Abia State Governor, Alex Otti, has told the immediate past administration in the state, headed by Okezie Ikpeazu, to get ready to return looted funds, including money budgeted for the airport project.

Otti, who was reacting to the report of the forensic audit of the state’s accounts, said his administration is not fighting anybody but is only interested in recovering looted funds, in a bid to ensure good governance.

The governor spoke at Nvosi, during a solidarity visit by supporters and loyalists of the member representing Isiala Ngwa South State Constituency, Rowland Chinwendu.

He stressed that what he wants is the progress and development of Abia State, emphasizing that since the airport was not executed, the project money should be refunded.

Otti expressed dismay that some people are insulting him in the media because he disclosed the findings of the forensic audit report.

The governor described the solidarity visit by Chinwendu and his supporters as a good omen.

“I established a forensic audit of our accounts as soon as I was sworn in and the report turns out that a lot of money was looted, stolen brazenly and part of the ones I mentioned was the N10 billion Abia Airport Project.

“They started insulting me. If you follow what is happening in the media, you would know that what I said is true.

“We are looking for our money. If we are not able to find the airport, they would have to refund us our money.

“We are not pursuing anybody, they should refund the money they stole, let’s use it to work for our people.

“Our place must develop. We will continue to build roads, we will continue to clean up the environment, we will continue to create jobs.”

In his speech, the member representing Isiala Ngwa South State Constituency, Chinwendu, noted that his people sent him to the House to represent their interest.

He stressed that he cannot afford to be seen as opposition to the governor, who is from the same LGA.

The lawmaker thanked the governor for the ongoing reconstruction of Umuikaa-Umuene road, among other projects in his constituency.

[DailyPost]

The United Kingdom (UK) on Sunday said only international students coming in for their Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) studies are eligible to bring in dependents to the country.

Dr. Richard Montgomery, the British High Commissioner to Nigeria made this known in an interview with newsmen in Abuja.

He said that the educational system policy changed earlier this year for international students in higher education not to bring dependents into the UK was to curb the increase of foreign students bringing in dependents.

He explained that the huge surge in dependence was putting an unsustainable pressure on many universities, adding that it was the reason these changes were introduced.

Here are eight countries Nigerian Masters students can move to with their dependants

1. Canada

Canada aims to welcome over 460,000 new immigrants each year to strengthen the economy, reunite families, and help refugees.

Under its immigration levels plan, Canada is now looking to get 465,000 new permanent residents in 2023, 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025

The country’s dependent visa allows international students to bring their dependents and also allows them to work or study full-time once they have the relevant permits.

2. Germany

Germany’s dependent visa also known as a family reunion visa permits the spouse, children, and other family members to join and live with their family members residing in Germany. They can either reside temporarily or permanently in the country.

3. New Zealand

New Zealand also has a dependent child student visa that allows a dependent child to join their parents in the country and study at a primary or secondary school. “A dependent child can be treated as a domestic student, which means you don’t have to pay tuition fees for them to go to school.”

To apply for a Dependent Child Resident visa, your children must be single and financially dependent on you. Your children must sign a declaration they are single when they complete their application form. Immigration New Zealand considers your children dependent if they are: 17 or younger.

4. Australia

An Australia-dependent visa allows dependent family members of Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens to live and work in Australia. This includes spouses, children, and other eligible family members.

5. Denmark

If an international student wants to bring their family to Denmark, they must apply for a green card Dependent visa. It allows Danish green card holder to bring their family with them to the nation while they are living and working there.

Denmark has several categories of dependent visas. Of these dependent visas, the Student Dependent Visa is designed for the spouse or unmarried children below 18 years of age of foreigners schooling in the country with a Denmark student visa to join their relatives in Denmark.

6. Finland

In September 2022, Finland issued more residence permits compared to the previous year as its processing time for visa application was 77 days on average, about 46 per cent less compared to 143 days in the previous period, the Finnish Immigration Service revealed.

The D visa allows you to travel to Finland immediately after being issued with a residence permit.

You can apply for a D visa if your spouse or your parent or guardian is applying for one of the following residence permits: A residence permit for a specialist. EU Blue Card.

7. Estonia

While staying in Estonia with a student visa, your family members can apply for an Estonia family visa to join you.

If they are issued a family visa, they can stay with you in Estonia for one year.

8. Sweden

Sweden is a Scandinavian nation in northern Europe with thousands of coastal islands and inland lakes, along with vast boreal forests and glaciated mountains.

The country which is highly developed, is ranked seventh in the Human Development Index, according to United Nations Development.

It has different types of permits that allow people to bring their dependents. The type of permit that should be applied for will vary depending on the situation of the person who is living in the country.

[TheNation]

In Nigeria, societal norms often cast a shadow on unconventional love stories, particularly when the woman is older than the man.

Despite the unspoken disapproval and subtle judgments, some couples boldly defy these expectations, challenging age-old traditions and embracing love in its purest form.

As the world turns its gaze towards the glitz and glamour of celebrity marriages, a poignant question emerges from the shadows: Does age truly dictate the success or failure of a union, or is it merely a trivial number in the grand scheme of love?

Over the weekend, the internet crackled with fervour as the spotlight shone on a captivating saga involving the esteemed Cole family of Victoria Island, Lagos. 

At the centre of the whirlwind was Taiwo Cole, scion of the illustrious clan, whose recent nuptials to actress and comedian Wofai Ewa, fondly known as Wofai Fada, ignited a firestorm of chatter.

The picturesque setting of Ugep, Cross River State, served as the backdrop for their traditional union, an event that remained clandestine until then, hidden from the public eye.

The Cole family, in a Sunday statement, denounced the marriage.

Responding, Wofai Fada, had on the same day posted a video with the caption “Let love lead” on her 1.2 million followers’ Instagram page amidst controversies surrounding her marriage to Taiwo Cole.

Again on Monday, the actress declared that the union between her and her groom, Taiwo Cole shall be permanent.

In the Nigerian entertainment landscape, where the glitz of fame intertwines with the pressures of societal norms, PUNCH Online shines a spotlight on five remarkable personalities who defy age disparities in their unions.

Here are five popular Nigerian celebrities who married older women:

1. Peter and Lola Okoye:

Lola Okoye, who celebrated her 50th birthday on Friday, September 2, is the beloved wife of Peter Okoye, renowned as one half of the iconic musical duo, P Square.

Despite the nine-year age gap between them—Peter and his twin brother Paul were born on November 18, 1981, while Lola’s birthday falls on September 2, 1972—their love story blossomed over seven years before they exchanged vows in 2013.

Blessed with a son named Cameron and a daughter named Aliona, the Okoyes cherish their journey as a family.

Lola in 2021 noted her happiness about how the now-defunct music group, P-square, put their differences aside after a long musical fallout. https://punchng.com/im-happy-p-square-put-their-differences-aside-says-mr-ps-wife-lola/

2. Deola And Darey Art Alade:

Renowned R&B sensation Darey Art Alade found his forever partner in Deola, a dynamic serial entrepreneur when they tied the knot in February 2007.

Celebrating over 14 years of marriage, they have embraced their eight-year age difference with grace and contentment.

Darey once remarked, “No pressures at all! Everybody at some time finds what works for him or her.”

With two delightful children, Darey and Deola exemplify how love transcends age, demonstrating that happiness knows no bounds.

3. Mike Edwards and Perri Shakes-Drayton:

The love story of Big Brother Naija Pepper Dem runner-up, Mike Edwards, and British Olympian Perri is a tale of athletic prowess and enduring affection.

Married in 2019, they navigate life’s milestones with synchronicity, despite Perri being two years older than Mike.

Welcoming their son into the world, their bond is a testament to the depth of their connection and shared aspirations.

4. MC Fish and Anita Joseph:

Nigerian comedian MC Fish and Nollywood actress Anita Joseph share a love story that transcends age barriers.

Despite their eight-year age difference, the couple’s bond radiates joy and affection, evident in their expressive displays on social media.

While they haven’t welcomed a child together, Anita Joseph’s daughter from a previous relationship enriches their familial journey, emphasizing the beauty of blended families.

5. Joseph Ameh and Kaffy:

Renowned dancer, choreographer, and fitness coach Kaffy, known for her Guinness World Record achievement, embarked on a journey of love with Joseph Ameh, P Square’s drummer, in 2012.

Despite their eight-year age gap—Kaffy being the elder—life took an unexpected turn when Kaffy filed for divorce in January 2022, marking the end of their marital union.

Unconfirmed reports indicated that extramarital affairs allegations against Ameh played a vital part in the breakup.

Meanwhile, opinions on whether age is merely a number when it comes to marriage are as diverse as the individuals themselves.

In a PUNCH Online vox populi, a myriad of perspectives emerged, showcasing the wide spectrum of beliefs on the matter.

Some ardently advocate for the notion that age holds little significance, asserting that love knows no bounds and that compatibility transcends numerical differences.

Conversely, others contend that age disparity can pose challenges, emphasizing the importance of shared life experiences and developmental stages in a successful partnership.

Amidst these contrasting viewpoints, one thing remains clear: the concept of age in relation to marriage is a deeply personal and nuanced topic, reflecting the unique values and priorities of each individual.

[Punch]

THIS year’s May Day was an opportunity for Nigerian labour centres to examine how workers are faring under the laws and their general well-being in a stifling socio-economic society. It was an occasion which revealed that even their quest for justice, in a supposed arbitration system, can be quite problematic.

Justice Benedict Bakwaph Kanyip, President of the National Industrial Court, NIC, presented the first paper on ‘Labour Laws and Trade Unions in Nigeria’, while the second presentation on ‘People First In National Affairs’ was by Mr Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN.

The former began by trying to convince the audience that the NIC is neutral, even- handed and reliable which showed that after all, “Lady Justicia’ is blind”.

Mr Falana did not appear to agree. He pointed at the connivance between the NIC and government against labour. He said: “In recent times, whenever workers decide to embark on industrial action as a last resort, the Federal Government and state governments usually rush to the National Industrial Court to apply for an interim order of injunction. Instead of asking the government to put the trade unions involved on notice, the Court will grant the order to stop the planned strike.”

So, the issue whether the NIC  or, indeed, the courts are neutral, especially where government is involved, became one of the major issues that arose at the Pre-May Day Lecture.

It is difficult for the poor to get justice, not just because the laws are made by the rich in the interest of the rich, or that the judge is necessarily pro-status quo. The fact is that the poor man, struggling to feed himself and his family, does not have the funds to hire a lawyer or engage in lengthy litigation. So, as we say in Nigeria, he leaves ‘everything to God’.

This scenario is worse in the case of a worker who may take his rich employer to court. It, therefore, serves the ends of justice for the establishment of a special industrial court that would speedily and conscientiously arbitrate between the employee and employer without being bogged down by technicalities. In other words, the industrial arbitration court should be more interested in the justice of a case than its technicalities. Such a court should not be so much interested in lawyers citing old cases. So, the procedures of the industrial court, unlike those of normal courts should be flexible, requiring knowledge of industrial relations and not necessarily the technicalities of the law. It should be such that the worker would not need a lawyer to present his case. It should be like the Biblical King Solomon’s court where litigants personally presented their cases and the judge dispensed justice.

This intent to promote industrial harmony and social justice was the reason for the establishment of the NIC as a tripartite court. To ensure this, the tripod of the industrial relations system: government, employers and workers, had institutional representation in the court. So, the NIC and its judgements benefited from the invaluable experiences of these institutional representatives. Another major advantage in the NIC’s composition was its guaranteed independence as the judges were independent of government and did not owe their career progression to anybody in government. As a reporter covering the NIC, one of the best judges I knew was Mr Bernard Obua, then Deputy General Secretary of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, who was not a lawyer. Indeed, I covered cases where trade unionists without legal background, represented their unions and won cases, sometimes against established lawyers representing multinational corporations. These gave the Industrial Arbitration Panel, IAP, and the appellate NIC, lots of prestige.

All these changed when lawyers and government collaborators staged coups and pushed the institutional representatives of the employers and workers out of the NIC, leaving only appointees of the government. Secondly, membership of the NIC became restricted to only lawyers. Hitherto, a graduate of a recognised university, including lawyers, with a minimum ten-year post- qualification experience could be NIC judges. The additional proviso was that such a person must have considerable knowledge and experience in the law and practice of industrial relations and employment conditions in Nigeria.

The transformation of the NIC into a regular court, also changed its thought process. It was therefore no surprise that Justice Kanyip propagated views that can be termed anti-worker. For instance, he claimed that workers have no right to go on strike. When I pointed out that this may amount to forced labour because a human being has the right to work or refuse to work, he claimed he was presenting the position of the International Labour Organisation, ILO. I googled the ILO official website and it stated that: “The right to strike is recognised by the ILO’s supervisory bodies as an intrinsic corollary of the right to organise protected by Convention No. 87.” It went on to state that: “As early as 1927, the ILO explicitly recognised that the right to strike existed…a recognition which was not challenged by employers for more than 60 years.”

Further more, the Nigeria courts have made various declarations on this. For instance, in Union Bank of Nigeria, Plc V. V. MRS. EDET (1993) the courts held that: “It appears that whenever an employer ignores or breaches a term of that Agreement, resort could only be had, if at all, to negotiation between the Union and the employer, and ultimately, to a strike action should the need arise and it be appropriate.”

Justice Kanyip also flew another kite: that a strike action is an individual, not a collective right. By this he argued that a worker can opt out of a strike. On this, I also challenged him on the basis that a trade union is about the unity of the collective and its supremacy over the individual. So, if a union ballots its members and 90 per cent decide the union should go on strike, it is only democratic that this decision is upheld irrespective of the feeling of a single individual.

There was also another contentious issue. The judge held that irrespective of Section 5(4)of the Trade Union Act which states that no new union should be registered where one already exists, any new union that applies should be registered. In a sense, he is backed by the ILO position on plurarity, but this defeats Nigeria’s 1977 decision to stop the endless proliferation of unions by registering unions at industrial, not company level. Given this, government can destroy unions in the long run by simply registering multiple trade unions in every sector or even company. If the NIC is now a duplication of the Appeal Court, why not scrap it?

The Federal Government has approved a downward review in electricity tariff for Band A customers to N206.80/kwh, from N225/kwh.

Ban A customers are electricity consumers with a minimum supply of 20 hours daily.

In a notice to its customers on Monday, Ikeja Electric, stated: “Please, be informed of the downward tariff review of our Band A feeders from N225/kwh to N206.80/kwh effective 6th May 2024 with guaranteed availability of 20-24 hours supply daily.

“The tariff for Bands B, C, D, and E remains unchanged.”

Details on this coming.

Band A

recall that the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, NERC, had increased the tariff paid by Band A customers from N68/KWh to N225/kWh.

Band A customers are expected to receive between 20 and 24 hours of electricity supply daily. Those under B enjoy 16 to 20 hours of power supply and those in Band C receive 12 to 16 hours daily.

NERC also said that Band A customers make up just 15 percent of total electricity customers in the country.

Additionally, these customers would no longer enjoy government subsidy on electricity.

However, the review of electricity tariff generated reactions across the country.

For instance, human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), said the Federal Government was working in the interest of the International Monetary Fund, IMF, and the World Bank in hiking electricity tariff. 

He said: “The Honourable Minister of Power is acting the script of the IMF and the World Bank.”

Also, the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Ikeja branch, gave the Federal Government and electricity distribution companies, DisCos, a seven-day ultimatum to reverse to the old electricity tariff or face a lawsuit.

Speaking, chairman of the branch, Mr Seyi Olawunmi, described the increase in the electricity tariff by almost 300 per cent as unreasonable and insensitive.

He said NERC order in respect to the tariff hike was not in line with the current economic realities of an average Nigerian.

Labour’s reaction to tariff

Also recall that the Nigerian Labour Congress, NLC, and the Trade Union Congress, TUC, appealed to NERC, and power sector operators, to reverse the increase in electricity tariff within one week.

President of the unions, Mr Joe Ajaero and Mr Fetus Osifo, respectively, made the call last Wednesday in a joint speech to mark the 2024 Workers’ Day in Abuja.

They expressed dissatisfaction over the epileptic power situation in the country. The labour leaders said it was affecting the economic growth of the country.

According to them, it is imperative that any nation incapable of effectively and efficiently managing its energy resources faces certain ruin.

In their words: “One of the pivotal factors constraining our nation is our glaring incompetence in managing this sector for the collective welfare of our citizens.

“Power, regardless of its source, remains paramount in kickstarting any economy, while oil and gas are indispensable for robust energy success in every country. “

They said it was absolutely critical for the government to collaborate with the people to establish frameworks that ensure energy works for all Nigerian.

According to the duo, the plight of the power sector remains unchanged over a decade after privatisation of the sector.

Vanguard News

The issue of minimum wage or salary increase or by whatever nomenclature is a complicated policy issue. The wage increase is neither good nor bad, but as a policy choice, it must be tied to some ultimate objective and benchmarked on the projected cost of living and inflationary trends over a given period.

A pay rise can improve employees’ motivation while giving them more purchasing power and disposable income. It may result in businesses being shut down, hyperinflation, joblessness, and a decline in the value of the national currency. At face value, salary increases are a tool to address inequality, poverty, and welfare or an incentive to check corruption. However, the issue is more profound than this surface-level discourse.

Recently, the federal government announced a new salary raise for mainstream federal workers. This is not the new minimum wage; at least, that is what we are told. Some state governments followed suit with discordant tunes. The truth is that for the average Nigerian worker, with headline inflation at 33.2% by March 2024 and food inflation at 40.1%, the current wage is insufficient and cannot sustain any worker. This underscores the need for the government and all labour employers in Nigeria to review salaries. However, the government’s current economic realities and financial position make it challenging to create a salary increase that is not backed by increased value and productivity. While it may seem complicated, this measured approach is necessary to avoid harsh negative implications on the economy and the unintended backlash on people with low incomes and many on the fringes of our society.

Expectedly a policy to help people experiencing poverty and create some semblance of equity within our socio-economic ecosystem, salary increases for government workers, albeit less than 25% of the workforce, will have ramifications. Given these difficulties evident in the new policy, the government and labour leadership must play a balancing act to midwife a new salary structure that is fit for purpose yet germane to the multifaceted nuances of our current economic reality.

The wage increase will result in both negative and positive economic impacts. On the negative side, inflation will worsen, small and medium-scale businesses (SMEs) barely managing to survive will be hugely impacted, and the cost of doing business will skyrocket. How many SMEs can afford this increase? Most of the companies are struggling with paying the existing minimum wage, given the rise in the cost of doing business, interest in loans is over 40%, the cost of raw materials is over the roof, consumers with little income are squeezed to a pulp by the constant increase in prices. Besides, how many state governments can afford it? Most Nigerian states have failed to optimise their potential and go cap in hand every month to FAAC. Across a sizeable economic terrain like Nigeria, a uniform nationwide minimum wage may be foolhardy. Costs of living are divergent across the country. States should negotiate with labour unions for acceptable minimum wage structures in different states and geopolitical zones. There may be an urgent need to de-link the minimum wage issue from national politics.

On the positive side, wages should increase in tandem with the cost of living. It will keep workers motivated and may even help the economy rebound. A living wage is not only desirable but expedient. What Nigerian workers earn today is a “symbolic wage” and has no practical bearing on reality. The federal minimum wage, currently at N30,000, was last raised in 2019 when the inflation rate was 11-12%. The purchasing power of the naira has since been eroded by 276% (compared to the 2019 rate). Nigeria is ranked 44th in Africa for minimum wage, according to Prof. Kemi Okuwa of the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research. These factors indicate the need for a wage increase to address the growing disparity between wages and the cost of living.

When implementing wage increases, the government must exercise caution to ensure that its devotion to its responsibility does not have the reverse impact. The government must develop a robust economic plan to reduce the cost of living as well as mitigate the ripple effects on low-income workers, SMEs, and the macroeconomy. We remember the infamous Udorji’s commission saga and its economic impact. Many economic historians have pointed to the significant shake-up of the salary structure by the Udorji commission as one of the major problems of Nigeria’s economy in the 1970s that upended our pricing system and created significant price inflation in the economy. We must learn from history! A situation where the monetary reward for work is increased but not based on productivity will often lead to unwarranted inflation.

Productivity and added value creation should be a significant consideration among many bases for ascribing monetary wage increases, not just policy or legislation. Can the government link the increase in public servants’ wages and salaries to measurable productivity? Any increase in the cost of production and labour at this point, with no corresponding increase in added value to production, is not sustainable and often is an aberration to the system. Therefore, a balanced approach that considers both the need for increased wages and the economic reality of our country is crucial. This will ensure that our wage policy is fair and sustainable in the long run.

The problem with government-induced increase is that only a limited number of workers, civil servants at the federal level, will get the money; many states may claim they need the means to pay that. Even if the state civil services pay that, combined with the federal civil service, they make up less than 25% of the employed workforce in Nigeria. Most of our workforce comprises low-wage workers, whom SMEs and organized private sector firms employ. These small businesses are struggling to pay the N30,000 per month minimum wage, much more than the new minimum wage. This minimum wage will make these workers poorer if they do not get it like the civil servants because they all buy from the same market.

Besides, making unenforceable laws does not make sense. In other climes, it is against the law not to pay the minimum wage. It is enforced with explicit punishment for breaking the law. In Nigeria, this is different. Nothing happens even if any tier of government fails to pay the minimum wage. Most businesses will completely ignore the new salary structure, and there will be no legal consequences. The government must put some teeth to the new minimum wage rule for equity and justice and at least make it stick across the board. It must also consult widely and make the minimum wage more realistic.

I understand the need for an increase in salary because of hyperinflation that has eroded purchasing power. However, I am preaching caution and a measured approach to dealing with this issue by considering all the ramifications and putting measures in place to cushion unintended consequences. Our recent experience has shown that a salary increase may start a merry-go-round of cyclical inflation that begins with a salary increase, and then inflation eats up the value, and then we are back to where we started. In an economy with over 40% food inflation, all stakeholders must apply caution and careful measures in implementing a new salary structure. However, governments (federal, state, and local) cannot afford to play politics with the issue of “living wage”.

The implications of creating new salary structures and increasing the minimum wage are complex and multifaceted, requiring careful consideration of various factors, including economic conditions, industry dynamics, and social equity goals. Although I advocate for workers getting a living wage and meaningful salaries, given our current economic realities, a more measured approach based on value addition, productivity, and accountability will suffice. As the new wages are implemented, a corresponding demand for increased productivity must be implemented by all stakeholders to make the system sustainable.

I understand the need for government intervention in this, especially the political benefits to the government in terms of reasonable public opinion and support, good labour relations and collective bargaining dynamics, and the corresponding public and political debates and legislative actions this generates; however, the economic exigencies – potential job losses, negative impact on SMEs, and inflationary pressures – must be paramount and considered.

A living wage is the right of every Nigerian, and we must fight for that to reduce income inequality gaps and fight multidimensional poverty. High productivity and less economic legislation are the way forward, and the current confusion in the debate over a minimum wage needs to be more holistic and better informed. All the variables must be on the table, devoid of political grandstanding.

[TheCable]

Nigerian politics is far too divisive and toxic. In addition to the toxicity, there is a pervasive self-fulfilling prophecy that holds that all public servants are corrupt. As a result, both elected and appointed public officials in the past and present are unfairly subjected to relentless media trials based on this assumption, usually on trumped charges.

This sets the scene for understanding the current media trial that Okezie Ikpeazu, the former governor of Abia state, is facing. Among other claims, his successor, Alex Otti, asserted that his predecessor had paid N10 billion for an Abia state airport that did not exist. Otti claimed to be quoting from a forensic audit report that he had ordered, though it hasn’t been released to the public or printed in a government gazette.

Otti appears to be acting like a magician, pulling what he pleases from the audit report—if it truly exists—and presenting it to the angry public, who act as juries and judges in media trials. The report is already accomplishing its goal of running Okezie Ikpeazu down.

However, it appears a boomerang is in the making. Otti’s credibility could be damaged, as will that of his young government, which many believe is off to a smooth start if the information he released against Ikpeazu and released to the public to facilitate a media trial turns out to be false. Nobody will ever believe Otti again, and that will be pathetic.

“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a Latin aphorism that translates to “false in one thing, false in everything.” At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who falsely testifies about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. A witness who makes a false statement regarding one issue is not credible to testify about any other matter, according to common law.

The Stuart Treason Trials in the late seventeenth century are where the common law doctrines of “falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus” first appeared. The notion served as a required presumption that a witness was untrustworthy if they had previously lied in court.

English courts started advising juries way back in the nineteenth century that they could assume a witness who gave a false statement was not trustworthy. A required presumption of unreliability for witnesses or sources that have previously provided misleading testimony must also be upheld by discerning minds. A person must enter equity with clean hands.

Applied to the accusations made by the current governor of Abia state against his predecessor, whom he accused of embezzling N107 billion from the state during his tenure, including the assertion that Okpeazu spent a whooping N10 billion for an Abia state airport that never existed. Otti said his claim was the outcome of a report by one of the three best worldwide audit firms, as he defined them, which he said he commissioned to carry out a forensic audit as soon as he took office.

Ikpeazu’s aides and some informed Abians have dismissed Otti’s claim of Ikpeazu paying N10 billion for a nonexistent airport as a malicious fabrication, saying that no additional money was ever paid beyond the N10 million paid for the preliminary spade works, such as site identification, clearing, and the like. They posit that the project was halted because it was widely believed that an airport was not a priority for Abians at the time.

The forensic audit report has reportedly not yet been made public, despite attempts to obtain a copy of it. Subsequent inquiries have shown that the aforementioned audit report has not yet been formally presented to and approved by the Abia State Executive Council. Otti hasn’t even allowed his executive council to see it and is still keeping it close to his chest.

Furthermore, what is in the public domain points to the fact that the payment for a nonexistent Abia Airport used to stigmatise and mock the former governor, Ikpeazu, does not exist, just as the Abia State Airport does not exist either. So one might wonder why there is a rush to selectively release to the public portions of the audit report that is not yet been adopted.

The question is: Is Governor Otti simply trying to play politics with the public’s perception for optics’ sake, providing something for the media trial of his predecessor, and igniting a media frenzy? If Governor Otti did fabricate the N10 billion tales, he may have unintentionally destroyed any credibility that may have been in the forensic audit report since it is laced with lies that may have been injected to mask the truth.

It is right to state that Section 308 of the Constitution prevents Otti from being sued while he is in office for defamation. According to Section 308 of the Constitution, “no civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against the President, Vice-President, Governor, or Deputy Governor, and they may not be arrested or imprisoned, nor may any process of any court requiring or compelling their appearance be issued against them.” So, Otti is safe.

However, Ikpeazu still has some recourse (after the harm he sustained is confirmed by Otti’s inability to substantiate his claim). Once the falsehood is confirmed, the audit report will be rendered meaningless, and the public will perceive it as more of a witch hunt than anything else.

When Nyesom Wike became the governor of Rivers state, a similar situation occurred there as well. He launched a comparable audit inquiry into the tenure of Chibuike Amaechi, his predecessor. Because the report was a witch hunt, it never saw the light of day. It was a precedent Otti should have been familiar with.

In particular, Otti should officially receive the report without further delay, have the Abia State Executive Council adopt it, and leave it available for public review as well as impartial, independent interrogation and investigation. If it is true that Otti did not fabricate at least some parts of the report to get media conviction against his predecessor, making the audit report available to the media shouldn’t be an issue at all. The fact that this procedure was the one that ought to have been followed also underlined the fact that Otti was essentially putting the cart before the horse when he released portions of the forensic audit report piecemeal, which many have trashed as untrue.

Ikpeazu’s experience demonstrates that the media trial of public officials in Nigeria has deep ramifications and implications for the battle against corruption. Even if the victims can prove their innocence, they are not granted real relief because the accusers never go back to debriefing the Nigerian public about the lies they peddled or offering an apology to the good Nigerians who have been maligned and falsely shown to other people as criminals.

In Ikpeazu’s case, Governor Otti must come clean by providing the media with proof of the funds made for the fictitious Abia State Airport, along with the name of the receiving firm or firms. If Ikpeazu never paid such money and there is no such evidence, Otti owes Ikpeazu a public apology.

The media should keep a close eye on this case, as it is a seriously developing story. Either Ikpeazu paid N10 billion for the airport or he did not, or Otti made up the tale or he did not.

As required by both the ethics of journalism and the law, the media should continue to hold public officials innocent until their guilt is proven by the courts and should assist in advocating for justice for those who have not been found guilty as charged. In addition, the media must continue to follow the two golden laws of journalism: hear the other side of the story and, when in doubt, leave out, while also conducting more in-depth investigations.

To determine if this is a case of falsus in uno or falsus in omnibus—”false in one thing, false in everything,” as many now suspect—Nigerians are waiting for the declassification of the Otti’s forensic audit report. He who alleges must prove.

Okezie Ikpeazu should take turns laughing last and should have his integrity back if indeed the phantom airport payment is a fabrication and politics.

Dr Law Mefor, an Abuja-based forensic and social psychologist, is a fellow of The Abuja School of Social and Political Thought. He can be reached via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; Twitter:

Ademola Adeleke, governor of Osun, has directed an immediate investigation into the alleged deportation of Osun youths from Lagos state.

On Saturday, there were reports that the Lagos government implemented the deportation of Osun indigenes from the state.

The reports claimed that police officers had picked up Osun indigenes from various parts of Ajah, TBS and Lagos Island.

In a statement issued on Monday by Olawale Rasheed, spokesperson to the governor, Adeleke expressed shock over the incident, adding that the state has set up an investigative team and was interfacing with the Lagos state government.

“The report was confirmed by an investigation team set up to confirm the veracity of the story by the Osun state government,” the statement reads.

“The state team reported that eyewitness accounts confirmed the dropping of the youths in several luxurious buses by a team suspected to be from Lagos State.

“The state’s report showed that the youths were systematically dropped at Ilesa-Akure express junction, Breweries; Ilesa – Ibodi – Iginla to Ife express junction, Osun Ankara express junction, Imelu express junction and Iperindo express junction.”

The governor said he has engaged Babajide Sanwo-Olu, governor of Lagos, who also expressed shock over the development and promised to take urgent action.

“I spoke with my brother, governor Sanwo-Olu on the matter. He too was surprised and he denied ever authorising any such action,” the governor said.

“Governor Sanwo-Olu has promised immediate investigation to unravel the facts of the situation. The Lagos team will update us as quickly as possible.

“I am subsequently directing our security agencies in Osun to mount surveillance in and around Ilesa to track the deported youths and their destinations.

“I will update our people on this development. I urge residents to be calm while the security agencies carry out surveillance.”

[TheCable]

As widely expected, Togo’s national electoral commission has declared the ruling Union for the Republic (UNIR) Party, as the overwhelming winner of the country’s divisive parliamentary and regional elections held on 29th of April 2024, paving the way for President Faure Gnassingbe to accomplish the dream of prolonging his 19-year stay in power.

According to the results announced by the Commission on Saturday, the UNIR won 108 of the 113 available seats in what opposition parties and civil society groups dismissed as a sham vote that followed the government-pushed constitutional changes approved by the UNIR-dominated parliament 10 days before the elections.

David Dosseh, one of Togo’s prominent civil society activists fighting against injustice and impunity, has described the changes as a “constitutional and electoral coup.”

Speaking after the elections as a panellist on a television programme with this writer, Dosseh explained that “most of Togo's estimated nine million citizens have not seen the texts” of the constitution passed by the parliament on the 19th of April.

The hurriedly passed changes preceded by two postponements of the elections have far-reaching consequences on Togo’s political governance and electoral system.

Without adequate consultation, the changes turned Togo from a presidential to a parliamentary governance model and from a direct system of electing the President/Prime Minister to an indirect one.

Ninety-one MPs had emerged from the opposition-boycotted 2018 parliament elections in Togo.

Following the changes, the number of parliamentarians was increased to 113, who are now to elect the President of the Republic, with a largely ceremonial status for a five-year mandate.

The MPs from the majority party in parliament will also elect the Prime Minister/President of the Council of Ministers with executive powers, who will serve for six years.

This is even though, Article 2(1), SECTION II of the 2001 ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, clearly states that  “No substantial modification shall be made to the electoral laws in the last six (6) months before elections (in member States), except with the consent of a majority of political actors.”

Before the latest elections, ECOWAS, the regional economic bloc had sent a pre-election fact-finding mission from 15th - 20th of April to Togo.

The objective of such missions in the past was to ascertain the level of preparedness, identify challenges if any, and determine whether the political environment met international standards for credible and transparent elections.

Like in previous elections in Togo, where politics has been dominated by the Eyadema family since the country’s independence from France in 1960, the last polls were overshadowed by political tensions and government suppression of opposition and public protests.

Faure assumed power in 2005 following the death of his father Gnassingbe Eyadema, who ruled Togo with an iron fist backed by a notoriously repressive armed forces for almost four decades.

According to the opposition, the same armed forces, with senior officers drawn largely from the Kabye ethnic group of northern Togo, imposed Faure on the country and have continued to support him to the hilt. They are afraid of losing power to another ethnic group while Faure is also riding on the crest of his father’s dictatorship.

Faure’s current mandate ends in 2025 but with the ‘fait accompli’ achieved with the pre-determined outcome of the elections based on questionable constitutional and electoral changes, the coast is now clear for him to assume the position of Prime Minister/President of the Council of Ministers to elongate his tenure.

Dosseh acknowledges that neither the opposition parties nor the civil society groups in Togo are in a strong position to challenge the Faure government. This is mainly because poverty and repression have been weaponized, leaving the citizens in a traumatized, if not dehumanized state of permanent fear.

External support also appears not forthcoming. For instance, ECOWAS, which under normal circumstances, should take a principled stance by calling out the Togolese government over the violation of the regional protocol appears to be “playing it safe.”

Four of its 15 member States - Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger - are under military dictatorships, and the last three countries have already served notice of their intention to quit the regional organization altogether.

According to diplomatic sources, there is therefore the fear by the ECOWAS leadership that Togo could join the rogue group if the organization came hard on the country.

So, instead of capitalizing on the recent positive development in Senegal, where the opposition parties combined with the population and vibrant civil society groups to checkmate President Macky Sall, who had wanted to play a similar tenure elongation game, ECOWAS has developed cold feet, further eroding what remains of its dented integrity and reputation.

Faure has contributed to the disunity in the ECOWAS ranks by fraternizing with the military juntas and making the regional sanctions ineffective. By sparing him the consequences of his “bad behaviour,” ECOWAS is vindicating critics who accuse the organization of weakness and inconsistency by applying one set of rules for “political, constitutional and electoral coups” and another for military coups.

The critics have cited several recent instances, such as the dissolution of Guinea Bissau’s Parliament by President Umaro Embalo; former President Sall’s sacking of Senegal’s Electoral Commissioners close to the last presidential election, which his ruling party lost, and now, the controversial constitutional and electoral changes, less than two weeks before the parliamentary and regional elections in Togo.

While the implications and potentially negative consequences of the Faure government’s violation of the ECOWAS protocol against an unconstitutional change of government may yet unfold, the regional organization, along with the African Union and La Francophonie, which observed the elections at the invitation of the administration in Togo have failed the people of Togo and Africans in general.

Against their standard practice, the three organizations did not issue Preliminary Observation reports on the elections. They merely released a timid joint statement, saying that the vote was “inclusive,” contrary to widely held opinion in the country.

By their act of omission or commission, the three organizations might have allowed the Faure administration to use them to rubber-stamp an illegitimate act.

The ECOWAS Commission in 2009 stopped the then-President Mahamadou Tandjan from dissolving Niger’s parliament, and also in 2011, declined an invitation to observe the presidential election organized by then-President Yahya Jammeh because there was no level playing field for the poll.

The Commission refused to recognize the outcome of that election and Jammeh held another election in 2016, which he lost but wanted to claim victory before ECOWAS intervened, resulting in his current exile to Equatorial Guinea.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has its headquarters in Banjul, the Gambian capital, yet the AU could not muster the courage to take the type of tough but principled decisions that earned ECOWAS international acclaim.

If ECOWAS is to regain its past glory, this is the time for more tough, strategic result-oriented, impactful, transformational and pro-people actions borne out of critical thinking. 

Inconsistency, duplicity, fear, or sitting on the fence will further divide the organization and derail the regional integration goal of its founding fathers.

On the other hand, Togolese citizens, especially the pro-democracy advocates owe themselves and the region a patriotic duty to work together against all undemocratic forces in their country.

Time and circumstances might be different, but the anti-apartheid fight in South Africa is an illustration that outside support will only complement a focused, united and aggressive internal struggle.  

Right, liberty or freedom is taken not given!

**Ejime is an Author, Global Affairs Analyst, and Consultant on Peace & Security and Governance Communications

The more than 100 journalists and media workers killed as of 3rd May, 2024 in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, ignited by Hamas’ unprecedented attack against Israel on 7th of October 2023, makes it the deadliest period for journalists since the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) began gathering data in 1992.

This year alone, 25 journalists and media workers have been killed, including 20 in Gaza alone, according to the U.S.-based CPJ, a non-profit organization, that advocates for press freedom and the protection of journalists worldwide.

The Committee also says that it is investigating numerous unconfirmed reports of other journalists being killed, missing, detained, hurt, or threatened, and of damage to media offices and journalists’ homes.

Globally, more than 35,000 Palestinians have been reported killed in Gaza and the West Bank, and 1,200 in Israel since the Hamas attack and Israeli retaliations.

Every death in a conflict is one too many, journalists are not special.

However, the CPJ Programme Director Carlos Martínez de la Serna posits that: “Journalists are civilians who are protected by international humanitarian law in times of conflict. Those responsible for their deaths face dual trials: one under international law and another before history’s unforgiving gaze.”

CPJ’s President, Jodie Ginsberg, put it more succinctly: “Every journalist killed is a further blow to our understanding of the world.”

Speaking on behalf of all advocates of press freedom she said: “(We) must work collectively to ensure that journalist killers are brought to justice … and that the public’s right to be informed is protected from those whose power is threatened by the scrutiny of reporting.”

In his speech to mark this year’s World Press Day or World Press Freedom Day, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights paid tribute to the “countless, fearless individuals daring to question,” including “71 journalists and media workers killed and the 320 imprisoned, in 2023, the highest number ever.”

Describing 2023 as “a devastating year for journalism,” the senior UN official said: “It was a year characterized – again – by impunity. Only 13% of the murder cases have been investigated, he said, adding: “When we lose a journalist, we lose our eyes and ears to the outside world. We lose a voice for the voiceless.”

The 2024 World Press Freedom Day focuses attention on the climate and the environment under the theme “A Press for the Planet: Journalism in the Face of Environmental Crisis.”

Türk said the occasion was being marked “in an era of acute global turmoil and the profound fragmentation and polarisation of humanity,” with “conflict boiling over in many places – from Myanmar to Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, and several other parts of the world – causing intolerable human suffering.”

According to him: “Disinformation is infecting our media and digital landscapes, fuelling hate and division. And as climate change batters our fragile planet, the lives and livelihoods of future generations are under the gravest threat this world has ever known.”

He acknowledged “journalists around the world who are working to hold polluters accountable for the damage and the devastation. They are driving open debate and critical thinking,” the UN official affirmed.

“And by separating facts from lies and propaganda, they are pushing for evidence-based policy decisions on the climate crisis that the world so urgently needs.

Environmental journalists need stronger commitments from their governments and their employers to protect them. Better and safer working conditions…

The dramatic consequences of inertia and inaction on the climate crisis are unfolding as we speak. This doesn’t have to be the case,” Türk added.

The World Press Freedom Day is observed annually on May 3rd. It was established by the UN General Assembly in 1993, following a recommendation adopted at UNESCO’s General Conference in 1991.

The day celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom, evaluates press freedom around the world, defends the media from attacks on their independence, and pays tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

The date was also chosen to commemorate the Windhoek (Namibia) Declaration, on free press principles put together by African newspaper journalists in 1991.

It emphasizes the importance of freedom of the press and reminds governments of their duty to respect and uphold the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As part of the commemoration, the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize is conferred on deserving individuals, organizations, or institutions that have made outstanding contributions to the defence and promotion of press freedom worldwide.

The prize is named after Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper, El Espectador, in Bogotá in 1986.

Cano’s writings offended Colombia’s powerful drug barons, and journalists in other parts of the World face similar threats today.

According to the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, Norway ranks the highest in press freedom, while Eritrea ranks the lowest.

According to the CPJ, of the 320 journalists and media workers imprisoned as of December 1, 2023, China with (44), followed by Myanmar (43), Belarus (28), Russia (22), and Vietnam (19), rank as having the highest number of jailed journalists.

*Ejime, a former War Correspondent, is a Global Affairs Analyst and Consultant on Peace & Security and Governance Communications