The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the status of the 27 lawmakers loyal to former Governor Nyesom Wike has deepened public concern over Nigeria’s judiciary. The apex court ruled that there was no legal basis for Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s claim that the lawmakers defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). This verdict effectively restored the legislative authority of the lawmakers, further complicating Fubara’s control over the state government. However, the judgment is being widely perceived as favoring Wike’s camp, raising questions about judicial neutrality and reinforcing broader apprehensions about institutional credibility. If the courts are perceived as political tools rather than impartial arbiters, then the foundation of Nigeria’s democracy is at risk of crumbling under the weight of selective judicial obedience.

Double Standards in Obeying Court Orders

Who Decides Which Rulings Matter? If Nigeria’s Senate, under the leadership of Godswill Akpabio, can boldly disregard a Federal High Court order by suspending Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan despite a court ruling to the contrary, then how can Nigeria turn around and expect Governor Fubara to fully comply with a Supreme Court ruling he perceives as flawed? The inconsistency in judicial compliance at different levels of government creates a dangerous precedent where court orders are no longer universally binding, but instead selectively followed based on political convenience. If Fubara were to openly question or even delay compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, it would not be without justification, considering the growing evidence that judicial rulings in Nigeria may no longer carry the same weight they once did.

Rivers State Electoral Body Defies the Legislature: 

The Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) has also joined the cycle of legal defiance. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Rivers State House of Assembly issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Governor Fubara to re-present the 2025 budget and summoned the chairman of RSIEC, Justice Adulphus Enebeli (rtd), along with commissioners, to justify financial expenditures without an appropriation law since January 2024. In an act of outright defiance, both Governor Fubara and RSIEC have rejected the ultimatum, further fueling the constitutional standoff. RSIEC issued a Pre-Action Notice, challenging the legal authority of the Assembly to issue such an ultimatum and claiming it violates Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing. The refusal of RSIEC to comply now raises serious concerns about whether judicial decisions and legislative authority hold any real weight if major political actors selectively choose which rulings to follow.

Judicial Favoritism? When the Law Serves Political Interests

If the judiciary is truly independent, then its rulings should be seen as sacrosanct, regardless of the parties involved. However, when some court orders are obeyed while others are openly flouted, the entire justice system is weakened, leaving room for anarchy and eroding public confidence. The judiciary must not only be impartial but must be seen to be impartial. A judicial system that tilts toward one political faction while aggressively enforcing rulings against another risks losing credibility in the eyes of the public. If the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court ruling now contains elements of defection that were never part of the original litigation, then the judiciary itself is under scrutiny for possible post-ruling modifications that serve political interests rather than legal precedent.

Fubara’s Imminent Political Battle: 

Governor Fubara is now in an increasingly precarious position. The Supreme Court ruling, which strengthens the authority of Wike’s lawmakers, emboldens them to further assert control over the state legislature. This ruling provides them with a legal foothold to renew impeachment threats and legislative challenges against Fubara. By narrowing his legal avenues to challenge the defected lawmakers, the ruling forces him to engage in careful political maneuvering. He must now either broaden his alliances to counterbalance Wike’s grip on the Assembly or seek a diplomatic resolution to maintain governance stability. However, given that the Senate has already openly defied a Federal High Court order, some argue that Fubara may feel justified in questioning or delaying compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Defection Cases: Has the Outcome Been Pre-Determined?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s involvement in defection cases has led to increased scrutiny on whether ongoing cases in lower courts have been effectively pre-determined. If the Supreme Court ruling includes preemptive decisions on defection that were not part of the case before it, it could signal that lower court rulings may already have a foregone conclusion, limiting any future legal challenges. This calls into question whether Nigeria’s judicial system is still a neutral venue for resolving disputes, or if it has become a tool for political leverage.

Erosion of Trust: 

What Happens When Citizens No Longer Believe in the Courts? The judiciary’s credibility is critical in maintaining democratic order, and the perception of judicial bias could exacerbate political tensions across Nigeria. Rivers State, which is already experiencing deep political divisions, is now at the heart of an institutional crisis. The selective adherence to judicial rulings raises questions about whether Nigeria is moving toward a lawful democracy or a system of rule by political decree. Public trust in the judiciary is essential, yet the growing sentiment is that some politicians and institutions are above the law while others are held strictly accountable.

The Unraveling of Nigeria’s Democracy: 

A Nation on the Precipice: In an era where political loyalty seemingly dictates legal outcomes, what happens when the people lose faith in the very institutions meant to uphold justice? If judicial orders are perceived as suggestions rather than mandates, then how does Nigeria maintain a functional democracy? With both the legislative and executive arms of government now engaged in selective compliance, the judiciary finds itself in an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy.

A Final Warning: If Court Rulings No Longer Bind, What Holds Nigeria Together?

Nigeria stands at a dangerous tipping point. The nation’s stability depends on the ability of its institutions to command respect and enforce accountability fairly and consistently. If the courts fail to uphold the principle of equal justice under the law, then democracy itself is at risk. The slow unraveling of trust in the judiciary is not just a legal or political issue—it is an existential threat to Nigeria’s ability to function as a state governed by law. If left unchecked, this erosion of trust will not only embolden further disobedience to legal authority but will set the stage for a future where governance is dictated by power rather than principles. If court rulings are no longer binding, then what remains to hold Nigeria together?

Vergangenheitsbewältigung (German: [fɛɐ̯ˈɡaŋənhaɪtsbəˌvɛltɪɡʊŋ], “struggle of overcoming the past” or “work of coping with the past”) is a German compound noun describing processes that, since the later 20th century, have become key in the study of post-1945 German literature, society, and culture. (“Overcoming the past”) is generally associated with Germany’s process of coming to terms with the history of National Socialism and the Holocaust.

Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God,” a moment of audacious deception and divine attribution, remains etched in the collective memory of football. It’s a story that transcended the boundaries of a simple sporting event, becoming a cultural touchstone, a symbol of cunning and controversy. The replay, the analysis, the debate – all contributed to the solidification of this moment into a piece of history, albeit a contested one. In Nigeria, we yearn for such clarity, such a tangible, debated, and ultimately understood narrative of our past.

IBB

Our historical landscape is cotton woven with threads of omission, selective memory, and a profound reluctance to confront the more painful chapters of our national story.

The systematic removal of history from secondary school curricula, a decision that effectively severed a generation from its roots, speaks volumes about our discomfort with our past. This deliberate erasure has created a void, a chasm where a shared understanding of our nation’s journey should reside.

The prioritization of foreign empires, like the Songhai, over the intricate and complex story of Nigerian history further compounds this issue. While these external narratives offer valuable perspectives, they cannot replace the fundamental need to understand our internal dynamics, our struggles, and our triumphs. The absence of a comprehensive exploration of the “Nigerian empire,” whatever form it may have taken, leaves a critical gap in our understanding of our own identity.

The Biafran War, a brutal and deeply divisive conflict, stands as a stark example of our reluctance to confront our past. The persistent refusal to commission a televised narrative, a project that could have served as a powerful tool for healing and reconciliation, underscores our collective unease. The parallels with “Hotel Rwanda” and “Sometimes in April,” films that dared to confront the horrors of genocide, are undeniable. By shying away from our painful truths, we perpetuate a cycle of misunderstanding and mistrust.

The Jos September 21 crisis, a more recent but equally devastating event, suffers from a similar lack of comprehensive documentation and public discourse. The absence of a clear, accessible narrative leaves the wounds of this tragedy festering, hindering the process of healing and reconciliation. Without a shared understanding of these events, we are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Equally troubling are the unresolved controversies that loom like specters over Nigeria’s political history. The 1986 assassination of Dele Giwa, founder of Newswatch magazine, via a letter bomb remains a festering wound. Despite evidence implicating state actors, the case languishes in obscurity, buried under layers of official obfuscation. Similarly, the 2001 murder of Bola Ige, then-Attorney General and Minister of Justice, remains shrouded in mystery. The unanswered question of who killed Bola Ige has become a metaphor for the culture of impunity that haunts Nigeria’s corridors of power. These are not mere cold cases; they are testaments to a state’s refusal to confront its shadows.

Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, IBB

This opacity extends beyond individual tragedies. The Nigerian state’s insistence on classifying vast swathes of historical records—often under the guise of “national security”—denies citizens access to their own story. While democracies like the United States declassify documents after set periods, Nigeria’s archives remain locked, fueling speculation and conspiracy. What truths lie hidden in files marked confidential? What role did the state play in pivotal moments like the annulment of June 12 or the fuel subsidy protests? By clinging to secrecy, the state reduces history to a weapon, wielded to control narratives rather than enlighten the public.

Compounding this is the relegation of national discourse to the realm of myth and rumor. Without official records, history becomes a battleground of competing anecdotes. Was MKO Abiola’s death natural or engineered? What truly transpired during the Dimka coup? In the absence of facts, hearsay thrives. The danger is not merely academic; it erodes trust in institutions and fractures collective memory. When history is negotiable, manipulated by those in power, or concocted in the echo chambers of social media, society loses its anchor. A nation cannot mature when its past is a puzzle with missing pieces, assembled by guesswork and bias.

The silence of key figures, particularly those who played pivotal roles in shaping our nation’s destiny, exacerbates the problem. General Gowon, a man who stood at the helm of the nation during a tumultuous period, remains silent, his war memoirs unwritten. His perspective, his insights, and his reflections are invaluable, yet they remain locked away, depriving us of a crucial piece of our historical puzzle.

The recent launch of IBB’s autobiography, while a welcome addition to the sparse collection of personal narratives, underscores the challenges we face. In a nation starved of historical context, such accounts become not just personal reflections but de facto historical records. However, these accounts, by their very nature, are subjective, offering a single perspective on complex events. They cannot replace the rigorous, objective analysis of professional historians and the wealth of information contained in well-maintained archives.

Unlike nations with robust archival systems and transparent processes for declassifying historical documents, we rely heavily on “tales by moonlight,” anecdotal fragments that, while valuable, lack the rigor and objectivity of structured historical analysis. This reliance on oral traditions and personal accounts blurs the lines between public relations and historical record, allowing narratives to be shaped by personal agendas rather than a pursuit of truth.

The power of literature, as evidenced by Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart,” lies in its ability to illuminate the human experience and offer insights into the past. However, literature alone cannot replace the foundational role of history. History is not constructed logically; it happens, it is recorded, and it is taught. Without that foundation, we are left with fragments, interpretations, and the ever-present danger of repeating the mistakes of the past.

Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida

We must reclaim our history. We must demand comprehensive education, open archives, and honest narratives. We must encourage those who shaped our nation to share their stories, not as PR exercises but as contributions to a collective understanding.

Only then can we move forward, not as a nation adrift, but as a people grounded in the truth of our shared journey. Only then can we ensure that the “Hand of God” of our past does not become a tool for manipulation but a lesson for a more informed and united future. We need to create a culture where history is valued, debated, and understood, not suppressed or manipulated.

This means investing in historical research, supporting archival institutions, and fostering a spirit of open dialogue about our past. It means ensuring that our children are taught the full, unvarnished truth about their nation’s history, both the triumphs and the tragedies. Only then can we build a future where the lessons of the past guide us toward a more just and equitable society.

I would end by stating painfully that we are in a coffin, where young Nigerians exhibit a profound disconnection from their historical heritage and cultural roots, reflecting a broader societal shift away from the collective memory and traditions that once defined their identity. This detachment not only undermines their sense of belonging but also diminishes their understanding of the cultural, social, and historical narratives that have shaped the nation. In an era dominated by globalization and digital modernity, the erosion of this connection to the past poses significant challenges to the preservation of Nigeria’s rich cultural legacy and the cultivation of a cohesive national identity. Do we remain in the coffin or resurrect—Only time will tell.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has lamented the supposed trauma he and the Senate have suffered due to the sexual harassment allegations leveled against him by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. However, if truth be told, the real victim of trauma is Natasha herself—a woman who dared to speak up against male dominance in a legislature historically hostile to women’s leadership.

The psychological toll of her suspension, public vilification, and institutional gaslighting reflects the entrenched patriarchy in Nigeria’s political system. The Senate, under the leadership of Akpabio and Majority Leader Opeyemi Bamidele, has turned a blind eye to the systemic suffering inflicted upon women who challenge the status quo. Instead of addressing the allegations with due process, they have chosen to silence and isolate the accuser, reinforcing a culture of impunity.

The Trauma of Silencing Women in Power

For Akpoti-Uduaghan, the trauma is profound. Her suspension is more than a political penalty; it is an act of psychological warfare against all women in leadership. The Senate’s decision sends a chilling message to Nigerian women: speak up, and you will be punished. This calculated retaliation induces fear, stress, and emotional distress, creating an environment where women are systematically discouraged from seeking public office.

The impact of such institutional bullying includes:

Public humiliation and degradation: She was forcibly walked out of the Senate chamber by the Sergeant-at-Arms, a move intended to break her spirit in full view of her colleagues and the nation.

Economic and career sabotage: Her office was locked immediately after her suspension, denying her access to essential legislative tools and resources. Her salary was cut off without due process, ensuring that she was left financially vulnerable.

Verbal attacks and intimidation: Male senators, one after another, hurled painful words at her on the Senate floor, weaponizing their voices to degrade and shame her. They dismissed her claims, questioned her character, and cast her as unruly and unfit to serve.

Institutionalized media manipulation: A dark cloud of misinformation was spread through compromised media outlets, framing her as the aggressor rather than the victim. Headlines painted her as disruptive, unworthy, and a political opportunist, erasing the context of her ordeal.

Authoritarian suppression of her voice

Her microphone was abruptly cut off during her last moments on the Senate floor, a symbolic and literal silencing of her words. Akpabio himself presided over this entire charade, ensuring that she had no chance to defend herself.

Psychological toll: Should she decide to seek therapy to heal from the trauma inflicted upon her, the Senate must be held financially responsible for the cost of her treatment. It is the institution that inflicted this harm, and it must bear the burden of redress.

The Role of the Senate in Perpetuating Psychological Abuse

The Nigerian Senate, through Akpabio and Bamidele, has mastered the art of psychological manipulation by making Akpoti-Uduaghan’s experience seem like an overreaction. The Senate President’s remarks, filled with sarcasm and dismissal, seek to trivialize her experience.

Akpabio’s statements—such as suggesting that no one heard of the harassment until a committee change—are not just defensive; they are deliberate attempts to question her credibility and normalize gendered political suppression. This is a classic example of gaslighting, a psychological abuse tactic designed to make victims question their own reality.

Moreover, the refusal to acknowledge Akpoti-Uduaghan’s trauma is part of a broader pattern in Nigeria’s male-dominated power structures, where men in leadership feign victimhood when held accountable. By shifting the narrative, the Senate avoids addressing the systemic issues that enable gender-based violence in governance.

The Broader Impact: What This Means for Nigerian Women

The handling of this case has ramifications beyond the walls of the National Assembly. It discourages young women from entering politics, reinforces gender discrimination, and perpetuates a toxic culture where women are expected to endure mistreatment in silence.

The Senate’s actions violate international commitments Nigeria has made to protect women’s rights, including:

The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

The Urgent Need for Accountability

Nigeria cannot continue to present itself as a champion of gender equality while engaging in high-profile acts of gender suppression. Women’s rights organizations, international human rights bodies, and legal advocates must challenge this injustice at the national and global levels. The following organizations should take a stand:

United Nations Women (UN Women)

Human Rights Watch (HRW)

Amnesty International

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

The Global Fund for Women

The African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET)

Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

These leaders treat Nigeria as their personal playground, unchallenged because they have the police and judiciary under fear and compromise. The institutional corruption that enables them must be dismantled, and they must be held to account by both local and global legal frameworks.

Who is the Real Victim?

Senate President Akpabio and his allies may claim to be traumatized, but the real question is: who holds the power and who is actually suffering the consequences? The victim here is not the man who has access to unlimited political resources and media control—it is the woman who has been silenced, vilified, and excluded from the legislative process for daring to speak her truth.

If justice is to be served, Akpoti-Uduaghan must be reinstated, her allegations must be investigated with transparency, and the Nigerian Senate must be held accountable for its systemic oppression of women in governance. Until then, this remains a glaring example of how power protects itself at the expense of truth, justice, and democracy.

The Nigerian Senate, a crucial pillar of democracy, stands at a crossroads. Once a revered institution, the Senate finds itself at the centre of a crisis threatening its legitimacy and reputation. The ongoing crisis culminating in the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not just about her or Senate President Godswill Akpabio—it is about the integrity of the Senate itself. The Senate, which should serve as a beacon of democracy and a voice for the people, is increasingly being perceived as a self-serving institution that adds no value to the life of the average Nigerian. The arc of public opinion on the Senate has reached an all-time low. No matter the divide on this matter, the common ground is that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s saga is a dent on the reputation and stature of the Nigerian Senate.

The consequences of this growing distrust are dire. A democracy without a credible legislature is a failing one. If this trend continues, the Senate will lose not only its authority but also its aura, clout, respect, and relevance in the Nigerian democratic system. This could lead to a vacuum in the governance structure, potentially paving the way for a constitutional crisis. It is imperative that lawmakers recognise the damage a reputational crisis could do and take immediate steps to restore the sanctity of this institution.

As a former legislator, I understand the role of a presiding officer in allocating and reassigning seats based on legislative tradition. On this count, Senator Natasha Akpoti overreached herself and may have lessons in composure and understanding rules. On the issue of her suspension for six months, the Akpabio-led Senate danced to the wrong tune and ended up losing the deal. I concede to the Senate its right to use its duly constituted committees to ensure discipline. However, Natasha’s rights of fair hearing must be balanced against the entitlement of the Senate to order and discipline. There are many things wrong with both the suspension and the Senate’s approach to the issues that leave that institution vulnerable, and I will highlight a few.

Due to legislative breaks, weekends, and recesses, she could be out of the chamber for almost a year, although suspended for 6 months, leaving the people of Kogi Central without representation. This not only undermines the democratic rights of the people but also hampers their ability to address local issues and concerns. According to the National Assembly website, each senator represents an average of 1.5 to 2 million Nigerians. This means that millions of citizens effectively have no representation. Another issue that the manner of her suspension has thrown up is the Senate’s increasing tendency to suppress dissent and operate without transparency. The Senate is both a public and a democratic institution. 

However, the way the Senate has handled the issue of sexual harassment allegations against its president raises serious concerns. Such allegations must be taken seriously and appropriately investigated, yet the Senate appears more focused on silencing the accuser than addressing the claims. A 2021 report by the National Bureau of Statistics indicates that 30% of Nigerian women have experienced sexual harassment in workplaces and institutions. Ignoring such an accusation at the highest level of governance sets a dangerous precedent.

It is true that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had previously benefitted from Senate President Akpabio’s liberal disposition when she was appointed Chair of the Senate Committee on Local Content. Yet, the way the sexual harassment allegations have been handled suggests an institution that does not take its moral standing and reputation seriously. The institution’s approach to this issue shows a troubling disregard for fairness and transparency.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended without a fair hearing. She did not appear before the ethics committee because of subsisting court order. This matter was already in court. The Senate should have respected the judicial process instead of preempting its outcome. Acknowledged, the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2018 outlaws the courts interfering in internal legislative processes; the Senate ought to approach the court and do the right thing. Whereas some argue that legislative matters are beyond judicial interference, precedent shows otherwise.

The Supreme Court had previously halted legislative processes during a constitutional amendment, proving that the judiciary has a role in ensuring constitutional compliance. Past rulings have shown that the courts can intervene in legislative matters, yet the Senate proceeded without regard for judicial authority. According to a 2018 report by the Centre for Democracy and Development, Nigeria has a history of executive, legislative, and judicial overreach and rascality that has significantly weakened public trust in governance.

This saga takes us back to the constitutional question, does any legislative house under our current constitution has the power to suspend an elected member for any duration without going against the spirit and letter of our constitution. It is evident that the Senate lacks the constitutional authority to suspend a senator for six months. As previous court rulings have reaffirmed, the Senate’s internal rules cannot override constitutional provisions. 

In 2017, the Federal High Court ruled that the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume for 90 days was unconstitutional. The court ordered his reinstatement and the payment of all outstanding salaries. In 2018, the Federal High Court also nullified the suspension of Senator Omo-Agege, ruling that the Senate could not suspend a member beyond 14 days. These precedents show that the Senate’s decision to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months is unconstitutional and will likely be overturned if challenged in court.

It is unacceptable that Senate President Akpabio, who is accused of sexual harassment, presided over the suspension of his accuser. This is a fundamental violation of legal ethics—no one should be a judge in their own case. Senator Akpabio should have recused himself to ensure fairness. There is a precedent in this regard: Senator Bukola Saraki, during the 8th Senate, was accused of nonpayment of customs duty on a bulletproof official car he imported. SP Bukola Saraki stepped aside and allowed his deputy to preside over his investigation. Senator Akpabio was in the Senate at the time and should have taken a cue. 

The Senate, in this instance, has demonstrated an alarming lack of openness. The Ethics and Privileges Committee should have conducted its proceedings publicly to maintain credibility. Instead, the Senate moved forward with a suspension that appears politically motivated and legally unsound.

The Senate’s refusal to properly investigate the allegations against its president sends a dangerous message: that sexual harassment claims can be dismissed with political manoeuvring. This is a grave injustice that damages the Senate’s reputation. One wonders how the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions suddenly becomes so efficient and fast in dispensing punishment to Senator Natasha in this case when it usually is sluggish in dealing with the many petitions and cases before it. This smack of a hatchet job and it does not help the public standing of the Senate.

It is unfortunate that the Senate has conducted its affairs opaquely for a matter that has come to the public’s attention. The Senate’s lack of transparency in this matter is a clear indication of the need for openness and honesty in governance. For the Senate to ignore and sweep under the carpet the issue of sexual harassment is a disservice to the President of the Senate and the institution.

Mr. Senate president can show he has power by suspending Senator Natasha, but it is not a cure for such a serious allegation. The best the Senate can do is to conduct a proper investigation on the issue and come out with a clean bill of health. The Senate must understand that the Nigerian public wants transparency and full disclosure of all the problems. It is not a private matter. Sexual harassment is a serious accusation and cannot be dismissed as trivial as the Senate did. It’s a dark spot on the reputation of the Senate. It is also not acceptable in a democracy.

The suspension of a senator without due process creates a dangerous precedent. If allowed to stand, this decision could pave the way for further suppression of dissenting voices, weakening democracy in Nigeria. The Nigerian Senate is already struggling with negative public perception. This incident further erodes confidence in its ability to act as a “check and balance” on the other arms of government.  

The Senate must acknowledge its overreach on the Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan matter. The Nigerian public demands accountability. It is common sense to recognise that the Senate is at risk of permanent reputational damage.  A Senate with sullied reputation does no one or the country any good. If it continues to prioritise power plays over democratic principles, it will lose whatever legitimacy and respect it still holds and enjoys. To save itself, the Senate must return to the principles of integrity, fairness, openess and constitutional adherence. The Nigerian people deserve a legislative body that upholds justice, fairness, and transparency, not one that operates in secrecy and impunity. The future of Nigerian democracy depends on it. 

The National Working Committee (NWC) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has approved that the earlier postponed party’s zonal congress in the South South Zone will now hold on Saturday, April 12, 2025.

Hon. Debo Ologunagba, National Publicity Secretary of the PDP in a statement also said the NWC has approved the shifting of the South West and North Central Zonal Congresses from the earlier scheduled date of Saturday, March 22, 2025 to Saturday, April 12, 2025.

PDP said the zonal congresses will hold simultaneously in Port Harcourt, Rivers State (South South Zone); Ibadan, Oyo State (South West Zone) and Jos, Plateau State (North Central Zone) to elect the executives officers and national ex-officio members for the respective zonal chapters in line with the constitution and guidelines of our great party.

The NWC also “Charges all aspirants, leaders, critical stakeholders, teeming members of our party in the respective zones, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), security agencies and the media to note the scheduled date of Saturday, April 12, 2025 for the zonal congresses for South South, South West and North Central zof our party and be guided accordingly.”

 [DailyTrust]

The six months suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan following her allegations against Senate President, Godswill Akpabio has drawn debates on gender, power, and political fairness in Nigeria.

Though the Senate had said her suspension was not related to her fight with Akpabio but due to her alleged incessant violation of the senate rules, many Nigerians, particularly those from the north have continued to raise concerns on the place of women in Nigerian politics.

While some view the current development as a reflection of the challenges female politicians face, others see it as a political dispute with broader implications for the Senate’s integrity.

On March 6, 2025, the Senate suspended Akpoti-Uduaghan, citing violations of legislative decorum.

The Senate’s ethics committee reported that she engaged in unruly behavior, made disrespectful remarks against Senate leadership, and defied committee summonses.

Specifically, she was accused of refusing to sit in her assigned seat, speaking without recognition, and making abusive comments. These actions were deemed violations of Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (As Amended).

Akpoti-Uduaghan, prior to her suspension, submitted a petition accusing the Senate President of sexual harassment, abuse of office, and obstruction of legislative functions.

However, the Senate’s ethics committee dismissed her petition, citing procedural rule violations.

Also, Akpabio publicly denied the allegations, stating that he had never harassed Akpoti-Uduaghan or any female senator.

Shortly after this, the Senate announced Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension, leading to speculation that it was a retaliatory move to silence her.

Reacting to the allegations of bias on Saturday, Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele issued a statement insisting that Akpoti-Uduaghan was not suspended because of her petition but for her consistent misconduct and blatant disregard for Senate rules.

He urged the public and the media to disregard false narratives suggesting that the suspension was linked to her petition against Akpabio.

He emphasized that the decision was necessary to restore order and maintain the integrity of the Senate.

The timing of her suspension, coming shortly after her sexual harassment petition, has led to widespread public skepticism.

Many Nigerians, including opposition politicians and activists, believe the action was politically motivated and aimed at silencing her.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) condemned the suspension, describing it
as suppression.

Atiku argued that the decision undermined the principles of fairness, representation, and gender inclusivity.

“Women should be empowered to fully participate in governance, not stifled,” he stated.

Also, organisations such as the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) criticised the Senate’s decision to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, calling it an unconstitutional move that undermines democracy and legislative independence.

The criticism continued with organisation like the Coalition for Women in Governance and the Women in Management, Business, and Public Service who threatened to mobilise women for a massive protest if the decision was not reversed.

This prompted a response from the Federal Government on Friday, stating its intention to intervene in the crisis.

Minister of Women Affairs, Mrs. Iman Suleiman-Ibrahim, described the situation as unfortunate, emphasizing the need to protect female representation in the Senate.

“In the last Assembly, we had nine female senators. We don’t want to see a decline in that number,” she said.

“We will work towards resolving this issue peacefully by engaging all stakeholders and urging them to temper justice with mercy.”

However, harassment allegations in the Nigerian Senate are not new. One of the most controversial incidents occurred in July 2016, during a closed-door session of the Senate, when a heated exchange ensued ybetween Senator Dino Melaye and Senator Oluremi Tinubu.

Reports indicated that Melaye, who was representing Kogi West at the time, allegedly threatened to assault and impregnate Tinubu, who was then representing Lagos Central.

According to multiple sources, Melaye was quoted as saying he would “beat up” and “impregnate” her, remarks that were widely condemned as sexist and inappropriate.

Tinubu, who is now Nigeria’s First Lady, accused Melaye of making threatening and demeaning comments toward her. She described the incident as an act of verbal assault and intimidation, claiming that Melaye even attempted to physically attack her during the altercation.

Melaye, however, denied the allegations, insisting that he never physically assaulted Tinubu.

He argued that his words were taken out of context and dismissed the controversy as a political disagreement rather than an issue of harassment.

Despite the outrage that followed the incident, no disciplinary action was taken against Melaye, and the Senate did not officially sanction him.

Women leaders react to Akpabio-Natasha controversy

Hajiya Fatima, the All Progressives Congress (APC) women leader in Kano, in an interview with DAILY POST described the controversy as unfortunate and damaging to the image of women in politics.

She acknowledged that the issue could discourage more women from joining politics, especially in Northern Nigeria, where cultural and religious factors already limit female participation.

“Allegations like this paint a negative picture of women in politics. It reinforces the wrong perception that women cannot handle leadership positions without facing harassment or intimidation,” she said.

However, Fatima noted that the APC had made efforts in the past to support women’s inclusion, particularly under the administration of former Governor, Abdullahi Ganduje.

“During Ganduje’s time, women were given more opportunities. But things have changed now, and we need more policies to encourage women,” she added.

She recalled that during Ganduje’s tenure, his wife advocated a 60-40 representation policy favoring women. Which means that women should be higher than the men in positions because women are trustworthy and even the votes come more from women.

Hajiya Fatima emphasized that when a woman is determined to accomplish something, she does it well. She noted that since women play a significant role in election campaigns and contribute to electoral victories, they should not be sidelined when political positions are being allocated. Unfortunately, she added, that is not the case today.

Also, Hajara Ado Alhaji, the NNPP women leader in Shanono Local Government Area, acknowledged that harassment and intimidation were common tactics used to sideline women in politics.

She, however, revealed to DAILY POST that having spent over 30 years in politics without significant progress, she attributed the challenges faced by female politicians to favoritism and party politics.

“I have been in politics for decades, but I still don’t know where I stand. The system favors those with connections, not those with capacity,” she lamented during an interview with DAILY POST on Wednesday.

Political analyst speaks on Akpabio-Natasha’s controversy

Hassan Ibrahim, a political analyst, in an interview with DAILY POST described the controversy between Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan as a troubling development with serious implications for the integrity of the Senate and public confidence in the institution.

“This issue is not just about two individuals,” Ibrahim stated.

“It has the potential to cast a shadow over the entire Senate as an institution. The Legislature is a key arm of government, elected by the people to make laws and represent their interests. When such allegations emerge especially involving the Senate President, it raises serious concerns about the sanctity of the Senate and the democratic process.”

Regarding Senator Natasha’s allegations of sexual harassment against Akpabio, Ibrahim noted that the claims must be handled carefully to avoid undermining public trust.

“These are heavy allegations. Whether true or false, they need to be addressed urgently to clear any doubts and ensure that the institution remains credible,” he said.

“Sexual harassment allegations like this can make things even harder for women in politics. If such issues keep coming up, many women especially from the North will be discouraged from participating due to societal and family pressures,” he explained.

Despite this, he commended Senator Natasha for speaking out.

“What Natasha did by bringing this issue to light might encourage more women in politics to speak up about their experiences,” he said.

Ibrahim further highlighted the financial burden as a major obstacle for women seeking political offices.

“Politics in Nigeria is very expensive. The cost of nomination forms alone is discouraging. The major political parties, especially the ruling APC and the main opposition PDP, have set their nomination fees so high that many women cannot afford them,” he noted.

He also pointed out that even women who can afford the costs are often discouraged by party politics. “Even if a woman buys the form, there is always the fear that she won’t be nominated because of godfatherism and internal party politics,” he explained.

Beyond financial barriers, Ibrahim emphasized that women in politics face intimidation and harassment.

“A lot of women who contest elections face threats and intimidation. Some are pressured into making compromises. That is why many capable women shy away from politics,” he said.

When asked why Northern Nigeria has fewer female politicians compared to the South, Ibrahim pointed to cultural and educational barriers.

“In the North, women are traditionally expected to stay within the domestic sphere, limiting their exposure to public life. Even highly educated women often avoid politics due to societal restrictions,” he said.

He emphasized that education and economic empowerment are key to increasing women’s participation.

“Without education, women cannot play any key role in politics. The good news is that more Northern women are now attending schools, but we need to do more to encourage their involvement in governance,” he stated.

He praised the Jigawa State governor’s policy of providing free education for females from primary to tertiary levels, describing it as a positive step toward creating a level playing field for women to compete and participate in politics.

He called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce policies that support female politicians.

“INEC should ensure that political parties reserve a certain number of positions for women. This will help increase female representation in government,” he added.

“Political parties should also consider granting waivers for female politicians. Additionally, parents should instill leadership qualities in their daughters from an early age, encouraging them to believe that they can excel and even outperform their male counterparts,” he concluded.

[DailyPost]

• Lagos directorate tops commission’s 4,111 convictions with 685

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has said the over N50 billion recovered from fraudsters in 2024 was among the funds invested into the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND).

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that this information is based on the EFCC’s 2024 statistical report made available to reporters yesterday in Abuja.

NAN also reports that NELFUND was established through the Students Loans (Access to Higher Education) Act, 2024, signed into law by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on April 3, last year.

The initiative is a programme established by the Federal Government of Nigeria to break financial barriers in higher education.

In its report, the anti-graft agency described its activities in 2024 as its greatest achievements, especially its largest single-year asset recovery since its establishment in 2003.

The statistics indicated that the N50 billion granted to NELFUND by the Federal Government was sourced from the monetary recoveries of the EFCC.

“Such monetary recoveries include N364.6 billion; $214.51 million; 54,319 euro; 31,265 euro; Canadian dollar (CAD) $2,990 and Australian dollar (AUD) $740.00.

“Others are: the French franc (CFA) 7,821,375, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Dirham 170, Saudi Arabian 5,115 Riyals, Japanese W73,000,105 Yen, Ghana’s cedi (GH¢) 225 and South Africa’s 50,000 Rands,” it said.

According to the commission, some of the monetary recoveries have been reinvested by the Federal Government in initiatives that provide significant benefits to the Nigerian people.

The anti-graft agency attributed its success to the dedication of its officers and the enabling environment provided by management and stakeholders.

Also, the EFCC has said it secured 4,111 convictions in 2024 – its highest in its 22-year history.

These were from 15,724, petitions, 12,928 investigations, and 5,083 prosecutions.

Leading the pack is the Lagos Zonal Directorate with 685 convictions from 3,224 petitions, 2,454 cases investigated, and 786 cases filed in court.

This is followed by Enugu with 516 convictions from 545 cases prosecuted and Ibadan with 501 convictions from 786 prosecutions.

Others are Benin with 412 convictions, Ilorin with 230, Kaduna with 273, Gombe with 147, Kano with 148, Abuja with 140, Makurdi with161, Maiduguri 95, Port Harcourt 185, Sokoto 108 and Uyo with 220 convictions.

Also last year, the commission recorded its best-ever performance since its inception in 2003 with the single largest asset recovery ever, and significant money forfeitures.

An appraisal of the commission’s operations in the last 12 months shows that since January 2024, the EFCC recorded unprecedented volumes of, and breakthroughs in cases involving Advance Fee Fraud, Money Laundering, and Cybercrime, among others, across all its Zonal Directorates in the country.

The EFCC monetary recoveries for the year include N364,597,370,151.35, US$214,513,439.55, UK£54,318.64, 31,265, Euros, CAD$2,990 and AUD $740.00.

Others are CFA7,821,375, UAE DIRHAM 170, RIYALS 5,115, W73,000, 105 Yen, GH¢225 and RANDS 50.

Recovered assets in 2024 include the forfeiture to the Federal Government of over 750 duplexes and other apartments in late 2024, which is the single largest recovery by the Commission since its inception.

The assets include 173 vehicles, cash sums of N9,477,977,318.78, $2,605,858.30 and UKP1,600.

Others include cryptocurrencies of 13.37BTC worth about $572,992.86; ETHEREUM worth $13,353.06, GREEN SATOSHI token worth $6, 1,002.547631, among others.

The rest are 378 electronics, one factory, one hotel, two gold chains, 14 parcels of land, petroleum products and 70 tons of unidentified solid minerals.

According to the commission, some of the monetary recoveries have been reinvested by the Federal Government in initiatives that provide significant benefits to the Nigerian people.

An example is the N50 billion granted to the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) from the recoveries.

Apart from contributing to various developmental projects, enhancing public welfare and promoting sustainable growth across the country, the initiatives also contribute to improving the quality of life for Nigerians and support the country’s long-term development goals.

[TheNation]

The Martin Amaewhule-led Rivers State House of Assembly, on Sunday, asked Governor Siminalayi Fubara to channel his invitation to the members properly and not through social media.

The reaction followed the invitation to the Assembly to a meeting with the governor at the Government House, on Monday (today).

Fubara, through the Secretary to the State Government, Dr Tammy Danagogo, said the meeting, scheduled for 10 am, was expected to address key issues, including the provision of sitting space for the Assembly, payment of outstanding allowances, and the presentation of the 2025 budget.

The 27 lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly loyal to the former governor, Nyesom Wike, may, however, reject the invitation except their condition is met by the governor.

One of the lawmakers, Isaiah Opuende who represents Akuku-Toru Constituency 2, blasted the governor for inviting the Assembly members via social media.

Opuende urged the governor to communicate with them appropriately, adding that it was surprising that Fubara would call them after he had told them at several fora to “dey their dey.”

He stated, “It is time for us to determine our dey. When the ‘dey your dey’ started, our principal said the time for our own ‘dey your dey’ will come. Now, our ‘dey your dey’ has come.

“Dey your dey make we dey our dey. How can you wire a letter and post it on social media and expect us to honour it? You know we are not kids. The governor should properly write to the Assembly. That’s all. Thank you.”

Similarly, some former local government chairmen who served during the tenure of Wike were also seen in a viral video, singing and mocking Fubara over the invitation extended to the Assembly members.

A former chairman of Ikwerre LG, Dr Samuel Nwanosike, with scores of other dancing and singing in a mocking manner, asked the governor not to disturb the Speaker, Amaewhule.

They sang repeatedly, “Dey your dey, make I dey my dey, dey your dey, nobody worry Amaewhule.”

Following the Supreme Court judgment affirming their legitimacy, the lawmakers, in their first sitting, urged Governor Siminalayi Fubara to present the 2025 budget. They also demanded that he submit nominees for commissioner and other appointments, insisting that those currently serving in the cabinet lacked legal backing.

Additionally, they summoned the chairman and commissioners of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission to appear before them on Monday.

However, the requests were ignored, as Commissioner for Information, Joseph Johnson, stated that the government was awaiting the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment before taking action.

The CTC was eventually released on Thursday evening and widely published in national dailies on Friday.

In a bid to establish a relationship and woo the lawmakers, the SSG, Danagogo, wrote a letter addressed to the Speaker, Amaewhule, on Sunday, titled, “Meeting between the Governor of the Rivers State and the Honourable Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.”

Danagogo stated in the letter that the meeting became necessary following the governor’s receipt of the CTC of the Supreme Court judgment.

The letter said the discussion would centre on the provision of a space for the lawmakers to be sitting, presentation of the 2025 budget, among others.

The statement read, “I hereby write in furtherance of His Excellency’s promise stated in my letter dated 5 March 2025 to notify you that His Excellency has received the Supreme Court judgment, and has, therefore, directed me to invite you and your colleagues – the honourable members of Rivers State House of Assembly, to a meeting to discuss:

“Provision of a befitting space for the Assembly’s sittings, payment of all outstanding remuneration or allowances of the Honourable members;

“Presentation of budget and sundry matters. Any other matter(s), as may be necessary, to chart the way forward in the best interest of the state.

“Sequel to the above, I hereby humbly invite the Rt. Hon. Speaker, and all the members of the Rivers State House of Assembly to a meeting with the Governor as follows”

The invitation of the lawmakers by the governor came as the 72-hour ultimatum given to the RSIEC chairman to appear before the House expires today.

Amaewhule had, during plenary on Friday, said the Assembly had taken legislative notice of Fubara’s failure to forward names of his commissioner nominees to the House for screening.

Efforts to reach the Commissioner for Information and Communications, Johnson, failed as his mobile line was not connecting as of the time of filing this report.

APC hails invitation

The development was hailed by the Chief Tony Okocha-led All Progressives Congress and the Emeka Beke-led faction, loyal to former Minister of Transport, Rotimi Amaechi.

The Okocha faction, loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, described Fubara’s invitation to the lawmakers as a welcome development.

The state Publicity Secretary of the party, Chibuike Ikenga, disclosed this during a telephone chat with our correspondent on Sunday.

Ikenga expressed the hope that the move would lead to a resolution of the crisis between the two arms of government in the state.

He stated, “Our position as a party is to the effect that whatever will bring lasting peace to Rivers State is what we support.

“And the two sides, the executive and the legislature, should make all these overtures to engender confidence building which of course will lead to a final resolution of this crisis.

“The Supreme Court had already put a nail on it, but interpersonal relationships between the leaders of the two arms of government are encouraged. There are overtures expected from the two sides which have quarrelled for close to two years.

“That the Rivers State House of Assembly had written letters to the governor and the governor has also responded and the governor has written, inviting them as part of the follow-up of the earlier letter, we welcome all these processes and procedures that will lead to final resolution.”

Also, the Chief of Staff to the Beke-led APC, Chizi Entire, described the development as a win-win situation.

He commended the governor for keeping to his promise of implementing the Supreme Court judgment.

“The letter written by the governor to the Assembly shows that he is a man who believes in the rule of law and who can also maintain his stand and do what he says. This is the first move to ensure orderliness in the state. The governor sees that the people matter and not him.

“So making peace with the lawmakers is the best thing he can achieve for now. When it is achieved, I think the state will move forward.

“The Supreme Court has recognised the Martin Amaewhule-led House of Assembly and the governor does not have any option but to obey the judgment of the Supreme Court.

“It is a win-win. Nobody is a loser and nobody is a winner,” he said.

Ex-LG chairs

Former chairmen of Ijaw-dominated local government areas in Rivers State have condemned threats by non-state actors over the political crisis in the state.

Some groups had threatened to disrupt oil production and cause a crisis in the state if Fubara was impeached.

The former campaign coordinators for Fubara in their various local government areas called on the police, the Department of State Security and other security agencies to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the interest of the people.

The former members of the Association of Local Government Nigeria said Fubara failed to take the opportunity offered to him by the presidential intervention to end the crisis.

The Ijaw leaders, who said they remained the substantive chairmen of their local government areas, following their aborted tenure extension, said they heaved a sigh of relief that the Supreme Court had ended the crisis.

“Unfortunately, our attention was drawn to both subtle and frontal threats to the government, instigated by some individuals and organisations, who ostensibly are beneficiaries of the crises.

“It’s even worse that they use the Ijaw identity to fuel the embers of violence and intimidation against the Federal Government.

“In this category are organisations such as the Ijaw National Congress and some renegades of the Ijaw Youth Council.

“These organisations stated publicly that the Ijaws will resort to violence against critical national oil infrastructure if Governor Fubara is impeached.

“This implies that these pro-Ijaw ethnic organisations have not read the Supreme Court judgment they so condemn,” the LG chairmen said.

The statement was signed by Daniel O. Daniel, Abua/Odual; Dr Rowland C. Sekibo, Akuku Toru; Dr Erastus C. Awortu, Andoni; Onengiye George, Asari Toru; Michael John Williams, Degema; Chief Vincent Nemioboka, Ogu Bolo; Akuro Tobin, Okrika; Tamunotonye Douglas, Vice-Chairman, Port Harcourt City and Ubile Jack, Vice-Chairman, Ahoada West.

They said: “We condemn those empty threats and urge the Federal Government and Nigerians to disregard such comments which project the Ijaws in a bad light.

“Moreso, it is a fact that these threats attack the sensitivity of people from other ethnic groups in Rivers State who also voted for Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

“We have also seen videos and press statements of supposed stakeholders, including Prof Benjamin Okaba, Alhaji Mujaheed Asari Dokubo threatening the energy security of the Nigerian state if attempts at implementation of the judgment lead to the impeachment of the governor.”

The ex-LG chairmen queried: “Did the judgment call for Fubara’s impeachment? The simple answer is no. Where were these persons who claimed to be fighting the so-called Ijaw fight when the governor truncated the tenure and seized the allocation of the LGAs including those of us who are fellow Ijaws?

“Where were they when he stopped the salaries of the Assembly members and even made conscious attempts to use the courts to impeach them, including 10 Ijaw sons? They were all unconcerned because they were benefitting from the crisis and are not ready to stop benefitting from it.”

The ex-council bosses assured Nigerians that they would mobilise the support base to protect oil installations situated in their respective communities.

“We call on Governor Fubara to obey and ensure the full compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

“As everybody is aware, impeachment is a profound constitutional prescription to penalise any erring governor or president in a presidential system of government.

“The Ijaws should at this point ensure that their beloved son does not carry out any act that will necessitate the deployment of this constitutionally approved procedure to check his excesses,” the statement read.

[Punch]

A major political milestone, the June 12, 1993 presidential election which has led to ‘Democracy Day’ in Nigeria, might not have occurred. That is if five years earlier some personnel of the Nigeria Air Force Base in Lagos had succeeded in murdering the eventual winner of that election, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Abiola.

Abiola, then regarded as the richest man in the country, was extremely powerful with personal friends like then head of the military junta, General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida. But despite these and his immense international status, Abiola in the eyes of the military was no more than a ‘ bloody civilian’ as some soldiers derogatorily refer to non-military personnel.

His near-death encounter was on Monday, January 25, 1988, right inside his palatial home. That day some soldiers had gone on rampage in Lagos over a traffic accident. In the ensuring commotion, Ayodeji Abiola, Chief Abiola’s second son, had a minor traffic accident with a vehicle driven by Air Force Corporal M. Danjuma. Apparently, this issue was not properly resolved before Abiola’s son left the scene.

The Air Force personnel trailed the latter to his father’s house, and armed reinforcements were brought who opened fire. One of the bullets narrowly missed Chief Abiola. The business mogul took the matter up with the military authorities.

Air Vice Marshall Nura Imam who was the Air Officer Commanding, Logistics Command, Ikeja and a member of the then Armed Forces Ruling Council, waved off the incident as a non-issue. The media reported him as saying that Abiola should know that the Air Force personnel were “mad dogs”.

On Thursday, March 6, 2025, that is 37 years after the Abiola incidence, gallant officers and men from the same barracks, now named Sam Ethnan Barracks, were on similar operational duties in Lagos.

The enemies identified were not terrorists, bandits, kidnappers or even criminals. The targets were the management and staff of the Ikeja Electricity Distribution Company. The two enemy locations were the company’s corporate headquarters in Ikeja and its Oshodi Business Unit Office.

The NAF assault team allegedly led by a woman, was conveyed in a military truck, two OP-MESA vehicles, and other vehicles.

They condoned off the roads leading to the headquarters, scaled the fence and, commenced their operation which lasted one and a half hours. One of the staff, Michael Sani, was approaching the gate when he noticed something was amiss. He ran into the police station nearby; the NAF commandos entered the station, seized and brought him into the premises.

The first group the military contingent encountered were journalists in a bus parked in the premises who were scheduled to attend a solar unveiling project in Adiyan, Ogun State. This fortuitous presence of journalists obliged the public first-hand accounts of the military operation.

Some of the journalists were swiftly captured and their ‘dangerous weapons’ such as mobile phones, tripod, memory card and power bank, were confiscated . These prisoners of war, POWs, were told they were liable to being shot if they uttered a word.

It did not matter if these were journalists on routine duty or whether some of the victims were just customers of the company. As Babangida wrote in his journey in self-service memoirs: “In the military mind-set, there are only two types of people: enemies or friends. Our political opponents were, therefore, primarily ‘enemy forces’ before they were fellow Nigerians.” To the Air Force fighters, they were on enemy territory; so, all souls found therein were enemies and had to be treated as such.

It is not for nothing that when the Nigerian military enters a town, whether it is Odi, Zaki-Biam, Ugep or Okuoma, living things in them are regarded as enemies and, therefore, legitimate targets.

In the Lagos operation, the air men destroyed property, including CCTV cameras, computers and electricity equipment.

The staff and civilians captured, who included women, said they were so badly beaten with plastic rods that they could not even stand up. Some were repeatedly trampled upon with military boots as they laid unarmed on the ground. The captured electricity staff were taken to the NAF military base in Oshodi where they were tortured in the open field under the hot sun.

The NAF team apparently had no respect for the Geneva Convention on the rights and protection of POWs from physical and mental torture. The NAF troops also ‘liberated’ the money in the pockets of their adversaries and made a cache of mobile phones which might have been ‘privatised’.

The cause of this conflict was the disconnection of the barracks from power supply for allegedly being indebted to the tune of N4.3 billion. The barracks gave the electricity company 48 hours within which to restore power which the latter failed to do.

Rather than resort to legal or constitutional means, the NAF commanders took matters into their hands leading to the invasion. It is clear that despite 25 years of civil rule, many in the military still have the mentality that they are superior to civil laws and cannot live by constitutional precepts.

It will be easy to bring the Lagos invaders to book because there are video footages. In any case, since the military is said to be a disciplined force, someone must have given the orders to turn the troops out.

If this government is serious about the rule of law and social justice, it can order the immediate detention, investigation and subsequent trial of those who took part in the lawlessness and criminality.

Also, were we in a disciplined, accountable or civilized country where the rule of law rather than impunity reigns, the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshall Hassan Bala Abubakar, would have apologised to the country and tendered his resignation.

In the absence of the above, groups and individuals can take up the matter. For instance, the brutalised journalists, the Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ, and the Nigerian Guild of Editors, NGE, can ensure justice is done. The brutalised electricity staff, their trade unions can equally take up the case. The Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, and the Trade Union Congress, TUC, can also back up the NUJ and unions for action that would force the hands of government and ensure that the bullies and torturers from the barracks are brought to justice.

The electricity company itself needs to recover its losses by making the Sam Ethnan Barracks pay for damages. I am sure if it picks up the courage to do so, there will be many lawyers willing to offer their services.

We cannot hope to build a nation where peace and justice reign if we do not have the courage to rein in people imbued with a sense of entitlement and immunity from criminal liability.