Admin

Admin

House Of Reps Accuses Navy Of Presidential Yacht Purchase Without Approval

 

 

The House of Representatives has accused the Nigerian Navy of buying the controversial N5 billion presidential yacht captured in the 2023 supplementary budget without the approval of the National Assembly.

It was earlier reported that the Navy had confirmed the delivery of the presidential yacht, saying that the sailing boat had been in the country since June 2023.

In an interview with The Punch on Friday, the spokesman for the Nigerian Navy, Commodore Adedotun Ayo-Vaughan, said the procurement was done during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari to replace the defunct presidential yacht, insisting it was for training.

But the Chairman of the House Committee on Navy, Hon. Yusuf Gagdi, has denied knowledge of any budgetary allocation for the procurement of the presidential yacht.

Speaking with the Nigerian Tribune on Saturday, the Plateau lawmaker stated that the Committee will investigate the infraction committed by the Navy.

He said: “Yes, I’m not aware of it.”

Gagdi, who expressed concern over the development, argued that there were no provisions in the approved budgetary provisions for the Nigerian Navy over the past four years.

The lawmaker stated that the procurement of the sailing boat is out of place, stressing that it must be provided for the 2023 budget.

He said: “It is, it must be provided for unless if it is a special intervention which we can oversight, even if it is a special intervention, we can oversight.”

While responding to a question on any other subheads provided for among the N62 billion supplementary budget proposed for the Nigerian Navy that he considered as unnecessary, Gagdi said the Navy has been treated unfairly.

He said: “Navy has been treated unjustly. If the Army has over N200 billion, the Air Force will have N112 billion, and the Navy will have only N62 billion. It means they didn’t consider the Navy as one of the Armed Forces agencies that protects the national assets.

“You want revenue, you don’t want crude oil theft, you don’t want piracy, you don’t want oil bunkering, instead of strengthening the Agency that is vested with the responsibility of defending the country by sea, in terms of our natural resources, you’re giving money to other sister Agencies beyond the Agency that’s is responsible for the economy prosperity of the nation.

“I don’t think that that supplementary budget is even fair to the Nigerian Navy, I can say that any day, any time.

“But I equally see that the presidential yacht in the budget is equally not supposed to be there.

“It can’t be provided for in the budget. There’s nothing wrong with the appearance of the budget, but again, if the Yacht is already been in our water.

“Who provided for the logistics, you paid for the yacht and the yacht was supplied. What is the arrangement with the Nigerian Navy? I don’t have answers to these until we investigate what is going on.”

When asked about the possible time to commence the investigation into the procurement of the presidential Yacht, he said: “I don’t want to be under pressure, I can’t say anything until I go back to the House, call Committee members, sit down and study the nature of things before we commence investigation.”

The French Government has repatriated $150 million stolen from Nigeria by the former military Head of State, the late General Sani Abacha.

 

The Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, Catherine Colonna, made this known during a visit to President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa in Abuja on Friday.

Speaking on the Abacha loot, the French Presidential Envoy said the repatriation of the loot followed the completion of long legal processes, stressing that it is a good achievement for France.

It was a long process, but we are glad that it was concluded. Sometimes, justice may be slow, but this is a very good achievement,” she said.

She conveyed the goodwill of President Emmanuel Macron and expressed the readiness of France to expand mutually beneficial collaboration with Nigeria across multiple sectors.

Colonna also commended President Tinubu’s leadership in ECOWAS and proceeded to extend a formal invitation to President Bola Tinubu to attend the forthcoming Paris Peace Forum.

She said: “We support your efforts at ECOWAS. We are behind you because we believe that constitutional order is a treasure for all countries, and democracy must be a reality.”

In his remarks, President Tinubu expressed his appreciation to France for the return of the Abacha loot and also acknowledged the signing of a €100 million agreement between Nigeria and France to support the i-DICE programme, a Federal Government initiative to promote investment in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Creative Arts Industries.

President Tinubu also commended the strengthening of bilateral relations between Nigeria and France, noting that this progress followed his visit to Paris after his inauguration.

“Thank you for the good news on the return of Abacha loot. We appreciate your effective cooperation concerning the return of Nigeria’s money. It will be judiciously applied in attaining our development objectives,” the President told Catherine Colonna, the Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, who delivered the news.

The President, while emphasizing the need to reinforce collaboration on both political and economic fronts, welcomed the growing cooperation between the two countries in areas of shared interest, such as climate change, economic integration, education, and culture.

Niger Crisis

On the situation in Niger Republic, President Tinubu, who is the Chairman of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government, said Nigeria is monitoring the situation in the neighbouring country, and exploring diplomatic channels to avoid bloodshed.

He said: “Leadership is about responding to the needs of the people, their cries, and their frustrations. Nigeria shares a border with Niger across the expanse of seven Nigerian states, and most of these states are very populated. Therefore, I need to guide ECOWAS carefully and steadily so that we manage our anger carefully.

“We have a colleague and a democratically-elected leader, President Bazoum, being used as a human shield. If we are not careful, he and his family can be endangered.

”I am deploying all appropriate back-channel strategies to avoid bloodshed in Niger Republic. We recognize the wishes of our people; they do not want war, but that does not mean we can not take bold and decisive action.”

 

President Tinubu said Nigeria will continue to galvanize international partners in the determined pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the situation in Niger Republic.

Governor Chukwuma Soludo has allocated N2 billion in startup capital to empower over 5,000 youths from Anambra State’s 21 local government areas.

Naija News reports that this initiative follows thorough training and the launch of the “1 Youth, 2 Skills” development programs by the state government.

Recently, the first group of beneficiaries received their grants in Awka, marking the start of an impactful journey for these aspiring young entrepreneurs.

Hon. Chuks Azotani, the chairman of the committee on Information Technology and Creative Economy in the Anambra State House of Assembly, encouraged the beneficiaries to make judicious investments in their newly acquired skills and businesses to realize the scheme’s objectives.

Hon. Azotani commended Governor Soludo for the program, which promises to combat unemployment and foster economic self-sufficiency among the state’s youth. He believes that this initiative will not only create a more prosperous Anambra but also nurture a generation of young entrepreneurs who will become employers of labour.

Azotani emphasized the significant economic impact of the “1 Youth, 2 Skills” program initiated by the Soludo administration and facilitated by the State Ministry of Youth Development, particularly in Information, Communication, and Technology. He urged the beneficiaries to leverage the skills and knowledge they’ve acquired effectively.

The lawmaker expressed his joy that approximately 100 of the first batch of beneficiaries hail from the Dunukofia local government area, assuring the area’s youth that more promising opportunities are on the horizon.

In his closing remarks, Azotani encouraged Nigerian youth to engage in meaningful ventures, especially in the field of ICT, emphasizing that the Soludo administration has more programs designed to create platforms for the socio-economic development of Anambra State.


He also called on the people of Anambra to join hands and support the state government’s efforts to enhance the prosperity and livability of the state.

In a thought-provoking keynote address at the 3rd annual national public lecture hosted by First News, Bishop Matthew Kukah, the esteemed leader of the Catholic Church in the Sokoto Diocese, offered a candid perspective on Nigeria’s ongoing challenges. The event, titled “The Nigerian Question: Survival of the Federation in The Throes of Increasing Economic Challenges,” took place in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, and drew attention to the pressing issues facing the nation.

Bishop Kukah emphasized that those responsible for Nigeria’s problems are not immune to the consequences of their actions. He acknowledged that while every country faces its share of difficulties, it falls upon the citizens and purposeful leaders to address these issues collectively.


Kukah remarked, “The good thing about Nigeria is that everybody knows the problems, and the individuals responsible for them are not exempt; they too do not know peace.”

He highlighted the limited opportunities for many Nigerians to explore the world beyond their immediate surroundings due to various troubles. While recognizing that every nation has its unique challenges, Bishop Kukah pondered the essential question: What does Nigeria truly aspire to become? He alluded to the fact that the current global order is the result of over two centuries of exploiting Africa to build prosperous nations. Nigeria, like other nations, must find its own development path.

Addressing the potential of democracy in Nigeria, Bishop Kukah underlined the need for certain fundamental prerequisites to be in place for democracy to thrive. He drew attention to the critical issue of addressing the “bread and butter mentality” currently prevailing in the nation, asserting that democracy may seem like a mere lottery without addressing this fundamental concern.

Mr. Daniel Iworiso-Markson, the publisher of First News, stressed the importance of the lecture in the context of Nigeria’s challenging economic landscape. He expressed concern that the nation’s economic problems persist, seemingly defying conventional solutions. The lecture aimed to foster discussions and explore potential remedies for these pressing economic challenges.

Representing Bayelsa State, Governor Senator Douye Diri, through the Secretary to the State Government, Mr. Gideon Ekeuwei, urged Bayelsa’s residents to focus on self-development as a means of adapting to the ongoing economic situation. This call for personal growth reflects the urgency of the economic challenges that Nigeria faces.

In the midst of these concerns, Bishop Kukah’s insights provide a fresh perspective on Nigeria’s journey toward a prosperous and harmonious future. As the nation grapples with economic hardships and multifaceted issues, his message resonates with the need for collective action, purposeful leadership, and a reimagining of Nigeria’s path to development.

I amdelighted to be here today as lecturer in honour of a truly outstanding Nigerian, jurist and patriot, the late Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe, who sadly left us on 31st July 1983, about 43 years ago. What then was it about this Nigerian whose legacy is imperishable? Indeed, it was many things, from a family that continues to celebrate him, to colleagues whose professional trust and respect he earned, to success as a professional and I dare say he was fairly rewarded as a legal practitioner so he was not poor. But perhaps the reason for his reverence and celebration in life and in death was his service and sense of duty to Nigeria and his fellow citizens.

That is why I have exercised the latitude given to me to choose my topic, to title my speech: Duty and Citizenship: The Social Contract. Justice Idigbe was a dutiful citizen and worthy Nigerian patriot. When I was invited to intervene at his memorial lecture earlier this year, I was asked to review his judgement in the case of Bucknor-MacLean vs Inlaks report in (1980) 8 11 SC 1. That case for me demonstrated Justice Idigbe’s humanity, compassion, sense of justice and fairness to his fellow citizens.

On the face of it, it looked like just another case about the interpretation of Section 14 of the Registration of Titles Act, and the matter seemed foreclosed because the Supreme Court had decided cases like Shell BP Petroleum Company v Jammal Engineering Nigeria Ltd 1974 (1 ALL NLR 542) and Owunmi v Paterson Zochonis & Co Nigeria Ltd 1974 (1 ALL NLR 107.). These cases had decided that any transfer of title under the Registration of Titles Act must use the Forms prescribed under the Act to be valid.

I can only imagine what Justice Idigbe was thinking? The people who came to challenge the validity of the interest created in land under the Act, were successors of the person who created the interest. In other words, they sought to nullify an interest they had created by relying on a non-compliance that they had been part of after collecting money. It smelt of fraud at the worst and inequity at its fairest.

Justice Idigbe would have none of it and proceeded to persuade a full panel of the Supreme Court to reverse their previous decisions which were binding precedents and constraints to doing justice in the case under consideration.

 Needless to say, all his brother Justices unanimously agreed with him. Idigbe, JSC enforced the law by using the law and this is one of our duties as citizens; and I will talk about this later.

It can be tempting for some to think about when another Idigbe will come and also to think that probably they don’t make them like that anymore. As an optimist those thoughts don’t find a place with me. In the faces I see in this hall, many more Idigbes and indeed better versions of him will emerge for the sake of Nigeria.

How then does all this connect with the topic of Duty, Citizenship and the Social Contract? I believe that many of us are familiar with the concept of the social contract first propounded by a Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, sometime in 1762 about the relationship between the state, and the Government on one hand, and the citizen on the other hand.

That contract implied confers certain expectations and benefits on citizens in exchange for certain service to be performed by the state in the conduct of their affairs. These expectations and benefits are expressed as rights, some of which are classified as fundamental and set out in the case of Nigeria, in Chapter 4 Section 24 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Those rights which are fundamental, are expressly conferred on “every person” as listed in Sections 33, 34,35,36,38,39,40 while there are other rights, which inure to the benefit of citizens of Nigeria only, which are conferred on “Every Citizen” as distinct from “Every Person” are to be found in:

The point to make at this stage about these rights is that they are enforceable in the same way as those other fundamental rights, except with the added bonus that Section 46 (4) (b) also confers additional benefits on citizens only, where they are indigent, to get financial assistance to engage a legal practitioner.

Now let me state in an advisory way that if the University of Benin has not incorporated citizenship and the duties that pertain to that status in her constitutional law class, it would be helpful to do so without further delay in the interest of national development.

This is the heart and matter of the social contract. Citizens enjoying certain rights over and above every person, as I have shown earlier. But those rights do not come alone, they come with duties, spelt out in Section 24.

My constitutional law curriculum did not teach me citizenship and was silent about my duties. Happily, it left me in no doubt about what my rights were, and limitations on them prescribed in Chapter IV (Fundamental Rights) of the constitution. But large sections of Nigerians have asserted their rights which is good, but sometimes without the understanding that they had duties, and sometimes without the awareness that those rights are not absolute.

This has not been helped by the rapidly multiplying tribe of so called “constitutional lawyers” and experts whose knowledge of the constitution probably does not extend beyond the sections pertaining to Rights in the Constitution. This is not helpful for our National Development, and I will attempt to demonstrate this shortly.

But permit me to quickly pivot to the issue of citizenship.

I will adopt for my purpose, the definition contained on Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary which defines a citizen as a: 

“native or naturalised person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it.”

As can be seen from the definition, it envisages a two-way relationship, as I postulated about the social contract. The definition says that a citizen as a native or naturalised person “owes” a debt or duty of allegiance, which entitles the person, to a right of protection.

Very interestingly, the definition puts the “allegiance” or “duty/debt” before the “protection” or “right.” This is the first impact on National Development that I alluded to. The question to ask in our relationship as citizens, is whether we have consciously acknowledged that we owe a debt/duty of allegiance to Nigeria in our relationship with her when we assert our rights?

Have we asked for our rights first instead of discharging our allegiance? Indeed, what constitutes our allegiance to our country? But before I proceed further, let me highlight a few examples of some of the protection that citizenship has afforded us in recent times.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, we all recall that the Nigerian Government closed the international borders to all traffic as many other Governments did in their countries in order to contain the pandemic. But I recall vividly that whilst some countries, for fear of spreading the virus further, refused entry to their own citizens, Nigeria’s government granted entry to Nigerian citizens who were returning home even at the risk of bringing in the virus to the country.

That was, for me, a profound expression of citizen protection offered by our country, in contrast to the seeming status of statelessness other countries dealt to their citizens when they refused them entry at that time of extreme vulnerability. During the outbreak of war between Russia/Ukraine, Nigeria arranged the evacuation and return to Nigeria of her citizens caught in the war. She had no business with citizens of other countries. But did this and many similar acts resonate with us? Or were they just what was expected of our country and government?

Put differently, were we more focused on those instances where government and the state dropped the ball, and there are such instances, that we missed the significance of those instances where government protected us?

On the domestic front, how many of us have been saved from criminals, by law enforcement, or have had the fire brigade come to put out fire in our homes or places of business, or benefited from healthcare in a government facility?

These are instances of government offering its protection in exchange for our allegiance, even if admittedly there is scope for improvement. The question is whether we understand that these acts are acts of protection because we are citizens, and are we aware of our allegiance when we get these services?

Ladies and gentlemen, permit me to then proceed to what makes us citizens. The answer is to be found in the provisions of Sections 25-32 of the constitution as amended in 2023; and I must repeat my advice that this should be taught in constitutional law class, and I dare say from primary school in a manner that people of that level can understand it.

As we have seen from our Merriam-Webster’s definition of citizenship there are two broad types of citizens; native and naturalised. This is largely applicable in many countries of the world where citizenship is conferred on people who are naturalised citizens, and the Nigerian constitution also provides for naturalised citizenship as is provided for in Section 27 of the constitution.

While this class of citizenship does not derive from being a native and has some limitations for example such persons cannot be President of Nigeria under Section 131(a) of the constitution, their duty of allegiance is no less than those of native citizens.

It is therefore about native citizens I wish to speak, but before I do so, the limitation that naturalised citizens have, is itself another subject of education that commands the teaching of the broad subject in all our schools. Going back to native citizens, there are two broad classes on the subject, classified under the Latin phrases jus soli and jus sanguinis.

The former refers to citizens by birth acquired from being born in the territory of the state or country while the latter refers to citizenship of birth by having one or both parents who are native to that state or country.

Nigeria has adopted the sanguinis route in 25 (1)(a)(b) about people born before 1960, the date of independence, such that if you were born in Nigeria before that date with parents or grandparents who belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria you were automatically a Nigerian citizen by birth.

And in section 25(1)(c), the sanguinis right to citizenship by birth is reinforced by providing that even if you were born outside Nigeria to at least one parent who is Nigerian, you were a Nigerian citizen by birth.

This explains why under the 1999 Constitution, Nigerians, for the first time, could have dual citizenship under Section 28(1) of the constitution because they may have been born in countries where the jus soli applies to Nigerian parents.

But this protection of dual citizenship is not afforded to those who acquired citizenship of Nigeria by registration or naturalisation; on the contrary only citizens by birth, jus sanguinis, can be dual citizens under our constitution.

Having discussed some of the rights of citizens, the basis and nature of citizenship albeit very briefly, I now proceed to examine our duties as citizens. These are set out in the provisions of section 24(a) – (f) of the constitution. But before I examine them, I wish to point out two things which appear instructive to me.

The first is the similarity between the definition of a citizen by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary where it speaks of “allegiance” before it refers to “protection.”

For some reason, the drafters of the constitution have similarly set out our duties first in Section 24, before proclaiming our rights by way of protection in the latter parts of the constitution in Sections 33 – 46.

The second instructive point is that whereas between sections 33 – 46 there are 14 provisions of the constitution dealing with rights and how to benefit from them, Section 24 (a)-(f) which deals with our duties only asks us to do six things. 

With regard to section 24(a), I will focus only on the part dealing with the National Flag and the National Anthem and our respect for them, by advocating that we all adhere strictly to the colours of green, white and green on the national flag. 

I have seen many flags purporting to be Nigeria’s flag, even in Government offices with a coat of arms placed in the white portion of the flag. This is not the Nigerian flag; on the contrary it is a desecration of our flag and disrespect for it.

Similarly, I have seen attempts to attach colourful frills and embroidery to the flag. Again, in my view, this desecrates rather than respect the flag as we are duty bound under the constitution.

Without offering advertisements on their behalf, I know that the National Orientation Agency (NOA), with offices in all the states of the country, produce and sell authentic Nigerian flags.

The National Anthem is another vexed issue. The best that I can say is that it is the expression of our sovereign might and this is why we will see that at global events, especially sporting events, the anthems of participating or victorious nations are rendered.

While this is a good forum to urgently appeal to the National Assembly to enact legislation to delimit events and occasions at which the national anthem can be rendered, it is my humble view that the National Anthem as the expression of our sovereign presence, should not be rendered for Governors or Ministers as has been the practice, or for the President when he is not performing a state function.

As for what would qualify as a state function, this will be a matter for some consultation, but I do not think that weekly FEC meetings, symposia, and those kinds of events qualify.

Perhaps the place with the greatest improvement in the performance of our duties to Nigeria, lies with regard to section 24(b) which invites us as citizens to “help to enhance the power prestige and good name of Nigeria…”

I say this because I am of the opinion that the most derogatory things about Nigeria have been said by us as citizens rather by than by non-Nigerians, we have described our country in the most negative of terms; and undervalued it by the negative conduct of some of us.

At every occasion when some officials of government have made public appeals for us to stop “demarketing Nigeria” some of the perceptions in response are cynical and misunderstood that government is defending its inefficiency.

The point I make is that we can be angry with our government and with representatives of government, we can condemn them in the strongest of words, after all that is a right to expression subject to the limits of the law of defamation. However, our disagreements, discontent or displeasure with government is no reason to scandalise Nigeria.

Nigeria has not offended us; let me accept that our governments and office holders may have more to do in making us happy. No person who seeks greatness throws stones at their home. Some of the grievance has been expressed in words so the effect that “Nigeria is not a nation.” While I respect the rights of those who hold that view, I hold a different view.

My view is that perhaps we conflate nationhood with the idea of a country. Nigeria is many nations that perhaps need to be forged into one country. Those nationalities are ethnic as they are tribal or religious. They are matters of identity rather than an idea or dream. It is my view that what we need urgently is to forge from those nationalities, a country built on a creed, away from tribe, ethnicity, language or religion.

This would not be easy but it can certainly be done. Can all of that diversity converge around an idea or shared dream that supplants our diverse ethnic, tribal, language and religious identities without extinguishing them? 

The question to ask is what is the Nigerian creed? This is a subject for another day, but it seems to me that we must stop valorising the modest successes of other countries while not even acknowledging ours. Why are the dreams of others bigger than our dreams when there are scores of grass to grace and rags to riches stories around us?

I am of the view that unless we begin to own and amplify our stories instead of those of other countries that are even smaller than some of our states, for that long do we fail in our duty “to enhance the power, prestige and good name of Nigeria” for after all, international reputation is public relations from the home front.

As for the duty to respect the dignity of other citizens and the rights and legitimate interests of others and live in unity and harmony and in the spirit of common brotherhood, I would use what now goes on some social media platforms in the name of freedom of expression as the barometer to assess our performance of this duty.

As children, there were some people whose company we kept that our parents disapproved of, and as a parent I have had course to express similar concerns and I believe and it is the experience of many in the gathering as children and parents.

Parents disapproval were often expressed in words like: ‘I don’t want to see you with that person,’ or ‘I don’t want that person to come to this house.’  Children often responded by saying to their parents: ‘But they are my friends,’ to which parents will retort, ‘what do you know about friendship?’

This must sound familiar in homes where parents were attempting to pass on the right societal values of behaviour and conduct as distinct from homes where there may have been a total lack of breeding. I have news for all of us and I regret that it is not good news. Those parents were right then when they scrutinised the companies we kept and they are right today.

Those children they admonished us to keep away from have grown up and their numbers have increased. They have found an identity on social media platforms, and their identity is anonymity. With that identity they concoct the most bizarre of stories in the vilest of languages and dare us to do what we can because they are “trending.”

This is a big platform to breach the duty to respect the dignity of other citizens; this is where they threaten our unity and harmony, and do violence to the spirit of common brotherhood.

But let me be clear, the social media platform is not of itself the problem, it is the family from where they came, and this is where the reform must start to optimise the benefits that social media offers our civilization.

As far as our duty under section 24(d) is concerned about making “positive and useful contribution to the advancement, progress and well-being of the community where we reside,” the preliminary observation to make is that the well-being of our communities is connected to our individual well-being and that of our whole communities.

Communities help to shape conduct and behaviour of those within it and ultimately defines their quality of life. It is no surprise therefore that the constitution demands of us the duty to usefully contribute to the well-being of our community; because in the way that poverty, disease and squalor can be propagated from within a community, so can prosperity, wellness and cleanliness be created from communities.

It is no secret that many Community Development Associations (CDAs) have been formed across the nation to harness the power of citizens for the common good and it is in our interest and indeed a matter of constitutional imperative to take them more seriously.

From within those communities, we can improve our personal and collective security and safety, we can manage refuse and pollution and we can support ourselves without necessarily waiting for the officialdom of government.

Let me pause here to share some of my experiences with you, regarding the Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Law with you. That law was enacted by the State House of Assembly in the undoubted exercise of their constitutional powers.

Parts of the law restricted the movement of residents/citizens for a few hours up till 12 Noon or thereabouts once every month, for the purpose of ensuring that we cleaned our homes and communities to ensure public sanitation and by extension promote public and communal health.

At the time that I was Governor, a European Prime Minister visited Lagos to understudy how this law operated and also how our Government was getting residents to pay taxes.

An African President sought our help by writing to request that we send our refuse and sanitation team to help train their own.

Another African President that some of our people have now found very attractive, sought to meet with me to learn about this sanitation law.

Like the proverbial prophet that has no value at home, the sanitation law and its public health benefit was seen by some only in the limitation to their “rights” of free movement.

Off they went to court in the famous exercise of their rights, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional because it offended their rights under Section 41 (1) which provides that “Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria…”

Clearly, they did not read Section 45 (1) which says that “Nothing in Section…41 of this constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of…public health…”

Sadly, the court of first instance agreed with them, but happily the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision and upheld the law. 

This is how it should be. Individual rights sometimes have to be subjected to the overall interest of our community and nothing is unconstitutional about that if it is reasonable. That is part of the essence of the social contract.

As is to be expected, these protagonists of “rights only” are not done. They have gone to the Supreme Court as they are entitled to do, and we all await the outcome. 

This takes me to the duty prescribed by Section 24(e) to “render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order;”

This duty is clear enough and perhaps requires no further explanation. The efficiency of investigation depends on what we as citizens offer. Did we see something, hear something or know something?

Are we ready to offer statements and information about what we saw, heard or know in order to assist with law enforcement? This is what gives teeth to investigation and crime prevention for our collective safety.

Our duty under the social contract to assist law enforcement agencies shows that it is a two-way relationship. If we assist them, they can protect us.

Investigation is not a mystery. It is the ability to obtain information from those who know something, saw something, heard something or who did something.

The final duty imposed on us as citizens is prescribed in section 24(f) which obligates us to “declare his (our) income honestly to appropriate and lawful agencies and pay his (our) tax promptly.”

I don’t know how many of us realise that payment of tax is a constitutional duty not just one imposed by any ordinary legislation. The highest law of the land compels it, and I am not sure whether we are aware that a deadline of 31st of March every year has been set by another law, in order to enable us understand what “prompt” payment of our taxes actually means.

These are collateral matters to what I wish to address about this duty. Like the other duties that I have discussed, it underlies a two-way relationship between Government and citizens which is the heart of the social contract. In essence nothing is free. Government has no money of its own except that which it collects from citizens directly or on their behalf.

So, when government offers a free service like health or education, or subsidises a service or product like petroleum, it may be free to the recipients, but somebody is paying somewhere. I understand that money is hard to make and much harder to part with, but our quality of life is impacted by how much we pay as taxes to give government the resources to serve us and how easy or expensive it is for government to collect from those who do not want to pay at all, or who do not do so promptly.

I have spoken earlier about the need to develop a creed for our country as an idea or dream different from our ethnic, language, tribal or religious identity. The ingredients for this identity are generously provided in sections 13 -23 of the constitution. 

Only a proper class can teach these provisions in addition to those I have urged earlier. My suggestion is that the curriculum be taught not just as lectures but as projects and tasks for teams of students to be challenged with in developing ideas and “dreams” for Nigeria. 

There is an amazing lot to work with here.

From the provisions that seek to ensure that, there shall be “no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or sectional groups in government..” in Section 14(3), to “loyalty to the nation shall override sectional loyalties…” in section 15(4), to the economic objectives in pursuit of an “efficient dynamic and self-reliant economy…”  in Section 16 (1)(a) and of course “… , the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity…” in section 16 (1)(b ), you will agree that there is a lot here around which the ideals and dreams of a country can be propagated. 

Ladies and gentlemen, before I conclude, let me place on record my thoughts about section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution which provides that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government;” This has often been understood or dare I say misunderstood as suggesting that this is the responsibility of a particular level of Government. 

The first point I wish to make about this section and the way some of us have perhaps chosen to misunderstand it is that the word “government” used in that section is a small ‘g’ not in capitals. 

While this is not a discussion on interpretation of statutes for lawyers, it is helpful to the general public to point out that “government” used in that section refers to all levels of Government and not one level.

Further readings of the responsibilities of Governments set out in the second and fourth schedules of the constitution for Federal, State and Local Governments will show that no particular one of them bears responsibility for “security,” although the Federal Government has responsibility for the Army, Police and Arms.

This is not the same as having sole responsibility for security.

I expect that this point will be further examined in constitutional law classes for the benefit of all of us.

Having reviewed these provisions of the constitution relating to the promise of our state, our duties, our entitlement to citizenship and our rights, I think it must be eminently clear that the social contract is an offer of duties by us, in exchange for the protection of the state and not the other way around.

If I may say so, the country that some of us choose to denigrate with our words and actions really owes us nothing because there is no social contract if we offer no duties.

A food for thought to those citizens by birth who dislike Nigeria is to bring to their attention the fact that citizens of other countries have preferred to call Nigeria their home and treat her with the respect she deserves, and they perform their duties in exchange for Nigeria’s protection.

Almost on a yearly basis, Presidents of Nigeria approve these requests for citizenship by registration or naturalization from citizens of different countries of the world including from those countries that our citizens rank higher than Nigeria.

I know these because as a former Minister I had the privilege of sitting in Federal Executive Council meetings where these requests are considered, debated and approved in their hundreds every year.

This is an example if any is needed that our glass is half full and not half empty.

This is what must commend the life and times of Hon. Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe of blessed and noble memory, to us as citizens. Like him we must offer service and duty in private and public capacities to Nigeria first, before we can expect protections and assertion of rights. This is the proper order for the working of the social contract.

Fashola, immediate past Minister of Works and Housing, delivered this piece at the 19th Justice Idigbe Memorial Lecture held at the University of Benin on November 1 2023.  

Melaye alleges plan to unleash thugs on Kogi during governorship poll

 

As its candidate for the Kogi State governorship election on November 11, the Labour Party has endorsed Senator Dino Melaye of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

Melaye announced the news on his X (formerly Twitter) profile on Friday. He stated that the partnership aimed to free Kogi State from the oppressive regime of Governor Yahaya Bello, which was run by the APC.

 

“After a wide consultation and in the interest of our dear State, the Labour Party on this day has resolved to adopt the PDP Gubernatorial Candidate, Senator Dino Melaye as its candidate for the November 11th Kogi State Governorship Election,” Melaye said.

Melaye will face off against other candidates, including Ahmed Ododo of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

 
 
 

Governor Dapo Abiodun

 

Governor Dapo Abiodun of Ogun State has stated that his administration has delivered more housing units in its first four years in office than all of his predecessors combined.

Speaking during a meeting with the UNDP country representative in Nigeria, Mohamed Yahya, in Abuja, Governor Abiodun highlighted his government’s achievements, including success in the Women Empowerment program, laying of over 5,000 KM of fiber optic for high-speed internet access across the state, the launch of a job portal with over 150,000 registrations in the first week, and the construction of the Gateway Agro-Cargo Airport with a 4KM runway, which is the longest in Nigeria. He also mentioned a planned investment of over $400 million for a special agricultural processing zone (SAPZ) near the airport.


Governor Abiodun called for cooperation between the state and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in sectors such as housing, energy transition, ICT, women empowerment, job creation, and employment. These sectors are the major focus of his administration under the ISEYA Developmental Pillars.

The UNDP representative, Mohamed Yahya, outlined the organization’s objectives, including poverty alleviation, SDG implementation, democratic governance, and impact measurement. He mentioned the UNDP’s Jubilee Program, which aims to place 20,000 Nigerians in the public and private sectors while the organization pays their salaries for one year, with 5,000 companies participating and 4,000 placements already recorded.

Governor Abiodun expressed the intent to collaborate with UNDP in various areas, including baseline data development, arts and creative economy, expansion of the Ogun State for Women Project, climate change, TVET training, mini-grid power solutions, and sustainable housing projects, among others.

October 26, 2023, was significant for Nigeria. It was the day the Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN), following the same path of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) decided on who would be the President of Nigeria for the next four years. I was not eager to listen to the pronouncements of the panel of seven senior jurists in Nigeria. Being a legal practitioner or put differently, as a learned as opposed to a schooled Nigerian - a wording that does not amuse one of my friends that I call “egbon kekere”, I was not expecting a different decision than was announced. Many other Nigerians, for different reasons did not expect anything different.

I had confidently told one of my teachers as well as a dear friend to expect the confirmation of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT), by the Supreme Court as the president of Nigeria, in spite of the loud noises (whether at the Chicago State University or on the so-called PBAT’s FBI papers), in faraway United States of America. Both issues, are not foreign judgements to be canvased before the Supreme Court for consideration. Even then, foreign judgements have procedural hurdles before they can be placed before the SCN, moreso, when not pleaded at the PEPT. And what’s the emergency in the “discovery” on an issue late Gani Fawehinmi had brought before the courts over two decades ago?
I was at Abeokuta on the day of judgement. As usual, there was no electricity and I was not ready to power the generator loaned to me by retired Justice Abidoye Olugbemi; as a friend desirous of making me happier at Abeokuta. My not putting on the generator was not because of the horrendous jump in the price of fuel. It was because I normally do not find it easy to crank the set to supply electricity. Hence, I did not have the option of watching the television. Luckily, a friend sent me a live YouTube link to watch on my phone. As I watched, my internet supplier went caput or “pafuka” as we say in Pidgin!

I no longer had the luck of listening to the weighty voices of my Lord Justices without their faces. I still ask myself why My Lords allowed the cameras into the court but hid their faces from viewers. The Yoruba say: “oju l’oro wa”, meaning eye contact is the essence of verbal communications. And you only hide your face when you are ashamed of what you are doing or when you are afraid and needed protection by being ‘faceless’.

Were My Lords afraid of being marked down by the supporters of one of the appellants, since they had promised hell and brimstones since justice, for them, was for their candidate to be declared the winner? Or was the problem that of not knowing how far the desperate appellant who finally left the American courts would go? Why the faceless reading of judgements? Did we not know the 7 My Lords, already with their passport size photographs widely available on the internet? I thought to myself that what is worth doing at all is worth doing well. No-one dared to order the Justices to allow cameras into their court. If they chose to allow the klieg lights, probably for transparency, then they should have gone the whole hog and allowed their respective faces to be beamed all over the world.
Though very few Nigerians stepped forward to cast a ballot on which of the three people were at the fore-front of the selection process. Actually, out of the registered voters of 93 millions, only 28.63% voted in trying to select a president. Like him or not, PBAT was the announced winner. Unlike the situation in many countries, Nigerians knew that their votes would not count in the end. They knew the SCN must push all other responsibilities aside whenever the electoral industry was in full swing. In the large part, we lack the spirit of sportsmanship to call and concede to the opponent.
All sorts of arguments were brought to justify why even the third person in the race should be declared the winner of the selection. So much was made of the immediate electronic transmission of results from polling units. Though it was not the law, but it was promised by the head of the selection process. Was he bound to fulfil a promise made on television if it became impossible for him to execute? But then, what about accountability as expected from a public official given the humongous costs involved in acquiring the technology? He did promise and failed to deliver. Shouldn’t he have resigned?
Well, we wait for someone to sue him for the damages suffered from the failure to transmit immediately. I asked a Professor friend of mine who demonstrated so much disdain for the failure of the representation, if that failure really vitiated the entire process and should lead to the cancellation of the entire process? I did not get an answer till date. Parties’ representatives signed manually and kept copies that were later collated and subsequently uploaded. Were there manipulations within the hours of delay? No credible evidences were provided to support this position. The vociferous nature of the cries actually made me think about the possibility of my compatriots having planned a technological heist that would have made the manipulation of the Kenyan 2017 presidential elections a child’s play.
Their other grounds, including hanging on to the absurd interpretation of the 1999 Constitution to the effect that the overall winner of majority votes failed if he/she did not have 25% of the votes cast in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory even if such candidate had 25% of votes cast in two-thirds of the states of the federation. To have upheld this absurdly mischievous argument would have meant that voters in Abuja have a veto over the overwhelming two-thirds of the states making up the country.

Just as the supporters of one of the appellants had issued threats on any Nigerian who dared to oppose their preferred candidate, they became very loud in vociferous cries of the people watching the judiciary. Though I do not belief their preferred candidate would support such bullying of the justices on social media, he did not try to curb his supporters.

The attempt to intimidate the judiciary was resisted by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), when he stated that justices do not operate on the basis of public opinion but rather, according to the law. And what constitutes public opinion these days? Vox Populi? How do we arrive at the voice of the people? Is it the voices of those who are loudest on social media if a summation of that were possible?
Or would what religious leaders of all sorts say constitute the voice of the people in a country like Nigeria with a diversity of religions with all sorts of self-serving liars regularly giving us all sorts of messages from God? There were several such cacophony of messages as we approached and during the 2023 elections. Some claimed God told them they were the next president of Nigeria. Gullible followers agreed, remained supportive as these people paid the humongous sums demanded by the shifting alliances of thieves that we call political parties as premium for seeking to use their platforms to acquire political power. Some rallied followers behind ethnic agenda making an unnecessary issue over the ruling party’s decision to have what we now call Muslim-Muslim ticket. Many of us, especially the Yoruba, with adequate socialization into religious tolerance, never thought this was an issue, in spite of the contrary preaching of Yoruba Pentecostal mis-leaders.

The ‘trance – like gyratic’ fervour towards these politicians in religious garbs remained high despite the clarity that they have no “anointing” to deliver messages from God to Nigerians or that such lies couched as Vox Dei (God’s Voice) had been wrongly interpreted or prematurely delivered. Some, especially the Pentecostals, over-reached themselves as they announced in details how God would translate their chosen one into Aso Villa. Unfortunately, most of these prophesies came to nought, including on how God had decided that the justice system would rectify the process.

By the way, if we could ascertain Vox Populi, should we willy-nilly succumb to it as justice? Unequivocally, I say not at all. We have to live with the decision of the seven Justices, despite the well-articulated parting or valedictory shots of Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, who further affirmed that the judiciary was not bereft of corruption. He raised concerns about some decisions arrived at by the highest court of the land. Pushing for reforms, especially of the office of the CJN from which the two immediate past occupiers left with ignominy though they received soft landing, he added what seemed strange to me. Justices are appointed on the basis of their representation of their respective ethnicities or if you like, in the non-constitutional but more modern Nigerian lingua, their geo-political zones. So, what should one of the appellants whose geo-political zone was not represented at the apex court do? Reject the decision of the seven justices?

Well, we all must rise, acquiesce and in unison say: As the Court Pleases. In effect, it was the decision of the hidden-faced seven justices with strong voices that mattered in the end. And this raises the fundamental question of why we spent so much money to undergo a charade in order to be described as democratic in spite of the cries of a number of people like myself who, overtime have been insisting that elections/selections do not make a country democratic. Why did we acquire expensive foreign exchange draining hardware and software but failed to use them? The value of the naira that has nose-dived would have been slightly better without these and similar acquisitions. We need not calculate the discord the 2023 presidential selection brought into Nigeria, including many lives lost. Should we really continue with this charade of national presidential selections? Are we unable to think through what could work for us with minimal human and material losses and conflicts? I have never seen as much ethnic and religious divisiveness in Nigeria as that brought by the 2023 selections.

It is sad that we go through all these wastages of individual and national wealth in order to be described as a democracy. In the end, there are no improvements in the lives of our people. If anything, poverty and insecurity are getting worse by the day. The elected officials are collectively laughing openly at the expense of the people at the hallowed legislative assemblies of the federation and the states as the respective executive arms play along, acquiring frivolities as personal play toys with no thoughts of letting the people ‘breathe’; thereby, snuffing life out of many.

No, Nigeria is not a DEMOCRACY. It is the extent to which a government of the people, by the people and for the people nudges humanity towards utmost freedom that makes a country democratic. The core of this effort are the improvements on the achievements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights coupled with strides on the achievements of the Sustainable Development Goals. These are not “dividends” of democracy, they are the core or the principal on what it takes to be democratic. Selections/Elections representing just an aspect of participation is a small portion of the three facets of the simplistic definition of democracy. “By the people” is merely one-third of the equation and even within that one-third, in the 2023 presidential election, it was the will of the seven hidden faces with strong voices that, in the final analysis, really counted.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) has called for the perpetrators behind the attack on Joe Ajaero, the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), to be brought to book.

The President of PENGASSAN, Festus Osifo and Secretary, Lumumba Okugbawa, in a statement released on Friday, described the attack on Ajaero as an existential threat to the trade union movement in Nigeria.

PENGASSAN further stated that the attack on Ajaero was a blatant violation of human rights and an assault on the principles of democracy, freedom of expression and association.

Recall that Ajaero was arrested in Owerri, the capital of Imo State on Wednesday, during a protest by workers in Imo State.

Workers in the state had protested over an alleged “serial and habitual abuse and violation” of their rights by the state government.

Police said Ajeoro was taken into custody for his protection, but the NLC said he was brutalised after his arrest.

The Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodimma, in his reaction to the development, accused the NLC leader of mixing politics with unionism.

PENGASSAN in reaction to the development wrote, “Violence against union leaders or any individuals fighting for the rights of workers is not only an attack on them but also undermines the fundamentals of social dialogue and activism. These acts of violence seek to silence the voices of those who speak up for the vulnerable and marginalized, and they must be vehemently condemned by society as a whole.

“PENGASSAN demands that the authorities conduct a thorough investigation into this cowardly attack and bring the perpetrators to justice. We call on law enforcement agencies to ensure the safety and security of all workers, activists and union leaders, providing them with the necessary protection to carry out their essential duties without fear of reprisal.

“We also urge civil society organizations, trade unions, and citizens to stand in solidarity with NLC and Comrade Joe Ajaero and to denounce this act of violence. It is crucial that we collectively reject any attempts to suppress voices that advocate for the rights and well-being of workers and fight for a more equitable society.

“Our noble Association stands in solidarity with our ally in the struggle, Comrade Joe Ajaero, and expresses deep concern for his well-being and recovery. We will continue to work tirelessly to support the rights of workers, advocate for social justice, and combat any form of violence or repression that seeks to curtail the progress we have made thus far.

“All PENGASSAN members are hereby put on red alert as the days ahead will be stormy and tumultuous. We urge all trade unions and the two labour centres to respond to this ugly act in a very drastic way because injury to one is truly an injury to all.”

Friday, 03 November 2023 15:09

Lagos-Ibadan Cargor Train Begins Operations

The first container freight train of the Lagos-Ibadan railway has taken off from the Apapa port.

The rail project was constructed by the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.

 

In a statement published on its website on Thursday, the construction firm said the container freight train carried thirty 40-foot containers to Ibadan, the Oyo state capital.

According to the company, the container train departed Apapa and arrived Ibadan in two and half hours, adding it is the first container freight train after the cement freight train started operating on July 4th.

The statement reads: “The first container freight train of the Lagos-Ibadan railway, built by CCECC, has set off from Apapa Port in Lagos, Nigeria.

“This train is the first container freight train after the cement freight train started operating on July 4th.

“It departed from Apapa Port and carried a total of 30 40-foot containers, arriving at Ibadan station in just two and a half hours.

“The Nigerian Railway Corporation plans to operate one pair of container trains daily and gradually increase the number of trains as the demand grows, improving the railway transportation system behind Lagos Port.”

In September, the federal government inaugurated cargo movement on the Single-Gauge Rail (SGR) from the Apapa port to Ibadan.

During the inauguration, the train moved from the Ebute Metta station before proceeding to Apapa for the launch, and then to Ibadan over the 157-kilometer rail track.