My only other Nigerian civil war era military hero, apart from General Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Colonel Joe ‘Hannibal’ Achuzie, Major Shuwa, and within strong limitations, Colonel Benjamin Adekunle, is Major Patrick Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu.

He was killed on July 29 1967 (some sources report July 26 1967) along the Obolo-Afor road, Nsukka, by the federal forces of Nigeria in an ambush. Officially, he was not attached to a Biafran unit; indeed, Ojukwu initially suspended him from military duties after releasing him from detention in Eastern Nigeria following the January 1966 coup. Nzeogwu and his co-plotters were transferred to various jails from Lagos after General Aguiyi-Ironsi quashed their plot and locked them up.

Ojukwu had good reason to keep Nzeogwu away from Biafran rifles. The Major from Okpanam in present day Delta state, who was Nigeria’s first military intelligence officer, subdued all of Northern Nigeria during the coup except Kano, mainly because Ojukwu, as commander of the Fifth Battalion, stoutly opposed the coup and allied with Ironsi. More than once Nzeogwu nearly unleashed bullets on Ojukwu but was restrained by the crafty Major Alexander Madiebo. But the tide changed following the July 29 1966 coup; slaughter of Eastern Nigerians in most parts of the country; failure of the Aburi talks; and declaration of Biafra.

Nzeogwu did not help matters by speaking out against secession in his famous ‘interview’ with Dennis Ejindu, published in the magazine ‘Africa and the World.’  But with the outbreak of the war and Biafra’s reversals in the Northern sector, Nzeogwu, a radical, courageous and somewhat reckless soldier, went into action with his personal band of guerrillas. According to Major Adewale Ademoyega, Nzeogwu’s co-plotter and author of ‘Why We Struck,’ just before the war, Colonel Victor Banjo and Nzeogwu offered Ojukwu far reaching strategies to take the war to Nigeria, even offering to  stretch the lines to the River Benue. Ojukwu refused. Maybe because he was ill-equipped to fight; maybe because he was uncomfortable with the people making the offer.

In spite of this, Nzeogwu, now a Biafran army Colonel (some sources say he was a Brigadier), dominated the Nsukka theatre of operations, favouring hit-and-run, commando operations instead of conventional war, because Biafra was in no shape for head-on confrontation with its superior adversary. There are accounts that despite Ojukwu’s reservations, the Biafran leader saw that Brigadier Hilary Njoku, the Biafran army commander, was making a dog’s breakfast of the war. Nigeria was virtually routing Biafra from the North. Njoku was given a mandate: change the tide or lose your command. One of the operations planned to achieve this was the controversial Mid-Western invasion. Nzeogwu was slotted to lead it, being a Mid-Westerner, but he died before assuming command.

So why did Nzeogwu fight on the Biafran side instead of Nigeria where he still had a strong following, despite the January 1966 coup?

First, Northern officers and politicians hurting from Nzeogwu’s killing of Premier Ahmadu Bello of the Northern Region would not stand for having him in the army. In their eyes, all Nzeogwu was good enough for was facing a firing-squad.

Second, the Head of State, Yakubu Gowon, would never free him from jail or agree to reabsorb him in the army, even though he personally liked Nzeogwu.

Third, Nzeogwu was critical of the Nigerian government’s policies and actions right from the days of Ironsi. He was unhappy over the massive slaughter of Eastern Nigerians, but perhaps he failed to realize that if not for the January coup, the madness might not have occurred. He stood against Northern hegemony.

Nzeogwu was persuaded by civilians who appreciated his capabilities and charisma to join the Biafran war effort. Ojukwu did not stand in his way.  His younger half brother, Thomas Bigga, born to Ojukwu’s mother and a European after the former divorced Sir Louis, Ojukwu’s father, was a member of Nzeogwu’s guerrilla force. He was killed with Nzeogwu in the ambush. Was Nzeogwu’s death a relief to Ojukwu?

For me, Nzeogwu’s patriotic instincts, military capabilities, sheer charisma at such a young age (he was 30 when he died), fearlessness and personal lifestyle are what gives him the hue of heroism. Till date I have not read of any woman coming out to say that Nzeogwu fathered her child out of wedlock or that they had an affair. That means his well-known abstinence from womanizing, a staple diet of the military, was real. He was no homosexual, either. He made homosexuality a capital crime in his coup speech. Not that he disliked women; he was just too busy with his pan-Nigerian, pan-African dreams to think of marriage, though he was the first son of his parents. He fell in love as a military student during a course in India with the daughter of the commandant of his College. But he did not follow it up. In ‘Bitter-Sweet: My Life With General Olusegun Obasanjo,’ Oluremi Obasanjo’s biography about her life with General Olusegun Obasanjo, Nzeogwu’s colleague and close friend, the general’s ex-wife paints the picture of Nzeogwu as a kind gentleman who gave her a shoulder to cry on when the general unleashed marital thunder and lightning on her.

Contrary to general belief, Nzeogwu was not the leader of the January coup, though he was deeply involved in its planning. That dubious honour goes to Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna who gave the go-ahead orders for the H-hour in the early hours of 15 January, thus unleashing ‘Operation New Wash.’ (Ifeajuna’s code-name for the coup). On getting the go-ahead, Nzeogwu who commanded operations in Northern Nigeria, let the leopard leap. (His code-name for the coup in the North was ‘Damisa,’ Hausa word for leopard). If he had total command of the coup, Nzeogwu would have ended the myth that it was an Igbo affair by wasting Igbo politicians and officers like General Ironsi. That was the kind of man he was: e no send your tribe, even if you be him brother.

But the fact remains that fifty-six years since his death, Nzeogwu’s legacy still remains unresolved. I wish the January 15 1966 coup never took place. I also wish our current generation of politicians learn from the mistakes of their predecessors that compelled young army officers to take up arms against the government.

Sleep on, Patrick Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu.

Henry Chukwuemeka Onyema is a Lagos-based author and historian. Email; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In some way, I pride myself as someone in touch with the trends and slangs on social media. But I was caught napping when I was discussing Brighton & Hove Albion FC in the Premier League (I once schooled in Falmer, Brighton) with a friend. I told her that “we will be playing in the UEFA Champions League in 2024 by God’s grace”. My friend, a staunch Obidient, replied: “This reminds me of a running joke on Twitter.” What is it? “So, when Tinubu was inaugurated, this person came online and wrote: ‘This new government will favour me and my family in Jesus’ name.’ Now, whenever anything (negative) happens, people go to that tweet and quote it.” I laughed. I don’t know how I missed that.

When President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy in his inauguration speech and the pump price skyrocketed from around N200/litre to over N500/litre, people joked: “This new government will favour me and my family in Jesus’ name.” When the exchange rates went haywire with the attempted bridging of the official and parallel markets, people teased again: “This new government will favour me and my family in Jesus’ name.” And so it goes for hikes in transport fares, food prices and cost of foreign education. When petrol prices went up again last week, an Obidient wrote on her WhatsApp status: “This new government will favour me and my family.” Hilarious!

Times are tough and could even get tougher. For me, what the impact of the subsidy removal has proved once more is that cheap energy had been keeping the cost of living somewhat stable in Nigeria for long. Experts often argue that fuel price hikes only have a one-off effect on inflation, but the leaps in five weeks are so adverse that millions of Nigerians are in severe pains. All our lives — at least from the time we hit oil boom in the 1970s — we had been used to cheap petrol. We had been mostly protected from prices of crude oil — the raw material for petrol, diesel and other fuels — so much that it was always a major event when a policy tampered with the pump prices of products.

In most other countries, including many oil-rich nations, citizens are used to waking up one day to discover that pump prices have changed. By the following week, prices can change again. As crude prices rise, pump prices rise. As crude prices drop, pump prices drop. This is because crude prices determine product prices. Additionally, their governments charge VAT and fuel duty on every litre. It is no news to them when pump prices rise or drop. It is something they are used to. But this is an entirely new experience for us in Nigeria. We usually argued and fought over whether or not pump prices should be adjusted. Political considerations often carried the day. Public peace is precious.

I have been carefully observing reactions to the rising cost of living. Supporters of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) have come down heavily on the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even some APC supporters are now expressing regrets for supporting President Bola Tinubu. Sarcastic memes are all over social media. Some analysts who had always prescribed the removal of subsidy and the liberalisation of the FX market are having second thoughts because things appear to be spinning out of control — beyond projections. It seems they expected immediate positive impact, such as FX inflow and, consequently, lower rates. They are now fidgety.

I was not surprised that petrol prices went up again. When crude prices hit $80/barrel, worsened by a falling naira, I started panicking. I knew it would reflect on pump prices in a matter of weeks. Actually, high crude prices are not good for the global economy. Only some oil-producing countries and oil companies love high crude prices. My prayer has always been that crude should sell for around $60 in the interest of world peace. As things stand now, anytime crude prices go up, fuel prices will follow sooner than later. If the price of yam goes up, the price or quantity of pounded yam will react. With subsidy gone, Nigerians have lost their age-old protection against high crude prices.

Does it mean that if crude prices hit $120/barrel, we will have to buy petrol at N1,200/litre? That is why some governments intervene. If Nigeria’s oil export is good enough and we earn billions of dollars from the $120/barrel windfall, government can choose to step in. The notion that government should never interfere is an extreme economic ideology. In the UK, for instance, a litre of petrol is £1.45 (about N1,447). This includes a fuel duty of 53p (about N529) and 20 percent VAT (we don’t charge these taxes in Nigeria). What the UK government did recently because of high crude prices was to cut fuel duty to contain the pump prices. The fuel duty cuts will end in March 2024.

I have heard some Nigerians argue that if our refineries were working, we should be buying petrol at N150/litre. That is quite some argument. That was similar to my position 15 years ago. Someone said the N500 billion meant to be distributed to the poorest Nigerians should be spent on building refineries to make petrol cheap. However, this idea raises questions. If crude oil, an internationally traded commodity, is $80 per barrel, at what price would we sell it to local refineries for Nigerians to buy petrol at N150/litre? I don’t know the economics of it but let us say, out of hand, that it would be $15/barrel. That is a whopping discount of $65 per barrel. Well, that is still subsidy and lost income.

While I am enjoying the brickbats between pro- and anti-Tinubu forces on social media, the counterfactual of the situation is: would Alhaji Atiku Abubakar (PDP) or Peter Obi (Labour Party) have retained petrol price at N185/litre and maintained multiple exchange rates? Were either to win the election petition and be inaugurated as president, should we expect petrol to return to N185/litre and “official” FX rate back at N420/$? I am yet to hear from Atiku on this, but Obi has said, concerning petrol subsidy, that he would have put some palliatives in place prior to the removal. This sounds fine. That means he agrees with these difficult policies but prefers a different approach.

Politics apart, the truth is that NIGERIA IS BROKE. There was a time we could afford the subsidy bill. When oil exports were bringing around $5 billion monthly into the federation account, we could afford to burn $200 million on subsidy every month, even if experts often argue that it is a waste and that the money could be better spent. But, at least, we had the war chest. We used to robustly “defend” the naira by meeting all FX demands and keeping the rates around N165/$. What many Nigerians don’t understand is that as at today, we don’t have that kind of money again. We earn virtually nothing from oil exports. We even mortgaged future production as so to sell petrol for N185.

When some Nigerians argue that the country is rich and can afford to pay for this and that, they are probably unaware that we are spending almost all our revenue on servicing debts. If we are paying salaries and contractors regularly today, it is because we are taking loans upon loans. How can you be spending 95 percent of your salary on paying debts and then borrow to buy food and pay your maiguard and still claim to be rich? Something has to give if you want to continue to be a living thing. In this same country in the 1980s, we queued to buy essential commodities, such as milk and rice, because there was no forex to import in abundance. We were heading towards that quagmire again.

Delayed adjustments can be very painful. Whereunto shall I liken Nigeria’s case? It is like unto a man whom the doctor has assessed and advised to watch his cholesterol. The doctor recommends dietary and lifestyle changes to keep it under control, but the man ignores it since he cannot see or feel any problem. His cholesterol goes higher and higher. The doctor then prescribes daily cholesterol-lowering medication. The man only uses it when he likes. Years later, he starts having excruciating chest pains owing to repeated heart attacks. He now needs a painful, very costly but life-saving surgery on the coronary artery to mitigate his coronary heart disease after ignoring doctor’s advice.

Or shall I liken the Nigerian economy unto a man diagnosed with borderline hypertension and advised to make necessary adjustments? The man says he cannot eat meals that are not rich in salt and he cannot imagine himself snubbing a chilled bottle of beer. He eventually gets diagnosed with hypertension and is advised by his doctor to take his anti-hypertensive medication daily but he chooses to do as his spirit directs, sometimes skipping weeks. The kidneys, which have been bearing the brunt of high blood pressure for years, then pack up. He now requires dialysis every other day or a kidney transplant to stay alive. Both are very expensive, disheartening and painful processes.

Having said all of this, though, I believe Tinubu could have implemented and communicated his economic reforms better. As Obi said, the way and manner the subsidy was removed was akin to extracting a tooth without anaesthesia. While I agree that subsidy removal will always come with pains no matter the timing and the strategy, a lot of prior groundwork should have been done to lessen the pains. At the heart of economic activities in Nigeria are fuel prices and exchange rates. I may be wrong, but I sense that Tinubu did not have a timetable. It is good that he is now trying to cushion the effects but it looks to me like an afterthought. He clearly put the cart before the horse.

Although “this new government will favour me” has become a joke because of the harsher economic times brought upon us by these reforms, I am ready to bear the pains insomuch as I am assured that I would not suffer in vain. I am ready to sacrifice in the hope that my leaders will sacrifice too. That is why I am proposing here today that we should channel our pains into positive energy in order to engage in constructive civic engagement with our leaders at all levels — not just Abuja, as is our wont. All tiers of government will share from the benefits of these twin policies. The adjustment pains must motivate us to have a change of attitude towards the campaign for public accountability.

Where do I fit in? Where do you fit in? For a start, we need to be rigorously dissecting the budgets at federal, state and local levels. What is the justification for every budgetary item? How is the revenue being spent? Was the road in the budget built? Was the health centre revamped? Were the teachers recruited? Why are we building an airport when people are drinking from the stream and dying of cholera? As a journalist, I hereby re-commit myself to asking the hard questions. More Nigerians must come on board. If the pains of these reforms do not push us into demanding good governance, then we will, of all nations, be most miserable — and our latter end will be worse than the former.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

SUBSIDY SACRIFICE

I was happy to hear that the three tiers of government have agreed to save N1 trillion from the record N1.9 trillion that accrued to the federation account in June 2023. We need to stop “eating with ten fingers”. And to avoid the benefits of the economic reforms going into frivolous and wasteful expenses, an infrastructure support fund (ISF) will be set up with specific mandate to intervene in transportation, agriculture, health, basic education, power and water resources. Otherwise, everything could go into overheads and building palaces for our governors (as usual). Nigerians now have to closely monitor implementation to make sure this will not be a mass scam. Accountability.

TRIBUNAL TROUBLES

All eyes are now on the presidential tribunal to deliver judgment on the petitions filed by the PDP and the Labour Party challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu (APC) as the winner of the 2023 presidential poll. From an unproven allegation that the chief justice disguised on a wheelchair to meet with Tinubu in London to fictitious reports that a member of the panel had resigned because he was put under “political pressure”, this must count as the most dramatic petition in this democratic dispensation. My astonishment is the way parties before the tribunal are making highly sub judicial statements in the media. I honestly have never seen anything like this before. Amazing.

OIL AND JAZZ

Did you read that a private security outfit intercepted a vessel with crude oil stolen from Ondo state a couple of weeks ago? The outfit, reportedly owned by a former Niger Delta militant, said it burnt the 800,000-litre vessel and its contents to sound a “note of warning” to other oil thieves. NNPC said the vessel had been operating “undetected” for 12 years. I have some questions. One, why destroy 800,000 litres rather than reclaim the contents? Two, how can a vessel operate for 12 years (NNPC was so exact) without detection? Above all, where was the navy in all this? There is something they are not telling us, and it is more saddening that Nigerians are not asking these questions. Vigilance.

AND FINALLY…

After the Igbo/Yoruba online war over the Mmesoma Ejimeke/UMTE result forgery saga — during which many Nigerians gleefully displayed their barely disguised ethnic chauvinism — I noticed some calm last week. It may well be the peace of the graveyard but at least we had some breathing space. Long may it last! But don’t bet on it: all it takes to start another ethnic baiting and cyber combat is for a Yoruba or Igbo driver to beat the red light. We would then start hearing “bigot” and “no man’s land” again, complete with Civil War tales and counter-tales. I do not expect this bitter war to end this year or next, but we need to enjoy this peace — or is it armistice — while it lasts. Amusing.

The National Association of Nigerian Students(NANS) has called on President Bola Tinubu to, as a matter of urgency, prevail on the management of various federal universities in the country to jettison their plans to increase school fees and levies being paid by the students.

The students’ body warned that should this call be ignored and schools hike their fees and want to enforce implementation, the students would embark on nationwide protest and remain on the streets till their demand is met.

NANS made this call in a statement made available by its Public Relations Officer, Mr Giwa Temitope on Saturday.

According to NANS, the increment of school fees by the University of Lagos(UNILAG), Akoka, as announced on Friday, and the planned increment by other federal universities across the country and even for the federal government colleges, have shown that the current administration is insensitive to the plights of most Nigerians, who are going through difficult times.

The association said, “It is most ridiculous that government will be introducing fees increment without thinking of rescuing the over 133 million Nigerians out of multi-dimensional poverty they are in.

“To us, increment in school fees will complicate the poverty conditions of most parents and students and also increase the number of out-of-school children in the country.

“Before now, some students couldn’t afford the fees and various other levies and because of that, dropped out of school and what would now happen to students, who are sponsoring themselves and their parents, who have more than one child in school?

“As an association, we believe that the Nigerian government has what it takes to massively fund education and make it accessible if there is a political will.

“In fact, the student loan that was introduced by the Federal Government is nothing but a sham and a bait to lure Nigerian people into accepting increment in fees payment.

“Beyond the fact that the terms of the loan are ridiculous, history has taught us that not every applicant will be considered.

“And even if all were to be considered, that does not justify fees increment in an economy like ours with a high unemployment index.

“Now, rather than give us loans, government should give us grants and scholarships.

“Our demand therefore is clear and simple and that is to tell all schools with the decision to increase their fees to suspend such plan and those that have already announced theirs to reverse it with immediate effect.

“Otherwise, we will embark on an all-round protest that will last till the Federal Government reverses the policy.”

Today, it will be 40 days since the immediate past chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Abdulrasheed Bawa, has been in the custody of the State Security Service (SSS).

The embattled anti-graft czar, who has been languishing in the detention facility of the secret police in Abuja, popularly called “Yellow House” since June 14, was arrested by the operatives few hours after his suspension by President Bola Tinubu.

His house and office in the country’s capital were subsequently raided by the operatives of the SSS. Bawa celebrated Eid-el-kabir in the secret police net.

It would be recalled that the Director of Information, Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Willie Bassey, via a statement, announced Bawa’s suspension, citing “weighty allegations of abuse of office levelled against him” as the main reason the president took the decision.

Since June 14, Bawa’s specific alleged offences have not been made public by his detainers and he is yet to be charged to court or arraigned for any trial, a development that has been faulted by many prominent Nigerians.

Earlier findings by Daily Trust on Sunday revealed that the suspended EFCC boss was picked up over his role in the cash crunch that shook the country early this year, as well as the agency’s faceoff with a former Zamfara State governor, Bello Matawalle.

Top sources who were familiar with the matter had confided in one of our correspondents that the investigation of the suspended apex bank governor, Godwin Emefiele, could not be unconnected with Bawa’s prolonged detention.

Speaking to Daily Trust on Sunday, lawyers, security experts, academics, among others, berated the SSS over the continued detention of the suspended anti-graft agency boss.

In an interview with one of our correspondents, a former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Ekiti State, Dayo Akinlaja, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), wondered why Bawa would be detained for so long without trial.

Continued incarceration against spirit of constitution – Lawyers

Akinlaja said the delay in the arraignment of the former EFCC boss in court was against the spirit of constitution, adding that the theory of fundamental human rights is not hidden or alien in our clime as it is part of our laws.

“However, there is a possibility that he might be detained in pursuant to a court order. As a matter of practice, security agencies have a way of obtaining ex parte court orders to enable such a prolonged detention in the guise of conducting investigations.

“Be that as it may, there is no disputing the fact that any long detention without arraignment in court is against the spirit of the constitution. To that extent, it is expected that he should be charged to court or otherwise released,” the senior advocate said.

Another lawyer, Tijani Ahmed, called on the general public and the media to put their searchlights on the custody of the secret police, saying there are many innocent Nigerians languishing in detention without arraignment in court just like Bawa, Emefiele and others.

According to him, the development defies the tenets of constitutional state.

“There are so many Nigerians languishing in the SSS custody, including Bawa. He may have abused the laws himself, but he cannot be there in perpetuity,” Ahmed argued.

In the same vein, an Abuja-based human rights lawyer, Pelumi Olajengbesi, said it was “illegal” for the SSS to keep Bawa in detention without trial.

Olajengbesi said, “Without any contradiction, the continued detention of Bawa by the secret police for over three weeks now is unconstitutional and a breach of the fundamental rights of the detainee.

“Illegality cannot beget another illegality. The SSS should immediately release Bawa to rejoin his family members without further delay or charge him to court to face charges preferred against him by the federal government. Anything outside these two options is alien to law and won’t stand.”

Nigeria’s law enforcement remains analogue – Security expert

On his part, a security sector reform expert, Chukwuma Ume, bemoaned how law enforcement in the country had remained analogue, saying it is not proper to first arrest someone or a suspect before the commencement of any investigation.

According to him, it is only someone who wants to tamper with evidence that should be incarcerated, not someone like Bawa that has no access again to documents in the EFCC since the day he was suspended by the president.

“The SSS must have some documents from the court to keep him for that long. They won’t be that careless. There is no power that will allow you to keep somebody in detention for that long. Usually, they go to court, and they will get a magistrate to sign for them to be able to keep him for that long.

“Although this style is not only peculiar to Nigeria, it happens everywhere in the world. But it is something they do in connivance with the court. When they (SSS) go before a judge or magistrate, they will argue that they would need to keep more than what is stipulated in law. What is stipulated in law is 48 hours.

“The Act itself is also to the position of the fact that our law enforcement is still very analogue and crude. Usually, in the western world, before you are arrested they would have almost concluded their investigation.

“Here, it is after the arrest that they will start investigation, and in the process, they will infringe on the fundamental human rights of the person by keeping him longer than expected. If they take him to court, the court will also give him bail.

“If they go to court, they might have not prepared to start the case, so the judge would have no choice than to grant the person bail. Of course, his lawyers would argue for the bail,” Ume said in an interview with Daily Trust on Sunday.

‘It is a demonstration of naked power’

Speaking further, he said, “Having said that it is a failure of our law enforcement agencies, it is also important to say that it is a demonstration of naked power. It is also something you find where there is a rule of man, not a rule of law, because in other climes, it is supposed that his lawyer would go to court.

“They (secret police) would have gone through the backdoor to get power to keep him longer than expected. His (Bawa’s) detention is not necessary because if you have removed him from office as EFCC chairman, he is not going to tamper with the evidence.

“Definitely, they have removed him and he does not have access to the EFCC anymore for some pertinent files that he would destroy the case. So, why keeping him there for so long? If you grant him bail as expected rather than going to the magistrate or the judge to get the injunction to keep him, it doesn’t mean he would fly away. He has no hidden place. He is not going to run anywhere in the world that you cannot get to.

“If he runs to the United States or Dubai you can bring him back because you have security and defence pact or agreements with these countries. That’s where Interpol comes in. What is happening is just a show of power.”

SSS reacts

The spokesman of the SSS, Peter Afunanya, in an interview with one of our reporters, did not state the exact day Bawa would be arraigned in court.

Afunanya said, “All legal procedures are being diligently followed. We had assured of professionalism, justice and fairness in the matter in line with the tenets of the law.”

When Daily Trust on Sunday asked how long the former anti-graft czar would be kept in detention, the SSS spokesman declined further comment.

President’s lawyers say party, candidate labouring in vain

Alake, APC knock Atiku over anti-judiciary plot allegation

President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima have branded the final written address of Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate Peter Obi at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) as a fiction, an expedition and a frolic of a sort.

They said, in their response to Obi’s final written address, that rather than prove the claims in his petition that he won the February 25 election, “the petitioners have been so busy and occupied milling around the worn out and obsolete subject of the contrived disqualification of the respondents.”

They also dismissed as untenable Obi’s call for a rerun between him and the PDP Presidential Candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

Obi and his party, the respondents argued, even “have no locus standi to present a petition challenging the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) on the purported ground that he did not score 25 per cent of votes cast in the FCT, having been constitutionally barred and/or excluded from participating in any rerun election, in the unlikely event of the court making such an order, as Section 134(3(a) and (b) of the Constitution prohibits and excludes him from so-doing.”

Tinubu and Shettima’s response was filed on Friday by their lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN.

Olanipekun said that in the unlikely event of a rerun, Obi and the LP would be excluded on the strength of provision of Section 134(3)(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

That part of the Constitution reads: “In a default of a candidate duly elected in accordance with subsection (2) of this Section their shall be a second election in accordance with subsection (4) of this section at which the only candidate shall be *(a) the candidate who scored the highest number of votes at any election held in accordance with the said subsection (2) of this Section; and,

*(b) one among the remaining candidates who has a majority of votes in the highest number of states, so however that where there are more than one candidate with majority of votes in the highest number of states, the candidate among them with the highest total of votes cast at the election shall be the second candidate for the election.”

Obi and the LP had, in their petition, asked the court to order a rerun on the grounds that Tinubu did not score 25 per cent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Tinubu and Shettima, however, said in their reply to the final written address by Obi and the LP that the petitioners lack locus standi to present a petition challenging the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) on the purported ground that he did not score 25 per cent of votes cast in the FCT.

They said that even if a rerun was ordered, Obi can only vote and cannot be voted for, as the duel or contest will now be between the 2nd respondent and the person who scored “the next majority of votes in the highest number of states (19 states)” and who “also came second by plurality of votes,” that is Alhaji Abubakar Atiku.

Olanipekun said: “Borrowing the language of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669, the 2nd petitioner (Obi) is a meddlesome interloper, as he is presenting a case where he will derive no utilitarian value.”

The respondents urged the court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that not only did the petitioners fail to show that Obi won the election, they failed to prove their case with relevant evidence.

Their words:”The evidence presented by the petitioners themselves point to the fact that all the electioneering processes of accreditation, voting, sorting, counting, entry into the respective Form EC8As and manual transfer to the collation centres went smoothly.

“None of the witnesses called by the petitioners offered any scintilla of evidence to avail the court of the total number of votes that should be due to the petitioners, as a result of the non-electronic transmission of votes to the IREV, and the number of votes that have been unduly credited to the 2nd respondent, for the same reason.

“By the imperative of Section 135 (1) of the Electoral Act, the mere fact that results were not transmitted through the IREV cannot operate to ground an invalidation of an election. The hardcopy of the Form EC8A is the building block for any collation of results.

“By paragraph 93 of the Regulations, electronic copy is only relevant where the hardcopy of the form EC8A is not available at the collation centre, and that even in the absence of the electronic copy, recourse should be made to either the copy given to the party agent or police officers.”

They said that contrary to the petitioners’ claim that no glitches occurred during the transmission of results of the election to IREV, one of their expert witnesses (PW7) “admitted under cross examination by the respondents’ counsel that the Amazon Web Services (AWS) server has, in recent past, suffered numerous outages, including the ones of 28 February, 2017 and the over 27 others, as at 2021; admitting the possibility of other outages as, according to her, ‘anything is possible.’”

They further noted that “on the close of evidence, it has become glaring that none of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners is grantable.”

Besides, the respondents said the petition should be dismissed on account of “clear manifestation and display of abandonment of the entire petition” by Obi and the LP in their final written address.

“Order 22 Rule 5 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, which is applicable to the proceedings mandates that “a written address shall…contain…© the issues arising from the evidence for determination,” they said.

“From this simple grammatical provision of the rules, it is clear that the petitioners have not formulated any issue for determination capable of being considered or countenanced by this honourable court; and the court can also not consider their address without issues for determination being presented by them.

“Arising from the foregoing, this honourable court is urged, as respondents have done in their final address, to dismiss the petition, not only for the reasons and submissions contained in that address, but also for the clear manifestation and display of abandonment of the entire petition.”

The 2nd and 3rd respondents faulted the authorities cited and relied on by the petitioners, noting that they “are in the habit of citing cases and decisions which are against their contention, and more importantly, election cases, where the petitioners in the respective decisions lost out, from the trial courts, up to the Supreme Court.

“These cases include Faleke v. INEC, Buhari v. Obasanjo, Wada v. Bello, Oyetola v. INEC, Abubakar v. INEC, Oke v. Mimiko (supra), and a host of others.

“Deducible from this is that the petitioners, like the petitioners in these cases, expect that their petition be dismissed by this honourable court.”

For example, the 2nd and 3rd respondents referred to the case of Awolowo v. Shagari cited by the petitioners, “a case which supports the contention of the respondents, but is against every grain of the petitioners’ postulations.

“If one is inclined to even reason with their (the petitioners’) application of that case at all, then, it behoves us to draw the court’s attention to, and indeed, submit that should the petitioners insist on their strange legal construct, it smacks of mischief and inconsistency for them to place emphasis on one-quarter of the votes in the FCT, without reckoning 2/3 of the total valid votes in the FCT.

“Invariably, therefore, going by the petitioners’ advocated disjunctive interpretation, the court, with all respect, will need to first determine what 2/3 of the votes cast in the FCT is, before then determining what one-quarter of the said two-thirds is.

“Empirically put, therefore, by the Form EC8D for Abuja, before this honourable court, the total valid votes recorded in the FCT is 460071 votes; two-thirds of 460071 is 306714; one-quarter of two-thirds will, therefore be 76678.5 votes.

“The petitioners have deliberately refused to suggest this legal proposition which, in any event, is the natural import of their submission, because the 2nd respondent, by Exhibit RA20, scored 90,902 votes in the FCT, thereby exceeding the 76678.5 votes, which is the 1/4 of 2/3 of the total valid votes cast in the FCT.

“This was the approach taken by the Supreme Court in Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) NSCC 87 at 125, where Atanda Fatai-Williams, JSC. (as he then was), in the process of determining two-thirds of the entire states of the federation, after identifying the settled 12 states, established two-thirds of the total votes cast in Kano State, before proceeding to determine 1/4 of the said two-thirds.

“Curiously enough, in their entire presentation, at no point did the petitioners assert that they are the winners of the election; rather, they are asking the court to ‘discountenance the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ defence.’

“The petitioners have been so busy and occupied, milling around the worn out and obsolete subject of the contrived disqualification of the respondents.

“This is a further demonstration of the fact that their petition, at the very best, is an expedition, a frolic of a sort.

“The court is not a Father Christmas. Even a Father Christmas, with all his assumed generosity, only gives to those who stretch their hands, and despite the fact that he (Father Christmas) is masked, he feels their presence.

Law is not, has never been and will never be an appeal to sentiments and emotions, as the petitioners think or assume that sentiment is a route to persuading the court to give judgement in their favour,” Tinubu and Shettima said in further praying the court to dismiss the petition.

“With respect, the entire address, like the petition itself, is a fiction,” they said.

…Says he sees sinister plot to undermine Nigeria’s judiciary, democracy

Calls on Nigerians to be vigilant, puts international community on alert

The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and former Vice President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has accused President Bola Tinubu of standing in the way of justice by making catastrophic threats to anarchy if justice is not served according to his whims.

Atiku, in a statement signed by his Media Adviser, Mr Paul Ibe, and made available to newsmen, said that “these and reports in the media about some heinous plots to harass justices sitting on the petition are ominous to peace and the security of our nation.”

The PDP candidate is contesting the result of the 2023 presidential election, which declared Tinubu winner, at the tribunal.

Atiku said: “Our democracy gives the people of Nigeria the powers to choose their leaders, and our laws demand that our judiciary must be allowed to act independently without harassment and intimidation by the government or powerful interests.

“To compromise the workings of our democracy and seeking to compromise the workings of our judiciary is an open call for anarchy.

“As a party in the litigation that is currently reviewing the outcome of the last presidential election, we wish to express our intentions to do all that is within the law in resisting any attempt to undermine our fragile democracy.”

He, therefore, called on the international community to be alerted.

He insisted that Nigeria’s democracy should not be undermined by using the judiciary to serve the interest of the ruling party.

“Sadly, this has become the stock in trade of the All Progressives Congress to intimidate the judiciary.

“Recall that in 2019, the APC-led Federal Government similarly removed the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, when it was obvious that he would not bend to their will.

“The Department of State Services similarly stormed the homes of judges in 2016 and 2017, all in a bid to beat the judiciary into submission.

“The plot of the APC is simple: intimidate the judiciary, threaten judges with arrest so that they will bow to their will. This is a playbook from 2019 when they removed the CJN and then replaced him with Tanko Muhammad, who himself was later accused of corruption by his colleagues at the Supreme Court and resigned shamefully.

“However, the APC government never went after Tanko Muhammad as they did in Onnoghen’s case because it was never about corruption but election. The APC has, over the years, built a reputation of judiciary intimidation. They accused about 10 judges of corruption, stormed their homes, and got them suspended and yet could not convict a single one of them. Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court could not recover from the embarrassment that he ended up dying in office.

“Now, they have initiated a new plot. This time around, they want to intimidate the judges into delivering favourable judgments for them at the election tribunal. We draw the attention of the international community and, indeed, Nigerians to this fresh plot to steal the mandate of over 200 million people,” Atiku said.

He also urged Nigerians to abide by the golden rule of eternal vigilance being the price of liberty.

Similarly, he appealed “to all security agencies in the country to remain professional in the discharge of their duties and resist being used as an instrument of oppression and intimidation against the judiciary.”

Victor Osimhen has made a new demand to Napoli over the terms of his new contract with the club.

According to Sky Italia via The Mirror, the Super Eagles forward has demanded that a 120 million euros (approximately N105.8 billion in Nigerian currency) release clause be inserted into his new contract which is different from Napoli’s proposition.

According to the report, the Italian champions intend on inserting 200 million euros into the new deal which would make the striker become one of the most expensive footballers of all time by the time he leaves the club.

Besides the release clause which is one of the reasons a new deal has not been agreed between the Nigerian striker and the Italian giants, there is also disagreement regarding his salary.

As earlier reported, the Partenopei had offered a 7 million euros per year salary which has been deemed insufficient by Osimhen.

The existing contract of the Super Eagles forward expires in 2025 but Napoli don’t want to throw caution to the wind which explains why they want the contract extended.

While parties still have their differences over the terms of the new deal, there is optimism that an agreement will finally be reached.