigeria to work, what steps did she take to become a Nigerian citizen? They point out that the 1999 Constitution after all, does not automatically confer citizenship. There is a proper definition of citizenship under Chapter 3 of the 1999 Constitution, so at what point exactly did Mrs Adeosun become a Nigerian? And how could she have been appointed a state Commissioner of Finance and later, a Federal Minister if there was no understanding that she had become a Nigerian citizen although entitled to dual nationality? And why would she sue the Attorney General of the Federation? Again, these questions were not raised by the defence counsel before Justice Taiwo Taiwo. The issues for determination were clear and specific. What has been offered is a technical, Constitutional interpretation of what the law says with regard to participation in the National Youth Service Corps Scheme of Nigeria, and the legal status in that regard of all persons, of Nigerian parentage but foreign nationality, caught between the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions with regard to eligibility to participate in the scheme and the question of their citizenship. But does the ruling of the Court meet public expectations? No.

Third: Will the office of the Attorney General of the Federation appeal this ruling? I doubt. Will the Federal Government now file a suit to accuse the former Minister of Finance of the forgery of a certificate that everyone is saying is the main issue? Hmm. That won’t happen. This is Nigeria. Mrs Kemi Adeosun’s reputation with regard to the NYSC matter has been judicially restored, and all insinuations about her involvement in this quasi political-legal tango have been laid to rest. Her brother Dele Ogun has been quoted as saying Premium Times, the online newspaper, has questions to answer. So, should she sue Premium Times that generated the storm in the first place? She shouldn’t bother. There is no point fighting a battle she can’t win. Only the naïve would pick up battles with the media like those thick-headed characters who believe that they can restrict the freedom of information in society. I hope their advisers have seen the robust push-back by the Nigerian media community which started yesterday. Nigerian newspapers are now carrying placards against the government: from front-page advertorials to editorials!

It has been said that Kemi Adeosun’s legal victory is a victory for all Nigerians who were born abroad before the 1999 Constitution and who do not have to participate in the NYSC. Except that this is one case where the law does not answer all the questions. It must indeed be a fit and proper thing to serve one’s country, or even die for it.

The NYSC was introduced in 1973, to move Nigeria beyond the pains and tragedy of the civil war and to promote national unity and integration. If things were normal, there would have been no reason for anyone to avoid the opportunity to serve the country. Kemi Adeosun was 22 in 1989, and she was not a Nigerian citizen. When she returned to Nigeria in 2013 at the age of 34, she was already beyond the age of eligibility for the NYSC. She has now succeeded in proving her case in court. But other foreign-born Nigerians with an eye on the future should study her case closely and learn a critical lesson about the importance of one’s roots. They need to realise that the Adeosun case does not automatically offer them any protection under the law. Adeosun probably never imagined that she would ever have anything to do with public life in Nigeria.

Many Nigerians in diaspora, a growing generation of children with Nigerian parents and foreign citizenship often overlook the umbilical manner in which they are linked to Nigeria by blood. They are proud to say that they have nothing to do with Nigeria and that they belong to other countries. But the pull of home and ancestral roots is forever strong. Most of the athletes in the D’Tigers Basketball team who represented Nigeria a few days ago and made history beating Team USA, the most dominant basketball team in the world, probably do not have a Nigerian passport, and may never have been to their ancestral home. They wore shirts emblazoned with the message: “Naija no dey carry last”. They stepped up and proved it. Every Nigerian child born in diaspora should look beyond Kemi Adeosun’s legal victory. A sense of home and roots, is the strongest DNA in our veins. The river may flow downstream into the oceans, without looking back, but it is bound to dry up if it loses touch with its source.

What is most unfortunate, however, is the crisis at home that drives a wedge between Nigerians at home and those in diaspora. While we urge the latter to identify with home, connect and remember, Nigerians born and bred at home, are in despair. They are either seeking to emigrate or secede. If they are lucky to graduate from a higher institution, they are not even happy to participate in the NYSC or serve the country. Nigeria is so insecure parents do not want their children posted to certain parts of the country. Nigeria has a way of killing dreams. The NYSC is one of those dying dreams. And that is why the Adeosun case, controversial as it seems, is bound to end up as just one of those things in the court of public opinion.

By Eric Teniola

When on March 15 last year, the Secretary of the Benin traditional council, Mr. Frank Irabor announced that “the leopard is ill in the Savannah bush”, we knew exactly what has happened to the Omo N’oba N’Edo Uku Akpolokpolo Erediauwa (CFR), the 38th Oba of Benin, who was born on June 22, 1923 and ascended the throne on March 23, 1979.
Well, to an average Benin man or woman, such an announcement is well understood. The Benin people value tradition and culture. And they are proud of it. I am from Ufosu in Idanre Local Council of Ondo State that shares border with Edo State, so I should know.
The Oba of Benin is the traditional ruler of the Edo people and head of the historic Eweka dynasty of the Benin Empire. The services of Oba Erediuwa are well valued and will not be forgotten. Before becoming an Oba, as Prince Samuel Aiseokhuoba Igbinoghodua Akenzua, he was an outstanding civil servant. He in fact rose to become the Federal Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health, before he retired in 1973.
Along with others, he attended the Aburi meeting held at the Peduase lodge where the conflict of Nigeria was discussed between January 4 and January 5, 1967. Aburi is a town in Ghana. It is 45 minutes’ drive from Accra, the capital of Ghana. Those who attended the meeting were Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, Col. Robert Adebayo, Lt-Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu, Lt-Col David Ejoor, Lt-Col David Hassan Katsina, Commodore J.E.A. Wey, Major Mobolaji Johnson, Alhaji Kam Salem and Mr. J. Omo-Bare. Others are Prince S.I.A. Akenzua (Permanent Under-Secretary, Federal Cabinet Office.), Mr. P.T. Odumosu (Secretary to the Military Government, West.),Mr. N.U. Akpan (Secretary to the Military Government, East.), Mr. D.P. Lawani (Under-Secretary, Military Governor’s Office, Mid-West) and Alhaji Ali Akilu (Secretary to the Military Government, North). The Chairman of the Ghana National Liberation Council, Lt-General J.A. Ankrah, declared the meeting open in his capacity as then the head of state of Ghana.
The following was agreed upon: that Army be governed by the Supreme Military Council under a Chairman to be known as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Head of the Federal Military Government; Establishment of a Military Headquarters comprising equal representation from the Regions and headed by a Chief of Staff; Creation of Area Commands corresponding to existing Regions and under the charge of Area commanders; matters of policy, including appointments and promotion to top executive posts in the Armed Forces and the Police to be dealt with by the Supreme Military Council; during the period of the military government, Military Governors will have control over Area Commands for internal security; Creation of a Lagos Garrison including Ikeja Barracks.
In connection with the re-organisation of the Army, the council discussed the distribution of Military personnel with particular reference to the present recruitment drive. The view was held that general recruitment throughout the country in the present situation would cause great imbalance in the distribution of soldiers. After a lengthy discussion of the subjects, the council agreed to set up a Military committee on which each Region will be represented, to prepare statistics which will show: Present strength of Nigerian Army; deficiency in each sector of each unit; the size appropriate for the country and each Area command; additional requirement for the country and each Area command.
The Committee is to meet and report to council within two weeks from the date of receipt of instructions. The Council agreed that pending completion of the exercise in connection with re-organisation of the Army, further recruitment of soldiers should cease. The implementation of the agreement reached on August 9 1966, it was agreed, after a lengthy discussion, that it was necessary for the agreement reached on August 9 by the delegates of the Regional Governments to be fully implemented.
In particular, it was accepted in principle that army personnel of Northern origin should return to the North from the West. It was therefore felt that a crash programme of recruitment and training, the details of which would be further examined after the committee to look into the strength and distribution of army personnel had reported, would be necessary to constitute indigenous army personnel in the West to a majority there quickly.
As far as the Regions were concerned, it was decided that all the powers vested by the Nigerian Constitution in the Regions and which they exercised prior to January 15, 1966, should be restored to the Regions. To this end, the Supreme Military Council decided that all decrees passed since the Military take-over, and which tended to detract from the previous powers of the Regions, should be repealed by January 21, after the Law Officers should have met on January 14, to list out all such decrees.
The decisions at Aburi amounted to, in terms of political and military control of the country, the country being governed as a Confederation.
Suffice it to say that the vocal military officers like Lt-Col. Murtala Muhammed, Major Martin Adamu and Major Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma did not attend the Aburi meeting. Prince Akenzua along with top permanent secretaries including Alhaji Yusuf Gobir, Phillip Asiodu, Eme Ebong, B.N. Okagbue and Allison Ayida deconstructed in Lagos, all that was agreed in Aburi.
On arrival in Lagos, Prince Akenzua discussed with General Yakubu Gowon and raised objections to what was agreed in Aburi. Gowon asked him to raise a memo which he did. I am sure a copy of the memo is with General Gowon today while a copy is in the archives in the PRESIDENCY. Civil servants are to be seen and not to be heard and that is why Prince Akenzua never released a copy of the memo to the world. The memo dated January 8, 1967 began with: “Your Excellency, in view of my discussion with you last night, I am raising this memo in the interest our fatherland – Nigeria”.
Prince Akenzua traced the long hard road that Nigeria has travelled and stressed on the need to keep a United Nigeria.In his view, he said in the memo that Gowon has given too much away in Aburi and that it will lead to the destruction of the country. He further added that Gowon has “legalised” total regionalism which “will make the centre very weak.” Prince Akenzua alluded in his memo that a weak centre will lead to confederation and total disintegration of the country. It was the memo that prompted Gowon to summon a meeting of the secretaries to the military governments and other officials which was held in Benin City between February 16 and 18, 1967. If you look at the minutes of the Benin meeting presided over by Mr. H. A. Ejueyitchie, Secretary to the Federal Military Government, you will discover that it was a total rejection of what was agreed upon in Aburi. The Benin meeting interpreted in its own way the agreement reached in Aburi.
After the Benin meeting, Lt-Col. Ojukwu started the “on Aburi I stand” slogan. Thereafter, the Federal Government promulgated Decree No. 8 of 1967 which gave total powers to the centre. It has been so since. We shall continue to argue and debate the full implications of Decree 8 which was promulgated on March 10, 1967. The ghost of that decree still haunts us today.
On February 16, 1967, Col. Ojukwu wrote a letter to Gowon. In the letter he said, “At Aburi, certain decisions were taken by the Supreme Military Council- the highest authority of the land under the present Regime. For my part, I became dedicated to those decisions, only to discover soon that you and your Civil Service advisers, along with selfish and disgruntled politicians in Lagos, and perhaps elsewhere as well, did not feel the same. As a result you have seen to it that the decisions taken at Aburi are systematically vitiated or stalled.”
In his own broadcast, the then military Governor of Western Region, Col. Robert Adeyinka Adebayo on May 3, 1967 said, “We tried at Aburi to find the basis for a solution but there was not enough confidence to build upon that basis. As a result, follow up action was slow and argument developed which further impaired confidence. When at last Decree No. 8 was passed by the Supreme Military Council, we could not carry the Eastern Region with us.”
In his broadcast to the joint meeting of the advisory committee of the Chiefs and Elders and the Consultative Assembly of Eastern Nigeria on May 27, 1967, Col. Ojukwu said, “In Lagos, the Permanent Secretaries there studied the recommendations and, to their credit, brought out clearly and unmistakably their meanings and implications. Having seen these, however, they unfortunately went beyond their rights and duty as civil servants to advise against the implementation of the Aburi agreements. From there our difficulties started and have taken us to our present stalemate”.
Till today, both sides (Gowon and Ojukwu till he died) interpreted what was agreed upon in Aburi in their own way. One of the problems at Aburi was that a portion of the meeting was not recorded. The military excused the civilians at a certain stage during the meeting and it was alleged that during this informal chat that Gowon made certain commitments to Lt. Col. Ojukwu especially on full regionalism.
Even till today judging by the decisions reached at the last National Conference, we are still arguing on confederation or federalism.As long as Nigeria remains one under federalism, the memo of Prince Akenzua which was a wake-up call on General Yakubu Gowon and his efforts later will continue to be appreciated in no small measure. The nation remembers and the nation appreciates.Teniola, a former director at the Presidency, stays in Lagos.

Late Saturday evening a text message flashed across my phone screen for our family group text. I was busy and by the time I went to bed, I had forgotten to check it. Early Sunday morning, while still lounging I asked about the text and I was told its content – Nigeria had defeated the US team in basketball in Las Vegas 90 – 87. This victory comes exactly nine years after US-Nigeria London Olympics game, with a 156-73 US win for the US. That Nigerian team included one NBA player Al-Farouq Aminu (with Dallas Mavericks at the time, but currently with Chicago Bulls).

The 10 July 2021 Nigeria team featured six NBA players including Gabe Vincent, Precious Achiuwa, KZ Okpala (Miami Heat), Chimezie Metu (Sacramento Kings), Josh Okogie (Minnesota Timberwolves), Miye Oni (Utah Jazz). The full 16-men Nigeria roster includes eight NBA players! Now of course this feels like great improvement, but check out the US team, all 16 are NBA players plus three with Olympic experience Kevin Durant, Draymond Green and Kevin Love. That was the landscape of players over which Nigeria won and made history! So I rejoiced loudly upon the news of a Nigeria team win and thought to myself, I am a part of the profound Nigerian race, yes, I said race.

Like everyone else, I got on WhatsApp to forward the message accompanied by my Nigerian race tag. By this time, there were now a few mentions of the game floating in the WhatsApp universe. “So, what does this mean, surely you mean nationality, not race?” a friend asked after receiving my WhatsApp. I replied “no”, then explained somewhat like this; we all know that race as in white and black is a social construct, yet we act like there is some scientific base for the division and we accept it, parrot it, build systems around it, protect it, defend it, weaponise it, live by it, die for it and so much more.

My question became, why not? Which led me to, if I want to and I have a choice to identify as I choose, don’t I or do I? Is it not all about identity and what it fundamentally means and how it should be structured to be fully representative or is it about identity and who decides what others are called? To be clear, the identity I will be engaging is not one steeped in restructure or gender preference or orientation. It is the one stipulated in systems and institutions, the identity that scoops up swathes of people, especially for profit – the racial identity.

Identity?

How are you seen, known, how do you define yourself? Identity is rooted and fitted in perspective. Sometimes that perspective could be reality as in the case of colour. For example, if you see me from afar and describe me as brown or chocolate or dark, your depth of perspective accuracy, in spite of the obscurity of distance is rooted in the reality of what you should be able to see from the distance I am away from you. There are enough facts that can help you be highly accurate way before I am close enough to be known. Now, if it was dusk or very early dawn, your perspective might be more skewed and even completely wrong. Sometimes from far, trees appear like people, light coloured people appear dark. It is all rooted in the physics in play!!

In physics the accuracy and precision of a measuring system is related to the uncertainty in the measurements. Uncertainty is quantitatively derived as the degree to which your measured values deviate from a standard or expected value. So if your measurements turn out to be grossly inaccurate or unprecise, it then implies high uncertainty of the measured value (M). M=M ± @M, where @ is the measure of uncertainty. We can quickly see that if @ is a big number our measurement will be off. It is easy to see that we cannot afford this large deviation in pharmaceuticals or medication dispensation because lives are at stake. In putting air in our tires, @ might not need to be as precise as in the medications but if it’s too lax, we could risk a tire bust or a flat, both risky. You can think of many examples. A newborn’s fever is extremely worrisome, so a rectal thermometer is used because of its accuracy and precision more so than a forehead thermometer.

Framing Identity rooted in Perspective

The real kicker here is that Uncertainty as defined above is impacted by these things: a. the skill, experience and knowledge of the person taking the measurement; b. the limits of the measuring device; c. the complexities and irregularities in the subject or object of measurement; d. situational peculiarities that can impact outcome

Do you see the a, b, c and d items? If you take the same principles to the framing of identity rooted in perspective. We have to consider another strong statement. Identity can be framed by the object or subject, but it is invariably determined by the perceiver. So, identity is ultimately squarely in the eyes of the beholder(s)! To robustly defend identity means to control the accuracy, precision, and uncertainty of what is perceived. For Identity to approach its highest limits of accuracy and precision, the uncertainty factor must be negligible.

In light of what physics has shown us, the Identity equation would be:

I = I ± lim @I

               @→0

The point is that Identity is always rooted in perspective (P) and perspective having the tendency to be grossly faulty is equivalent to the Uncertainty factor (@). So, P ∝ @

In the same vein, we can now safely conclude that perspective is heavily reliant on the following : a. the skill, experience, fairness and knowledge of the person defining the identity; b. the limits of the inputs and benchmarks used for calibration; c. the complexities and irregularities in the subject or object being identified; d. situational peculiarities that can impact outcome.

Let us unpack this Perspective factor or principle holistically using one concept we are all too familiar with, Brain Processing. Since perspective forms, lives and grows in the mind, all the inputs are concatenated in the brain(mind) to create outputs and outcomes, giving an “anchor” to perspective and “voice” to Identity!

Let us go mildly science to make the point.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and the human brain. AI is human’s latest attempt to model cognition in machines. Basically, to use software to create the capacity to reason, be intelligent, make predictions and decisions etc. using the human brain as reference. The complexity of human reasoning and decision-making process as well as the need to create fast outcomes has increasingly brought about the greater utilisation of quantum machines with higher compute power to process more complex algorithms.
In order to also extend human capacity in machine engagement, we connect human brains to machines, whether through the rudimentary interface with our phones via haptic and auditory feedback or via Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI) using electricity generated by our brains acting as neurotransmitters.
This is leading to the possibilities in brain-to-brain engagement using implants and brain science like cerebral morphology that uses advanced mathematical, stochastic and statical means to define the structural aspects of the brain.
The biggest companies in the world and the military are involved in brain science – there are applications from basic brain support, to therapeutics to long range brain science.
YOU MAY LIKE
Mgid
Mgid

Stable Blood Pressure Till Old Age. Take 2 Minutes To Read
Cardiovax

Three Signs That A Stroke Is Near And There Are Heart Problems
Cardiovax

Stable Blood Pressure Till Old Age. Take Two Minutes To Read
Cardiovax

Try It Tonight – Pain In Your Joints Will Vanish Once And For All
Arthrazex
What this tells us is that our brain has the capacity to teach a machine, to teach each other, to learn new ways and gain new perspectives.

It also tells us that it takes a lot to teach a machine, there are areas that machines will exceed humankind especially in logical and computational analytics and fast decision-making process.

Affective Computing

Secondly, while Neural Networks (a branch of AI) and Deep Learning are today implementing affective computing it is still proving really hard to reliably and sustainably mimic all the many nuances of affective communications that humans specialise in.

This bring me back to something of great value.

Identity is anchored in perspective and perspective can be harnessed, modelled, changed and engaged. There is a part of perspective that has a unique or unity factor and can diminish from there or increase to unity. That is the notion of Affect.

Affect

Affect is the root word from which we get the word affection, it involves emotion, moods, impulse, tendency, attraction, intuition etc. It is the foundation on which Perspective seats. Its control system is situated deep within the brain, in the limbic system. It functions within the realm of chemistry (hormones) and biology (DNA) and physics (relativity – to inputs/environment).

Perspective that has taken root in the limbic system is deep seated and hard to change, but it also provides the best portfolio of options or template to re-inform or re-”affect” a belief system.

An example in story form

Jack meets Mary on a prairie off Interstate 95. Mary was with a group of people who lured Jack to the beautiful Prairie under the guise of voice practice to join the most prestigious choir of the time, only to brutally mock, discourage him, and run away leaving him utterly ashamed. Jack notes their faces and every time he sees any of them he is offended, he becomes deeply prejudiced against every one of them.

Years later, Jack meets Jill and walks up the hill with her as they talk. Jill tells Jack a bit about herself and through the conversation Jack finds out she is Mary, he accidentally trips down the hill, with Jill tumbling after. Jill rushed to Jack bandaged him up, got him excellent help without even considering herself.

Eventually Jack is fully mended. He learns a lot more about Jill/Mary, he learns the details of that night of horror years ago, and the details of how his broken leg was saved. Can you imagine the scenarios to the story that would have reinformed Jack’s limbic system? Try these on your own, tell the missing parts of the story as possibilities to what Jack could now know, to do support the following scenarios:

Consider Jack’s perspective in a need to reconcile Jill and Mary as two different people
Jack’s old perspective is partially changed, but he is still wary
Jack’s new perspective is fully reformed, his mind is completely changed about Mary/Jill
Share the missing details as feedback on the scenarios for a, b, c, in the comments section of this post!

Perspective on Identity

Most people expect perspective on identity to be framed in the deep recesses of the brain, in the limbic system but not so with racial identity and socially manipulated brands. They are actually framed in the frontal lobe, the reasoning section of the brain. The part that allows us to make decisions, that utilises our skills more, not our emotions. This is because those who traffic on identity for gain, learned something really powerful and exploited it. They learned that if you make the perspective on identity be accessible to be reasoned out with our smarts not our emotions you will create a more impactful outcome for the motive.

Our perspective on identity for the most part have been framed for us through the narratives of others, through the already established systems that tell us that we need to think of one person this way, and another person that way. Through the visual expressions that one person is dangerous while another is safe. That this person deserves a break while another does not and on and on.

The margin of error on those inputs that make up perspective on which we base identity are so huge that it became necessary to broad base it in a way that would be hard to dispute. Thereby, birthing race identity, the most lucrative construct of the last few centuries.

Race and the Identity Crisis

Take race, something that fundamentally is a right of all humans, a unifying form factor for all homo sapiens. Redefine it and create a tiered approach to it, making sure one is placed higher than the other. Then create and skew systems to support one and denigrate and deny the other, teach it, speak it, make sure all adopt it. In comes the white race and the black race and the beginning of many wicked issues of today. All this adopted implemented and celebrated by our frontal lobe where our smarts reside. Because if our limbic system had gotten a hold of it first, it just might become affected and empathetic and be unable to sustain the harshness required to keep it going.

The frontal lobe got it, sustained by hard false facts!!

So again, I say since race is a social construct, I am of the Nigerian race and if I go deeper still, the Igbo race!

About Ngozi Bell

Inspiration, Hard Work, Innovation. These three foundational elements anchor Ngozi’s core belief that manifesting the extraordinary is always within reach. Inspired by her mother A.C.Obikwere, a scientist and author, she learned the privilege of living at the edge of important encounters and dedicating herself to robust and perpetual learning. Ngozi’s background is a combination of Physics, Engineering, Venture Capital/Private Equity, regulations, and business where she has managed over $1bn in cumulative revenue. Ngozi is a speaker, storyteller, and writer on a diverse set of topics including AI, iDLT, ML, Signal Processing, iOT, women, entrepreneurship and more. She contributes regularly to VOA, has been a TEDx speaker and is published on tech and non-tech platforms. She is a champion of STEM, women, youth, art and the Africa we must engage. Ngozi is an adjunct professor of Physics and management with work experience in Asia, Europe, Africa, Middle East, and North America. She is a founder of a number of a number of enterprises and host of the podcast Stem, Stocks and Stews (https://anchor.fm/stemstocksstews-podcast).

Https://www.LinkedIn.com/in/ngozibell/

Credit: This article was originally published by Sundiata Post