The “Obidients” – supporters of the mission and vision of Mr. Peter Obi, candidate of the Labour Party in Nigeria’s 2023 Presidential election had it coming. And now they are getting their “comeuppance” served in flagellating doses, from Professor Wole Soyinka, grandmaster in the art of dissent, debate and reasoning who has all it takes to sustain an intellectual fight in the public arena. In two high-profile television interviews in recent weeks - Channels TV and Arise News, and two published commentaries: “Media Responsibility” and “Fascism on Course”, Professor Wole Soyinka has reacted robustly to what he describes as a predilection for fascism on the part of the “Obidients.” Fascism also means dictatorship, tyranny, autocracy, intolerance, the unwillingness to entertain the other view, the tendency to assume that one’s opinion is supreme and superior and that other human beings do not matter. Remember Hitler. Think Italy’s Benito Mussolini. Fascists simply want to have their way no matter what others think or suggest.

The catalyst for President Wole Soyinka’s intervention was an interview on Channels TV by the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the course of which he said that it would be unconstitutional to swear in the President-elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu on May 29, 2023, and that doing so would “signal the end of democracy.” Soyinka upbraided Datti Baba-Ahmed for saying uncomplimentary things about the Nigerian judiciary in a subsequent interview with Channels TV and cautioned against the resort to the use of words that smack of fascism. Indeed, he pointed out that he had advised Peter Obi that if he lost the election, it would be partly because of those persons called “Obidients”. He went further to advise Datti Ahmed to desist from “television tirade of intimidation.” I would ordinarily think that this should not have generated any drama. What Soyinka said simply is that nobody should be a judge in his own cause or dictate to the judiciary.

Every elementary student of law must have heard of the maxim: nemo judex in causa sua. Following the February 25 Presidential election which Obi and Datti Ahmed claimed they and their party, the Labour Party won, they have since gone to court to file a petition. It amounts to contempt of court to even attempt to comment on the matter that has been handed over to the courts to determine. Besides when Datti Baba-Ahmed said it would be un-constitutional or undemocratic to swear in the President-elect on May 29, he missed the point. The current President’s tenure, after the maximum limit of two terms guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, ends on May 29. The law does not allow him to stay a day longer. The Constitution does not provide for a vacuum either. The only legitimate concern that has been raised is the suggestion by Olisa Agbakoba SAN that election disputes should be concluded, before inauguration as is the case in other countries, especially Kenya. While there are many who would share this view, the truth is that the current system in Nigeria makes that difficult.

Agbakoba says the judiciary should be pro-active and adopt methods of arbitration and deal swiftly with constitutional and technical issues within seven days. The Nigerian judicial system is not structured to be pro-active. It works at snail speed in the best of circumstances. The courts are over-burdened. The judges are overworked and they do not have enough support systems. Lawyers are never in a hurry. In election matters, they would depend on the time limitations provided for in Section 285 (6) of the 1999 Constitution. Where we are today is an improvement in the adjudication of election matters; it used to take up to three years to resolve an election dispute.

The best that can be proposed is a further amendment of the Constitution with regard to the handling of election cases. It doesn’t require much intelligence therefore to see that a new administration would be inaugurated on May 29, and while the cases at the tribunals and courts continue, new persons would have settled into office. The real issue is that the power of incumbency would have shifted and the new persons in office would use it to their own advantage. There is so much tension in the land also because Nigerians do not trust the judiciary. They have seen too many cases of how the courts determined election petitions in a manner that caused confusion. In this country, a man once became a Governor of a state without going through the process. He didn’t even print posters not to talk of campaigning. In this same country, a man who did not take part in party primaries was declared a candidate and he got re-elected to the Senate. Is it not in this same country that the Supreme Court ruled that someone who came fourth in a gubernatorial election was the winner? The bigger irony is that many Nigerians now regard the judiciary as a truly Nigerian space where anything is possible beyond the facts and the law.

The sub-text of Soyinka’s intervention, as I see it, was to remind everyone of basic principles, an instruction in the values of order, justice, and the importance of institutions. Those who seek justice should not defeat the same purpose by dictating what kind of justice suits them, and insist solely on their view of the coin. Mr. Peter Obi, the LP Presidential candidate had always insisted that he has strong faith in the judicial process and he is committed to exploring every legal and constitutional means to “reclaim what he calls “his stolen mandate”. Indeed, on one occasion, Mr Obi in an interview on Arise TV tried to make a distinction between Obidients and members of the Labour Party when he pointed out that there are many Obidients who are not members of the Labour Party and that not all party members are Obidients, which I understood to mean that he, as a person does not dictate to Obidients, even if he is the rallying point for the aspirations of the group, made up mostly of young, angry Nigerians who want change, a transition away from the old political order, and who consider Peter Obi’s political philosophy a good expression of those aspirations. They galvanized momentum and passion around Peter Obi and the Labour Party in the last elections.

Professor Wole Soyinka has spoken about his preference for a third force, a fresh option which may well be represented by Peter Obi, and so you could say he is one of those persons who consider Peter Obi a possibility. His only complaint was about the intolerance and the fascism of Obidients. Any close watcher of the political scene would recall how Obidients in the lead up to the elections, took over the social media. They deployed vitriol, abuse, intimidation, harassment. Anyone who disagreed with them was insulted and disparaged. Opposition spokespersons soon labelled them “Obidiots”. But they were combat-ready. And it is that same combative spirit that they have taken to Professor Wole Soyinka’s door step. The old sage has refused to be intimidated. He says “Obidients is one of the most repulsive, off-putting concoctions I ever encountered in any political arena.” He accuses them of projecting their disdain for “corrective criticism” as a badge of honour and certificate of commitment… rabid parochial minds of easy excitation, the tyranny of the ignorant, and the opportunism of time-servers… living in a world of false mythologies.” This is not flattering at all, but the Obidients asked for it.

Their response to Professor Soyinka was bound to get them such whiplash. Some of the responses on social media and elsewhere have been so discourteous and rude. In this season of reckless conduct, people hide under the anonymity that social media offers and heap abuse on persons whose shoe lace they cannot ever hope to tie. Even the more direct and open responses have been shocking. Charly Boy, “Area Fada and an Obidient,” like many others told Professor Soyinka: “You can’t be compared with Chinua Achebe”. Please what has Chinua Achebe got to do with this matter? Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), through Emmanuel Onwubiko wrote that Soyinka “should stop siding with the oppressors and tyrants.” Could that be Onwubiko speaking for himself for it would be most strange for a body like HURIWA to accuse Soyinka of supporting tyrants when that is the same tendency that he deplores? Then of course, I saw a comment by Daniel Bwala, spokesperson of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) asking that Professor Soyinka should have a debate with Chimamanda Adichie. Bwala can claim his right to free speech, but he is at best a busy-body in this instance. Yusuf Tanko, the chief spokesperson of the Labour Party had already addressed the matter when he responded to Professor Soyinka’s invitation of Datti Baba-Ahmed to a debate. He said the Labour Party’s vice-presidential candidate declines the invitation for political and cultural reasons. Before nko? It would be foolhardy for Datti Ahmed to go into a debate with a man of Soyinka’s stature. What I find surprising in all of this however, is a certain Easter message attributed to Mr. Peter Obi in which he talked about “orchestrated efforts to demarket and delegitimize the OBIdient movement.” Is that a veiled attack on Professor Wole Soyinka? So far, Mr Obi has maintained his cool in the political arena, he should not allow himself to be hijacked by an emerging “personality cult.”

But isn’t this a sign of the times though? It is not only Obidients that are in a foul mood. The triumphant members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) are not better. They in fact have a much larger tendency for fascism that is frightening, and the real fear is that when these persons get to the corridors of power, their arrogance and imperialism would know no bounds. While the Obidients scream on social media, the BATists, that is the supporters and spokespersons of the APC and President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu shoot from the hips on all platforms. Before and after the elections, they have been on the offensive, making it seem as if they have won a war, and must gather prisoners and shoot them down. They act based on suspicion. They respond to every little comment. They are quick to do the dirty job on their principal’s behalf, victory has become their aphrodisiac. It does not matter to them that the February 25 Presidential election is now a matter before the election petition tribunal. They openly taunt the opposition to go to court, giving the impression that nothing unfavourable to their party and candidate would come out of there.

Their latest target is Chimamanda Adichie, the distinguished, internationally acclaimed writer, who sent a letter to President Joe Biden on the Nigerian elections, in which she condemned the Nigerian electoral process, and accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of being compromised. The attack launched by spokespersons and supporters of the APC on Chimamanda Adichie must be quite shocking to her. She has been accused of being a tribal bigot, an Obidient, supporting a former Governor of her state, and an unpatriotic Nigerian maligning her country. And how dare she report Nigeria, a sovereign state to Joe Biden? The APC attack team has also sent letters to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada to debunk Ms. Adichie’s reflections on the 2023 election. One commentator, Femi Fani-Kayode to be specific, dismissed her letter as a “boring epistle of dishonest garbage” – except that Adichie is incapable of writing garbage! She has also been accused of colonial mentality and sedition, with calls that she should be sued. President Biden has been advised to ignore her. Ms. Adichie wrote: “Congratulating the election’s outcome, President Biden tarnishes America’s self-proclaimed commitment to democracy. Please do not give the sheen of legitimacy to an illegitimate process. The United States should be what it says it is.” Unlike Professor Wole Soyinka, Chimamanda Adichie has not responded to the backlash that she got. She obviously thinks silence is the best answer for the APC crowd.

Thus, within the same period two prominent Nigerian writers, Soyinka and Adichie being attacked for expressing views about the conduct of politics and political players in Nigeria. Both the elder and the younger writer are drawing attention to omissions that could have far-reaching implications. Their mode of intervention may differ, but in truth, they are both concerned about the health of our nation, and the character of the political class. Soyinka is a national treasure, a global humanist and one of the best thinkers of the century. Ms. Adichie is one of Nigeria’s great ambassadors on the world stage with her contributions to culture, literature and knowledge. Writers are the conscience of the nation. Their job is to speak truth to power, shape public thought, create a current of ideas, no matter whose ox is gored. Soyinka is the elder statesman calling for restraint. Ms Adichie expresses the feelings of many of her generation who feel disappointed by the 2023 election. Critical as her piece may seem, she has not said anything that is not out there in public. It would be wrong to assume that only persons inside Nigeria or who voted during the elections are entitled to comment on the outcome. It is not even a sin for writers or any citizens at all to hold political beliefs. What is objectionable is the growing drift towards fascism in Nigeria’s political space. It reflects a culture of intolerance that erodes the tenets of democracy and human freedom.

Beyond all the expectations about the immediate future of Nigeria, it must be possible to take our country back from the fringes of despair, hate and division to which it has been driven by the recent elections. It must be possible again to have healthy, open and decent conversations in the public sphere. This calls for leadership, restraint, and above all wisdom.

In 2021, State governors and local government chairmen in the 36 states of the Federation collected over N375 billion from public coffers in the name of security vote, an act not provided for in the Nigerian constitution or any known law in the country. This amount excludes those the president and other top government officials collected in the same year, nor does it include what is appropriated for internal security or the budget of the police and security agencies. The security vote, often provided in cash to governors, is not subject to legislative oversight or independent audit and therefore disbursed at the Governor’s discretion. Regrettably, despite the enormous sums of money they collect from the public treasury, state governors have been incapable of stopping wanton killings, kidnappings, inexplicable security breaches and other criminal activities in their states. 

 Security vote is a monthly opaque allowance allocated to state Governors to fund non-classified security expenditures within the states. The monthly fund runs into billions of Naira and varies based on the level of security intervention required by the individual state or the level of influence the Governor wields over the legislature. Some states collect as much as 24 billion annually, and others less. The level and quantum of security vote is a function of the perceived security cum political threat a state is exposed to. The governors are not alone. Chairmen of local government areas also collect security votes that they treat as personal  entitlement or funds. The worrisome aspect of this practice is that there is no limit to, or regulation of what governors may spend as a security vote, and, sadly, the amount involved may be appropriated. However, the expenditure is never subject to legislative scrutiny or accountability. Instead, the allocation and use of the amount involved are usually shrouded in secrecy. In fact, the Court of Appeal in the case of FGN versus Jolly Nyame posited that failure to give an account of security votes amounts to stealing or criminal misappropriation, akin to genocide.  

Prevalent data shows that in one year, this in-cash, opaque spending exceeds 70 per cent of the annual budget of the Nigerian Police, more than the Nigerian Army’s annual budget, and more than the Nigerian Navy and Nigerian Air Force’s annual budgets combined. This excludes the personnel cost of the military services. For instance, the 2018 budgetary allocation to defence headquarters was N145 billion, while funding to the Ministry of Interior was N63.26 billion—the total falls short of N241.2 billion the governors spent under the amorphous subhead “security vote” in that year. Admittedly, the security agencies’ budget has spiked in the past three years, driven by multiple factors. 

 Last week I read both in the conventional and online media about a meeting with anti-corruption agencies, at the instance of the Nigerian Governors Forum, to discuss the issue of security vote. The motive was unclear, especially coming at a time of transition to new governors. It might not be unconnected with outgoing governors looking for a shield from being harassed by anti-corruption agencies after leaving office on May 29. We cannot dispute that the “security vote” is more of a myth, mystery, or tale than a public interest issue. It is the most shrouded secret expenditure in government circles. However, the funds are public resources, so the people deserve to know how every Naira is spent and the value derivable.  

There are two schools of thought on the issue of security votes. On the one hand, the hypothesis is that in third-world countries, absolute transparency is impossible in government. We must do certain expenses under the table to ensure societal stability, and we cannot capture such expenditures done in the public interest by the Governor within any accountability framework. A second and opposing school of thought contends that public money is at stake, so it must be accounted for. And those public funds, if not accounted for, will always be subject to abuse. Both schools raise pertinent issues for interrogation, and this has become more urgent just before new governors take over the reign of governance and continue with a convention that has yet to serve any purpose. 

 At a time, we are witnessing governors withdraw several billions  in cash, state accounting books not being tidy, some states spending as much as 10-15% of the annual budget on security votes without any form of accountability, and services nosedive in states yet security votes keep rising, the need to balance public interest, practical reality and abuse becomes imperative.  

 One condition that has inadvertently worked for the Governors is that people prioritise increased security over transparency and accountability in the face of high levels of insecurity. Therefore, we subordinate the need for accountability in finance to the desire for improved security. Without accountability and transparency, it is not difficult for governors to exploit the concept of state security to pilfer from the public purse. This is undoubtedly true in many states in Nigeria, where the deteriorating nature of the security of individual lives and property has ensured the existence of little or no public opposition to all manner of government proposals aimed at improving state security.

 In turn, high levels of crime and disorder have facilitated the ballooning of security vote, the abuse of which is achieved by creating a black box around the concept of state security under the pretence that absolute secrecy is required when it comes to the allocation and spending of resources to tackle insecurity. The abuse and misuse of security votes in Nigeria have grown alarmingly in Nigeria’s 23 years of democratic interregnum. The tendency among Nigerian politicians, particularly the executive arm at the state levels of government, to manipulate security issues for political and economic gains is widespread. A former EFCC Chairman alleged that some governors deliberately fuel insecurity in their states to provide oxygen for more security votes. 

 Pertinent rhetorical questions arise: Is the security vote of governors a statutory stipulation? Is it provided for in the constitution, the financial guidelines, or general orders? How much should it be as a percentage of state GDP, presumed security needs of individual states, and population? Who audits and controls security vote appropriations? Should governors have access to state funds above the requirements of public accountability?

 Although governors have no responsibility for the country’s security apparatus at the state level, the constitution recognises them as chief security officers of their respective states. However, the worsening security situation in the country has justified governors to demand an increased role in the security of their states. Some governors have argued that the legislature should amend the constitution to give them more control and power over security issues within their state.

 Because the entire budgeting process and operating mechanics of security votes are shrouded in secrecy, a consequence of the rentier nature of the Nigerian state and its underdeveloped democracy, there is little pressure to justify such expenses and subsequent increases to the electorate. The secrecy surrounding issues of state security and the nature of security votes provide an alibi for state governors in their attempt to evade allegations of corruption and disguise their pilfering from the public purse.

 EFCC has recently expressed concern about states hiding under security votes for all sorts of infractions, including using state money to sponsor violence against her people, using state funds for personal projects and siphoning funds for other political and party interests. The critical issue is how do we justify the continued relevance of security votes, a carry-over culture from the military regime when all security agencies are under the federal government? How do we constructively balance public interest, proper accountability framework, probability of abuse, and practical reality without compromising general security? Is it high time we tackled this issue of security votes before the next set of governors sacrifices tangible development on the altar of security votes?

 In some quarters in Nigeria, the perception that governors should not account for security votes needs to be revised. This is so because the Nigerian Constitution invests the legislature with the power to oversee the audit of all government accounts, including security votes. The fact that the legislature has failed to do this in the past because of incompetence or compromise does not change this fact. Security votes have become a convenient tool for disguising these governors’ looting of the public purse. This lack of accountability has continued unabated even though the 1999 Constitution contains sufficient safeguards to prevent such abuses. The problem is rooted more in the rent nature of the state than the inadequacy of the laws and constitutional provisions to mitigate it.

 Granting that there will be expenditures incurred by governors outside the budget provisions, how do we accommodate these? Issues like the emergency medical evacuation of notable citizens, emergency distress assistance, and donations to good causes need to be provided for since they will always come up. We must create a core subhead for these in each Governor’s office so that expenses can be retired, and due accounting processes observed. The term’ security vote’ is, therefore, a misnomer. We should create a new terminology to cover the financing of emergencies of the state, including support to security agencies that are accountable and not open to abuse. The Nigerian states should critically examine how states in matured democracies deal with budgeting for emergency expenses that are accountable and legal. The legislature constitutionally granted the oversight role against the executive must reconsider the security vote and either remove them entirely or allow a reasonable amount (about 1% of the budget) for emergency security issues. And the governors must account for it.

Dear PM and President,

Re: Chimamanda’s Seditious Open Letter To President Joe Biden: A Case of Extraterritorial Ethnocentric Politicking of a Non-Resident Nigerian-American  

Background

It is most bewildering that a privileged Nigerian-born writer, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, born in Enugu, Nigeria in 1977 but who now lives in the United State of America, has decided to paint her country of origin “black”.  Sadly, Chimamanda’s letter is a reckless affront to our resolve not to be part of the “brain-drain” syndrome against our dear country, Nigeria, like the writer. Some of us are determined to be “brain-gain” to Nigeria. It is in view of this that we felt taken aback that Chimamanda went below expectations to pen-down a seditious letter against the government and people of Nigeria.

Chimamanda’s letter, titled “Nigeria’s Hollow Democracy” was not about the election or person of the President-Elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, whose victory was freely and fairly unveiled, despite disoriented opposition politicking and those of their supporters in Nigeria and their allies in the diaspora. Chimamanda’s letter was against the entirety of “Nigeria’s Democracy” that was fought and procured with patriotic blood, labour, efforts, lives and the undeterred resolve of democrats, chief among them being Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who, by divine arrangement, is now the President-Elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The misplaced reference to certain “smoldering disillusionment felt by many Nigerians” in her letter is, at best Chimamanda’s sole experience of agonies of defeat suffered by her and her preferred candidate/party in the recently concluded presidential election in Nigeria.

Seditious Elements of Chimamanda’s Letter

Sedition is an offence in the US where Chimamanda lives. It is also an offence in Nigeria, her country of origin that she now holds and views with disdain. Sedition not only covers a person’s actions but also any words or writings in print that may incite, encourage or promote the overthrowing of a government. The US criminalises seditious conspiracy by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 2384.

Sedition is a transnational crime defined as the “inciting by words or writing to show disaffection towards the state or constituted authority”. The transnational nature of sedition committed by a US resident against sovereign nations led to the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) which aimed to prevent”aliens,” or non-citizens, living in the United States from resorting to seditious acts or conduct, like Chimamanda did in her letter. The law authorised the president to deport “aliens,” and also permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation for seditious acts or conduct. The Sedition Act also made it a crime for American citizens to “print, utter, or publish…any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about a government.

Locus Standi of Chimamanda’s Letter

Under the Nigerian constitution, Chimamanda’s franchise, constitutional right to vote and be voted for, is guaranteed but the writer opted to snub the legal right by refusal to collect a PVC – Permanent Voter’s Card. She opted to be more “American” than the real Americans! She also did not participate in Nigeria’s election as a candidate or as eligible voter. She opted to make several videos to publicly endorse and campaign for her “messianic” candidate of the Labour Party. Chimamanda became needlessly embittered because her tribal option and those of her political party failed woefully.

Chimamanda’s claims and assertions on the recently concluded presidential election in Nigeria is not only ludicrous, it is also illogical, baseless and depicts the ignoble ranting of an uninformed mind about legal and judicial processes or procedures. It is unimaginable that someone who did not participate or vote in an election would make categorical statements about an election she did not witness. What Chimamanda did not tell her gullible readers is that her candidate won mostly in her/his ethnic enclaves and that the President-Elect, Bola Tinubu, President Buhari, notable Nigerian governors, senators and others also lost in their strongholds, which should ordinarily have been their locational advantage for “manipulating” the outcome, as Chimamanda unconscionably and recklessly alleged.  

The writer-turned ethnic politician did also not indicate that the presidential election was conducted on the same date as the National Assembly elections in which the ruling party won about 60% of all seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. The winning trends of the APC is obvious, real, actual and all-embracing.

Chimamanda represents recent generations of Nigerian intelligentsias in the diaspora. Her lonely voice on the election of President-Elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu is, at best, a muted trumpet which is audible to no one except herself and her co-travelers. The only legal and legitimate option is for her candidate, Peter Obi, not Chimamanda herself, because she lacks the locus standi, to approach the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal as provided by Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). This has since been done, and further makes it illogical for Chiamamanda to resort to writing letters capable of inciting ethnic or violent reactions in Nigeria, while she resides in the comfort of the US, her new found home or haven, which was fought for and procured with hard labour and commitment of Americans. If Chimamanda is unwilling to sacrifice to make Nigeria better, she should kindly desist from undermining the resolve of those of us who believe that Nigeria could be better, if we all make necessary sacrifices like Americans did to build their country where Chimamada now sojourns.

Chimamanda’s and Reckless Undermining of Judicial Process

Chimamanda’s letter is most unbecoming. Nigerians have spoken with their votes in the election, and they spoke loudly and clearly. The losers have since taken to the legal and legitimate options of challenging the outcome. Legally speaking, the issue is now subjudice. Chimamanda’s letter may be viewed as an attempt to undermine the course of justice or pre-empt the outcome of judicial processes. This is similar to the same way and manner her party and candidate orchestrated polls to pre-empt the outcome of an election they knew they could never win, as they planked their electioneering and campaign activities on tribal and other ethnocentric and religious sentiments. This is also reflected in the outcome of the elections as results empirically validated this assertion.

The position of law in Nigeria (and similar to all civilised democracies of the world, including Canada and the US), is that: any individual or political party that intends to challenge or question the result of an election must ensure the petition is established on a valid ground or reason recognised by law. An election petition can only succeed with valid grounds recognised by the 1999 Constitution or Electoral Act, 2022.

The Giant Called Nigeria Will Rise and Never Fall Again

The expectations of Nigerians are very high on the upcoming Bola Ahmed Tinubu presidency, which had triumphed over all known forces of religious bigotry of a “Muslim-Muslim ticket, ethnicity and other divisive tendencies. Elections have come and gone. The battle now shifts to the Presidential Election Tribunal. The act of serious, progressive and purposeful governance must immediately commence and continue, pending legal battles. The President-Elect is no longer for the All Progressives Party (APC). He has declared that he is now for APC as much as for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), and other major political parties in Nigeria. More importantly, he has also declared that his administration will govern for the benefit of those who voted for or against him. Now that the season of politics, politicking and electioneering is over, it is time for all of us to collaborate, including diaspora Nigerian citizens, writers and intelligentsias like the Chimamandas of the US, Canada, the UK and elsewhere, to team-up and get Nigeria working again under PRESIDENT BOLA AHMED TINUBU.

The Giant Called Nigeria Will Rise and Never Fall Again!

Conclusion

The intention of this open letter is not to vilify, ridicule or incite and set the law of sedition in motion against Chimamanda. It is to right-size her over-bloated ego of perceived global self-esteem. She needs to realise that thousands, if not millions of Nigerians (including those of us who are now back home in Nigeria but who still frequently travel to those sides, to be a part of the solution and those still in the diaspora) have had similar and even better opportunities in Canada, US, UK and other countries of the world without deploying our privileged positions to undermine our country of origin, Nigeria.

At a time that all hands are on deck to build a Nigeria of Renewed Hope under the in-coming President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the unpatriotic Chimamandas opted for the ignoble act of stimulating crisis against Nigeria, a country that prepared them for their perceived global fame. This is not the Canadian or American culture we had imbibed and which has now positively and progressively shaped our worldviews and socio-political and other forms of engagements. For the records, the pride of Canada and the US democracies is multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism, not ethnocentrism. This is a vital lesson for all concerned.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Professor Yemi Oke

Yemi Oke is a Nigerian-Canadian law scholar, consultant and legal practitioner. He is a professor of energy and electricity law, University of Lagos, Nigeria.

I flew into Abakaliki last night after so many years that I haven’t visited the state and the first thing that welcomed me was the multi-colour paints on the city walls and roadsides, the fancy street lights and numerous flyovers both completed and uncompleted inside the city centre. 

Paradoxically, I can count how many private vehicles drove past us within the city; but everywhere is filled with tricycles (Keke Napep) and I was forced to ask myself the reasons for building multiple flyovers in a city with zero traffic like Abakaliki. 

Commonsensically, flyovers are needed and of high importance in only highly congested cities so as to decongest traffic gridlock. There has never been traffic gridlock on any road in Abakaliki so I will ask the state government what is and will be the use of the flyovers they built. I guess for aesthetics and beauty purposes. A project as capital intensive as such should not be engaged just for aesthetics and decorations. All the flyovers built are just a waste of money; a gigantic sum of money that should rather be invested in other ventures that would have created long-term sustainable jobs for the Ebonyi residents. 

No serious businessman or investor will relocate to invest in a city just because of the city’s aesthetics; paints or street lights.

Again, the airport that was just built in the state is another waste of scarce resources. Enugu airport is just about 45 mins away from Abakaliki city; the Enugu airport has been serving Ebonyi residents and visitors and could still serve. Every state, especially a state like Ebonyi, must not own an airport, it is not a “show off” project. Millions of dollars were spent on that project and I can predict that the airport will go bankrupt and will be abandoned soon just like the Benue’s due to low patronage. 

The state government should have asked themselves before embarking on such a project about how many business persons or visitors visit the state daily to warrant an airport to be built. 

I expected the Ebonyi state government to know that for every project undertaken by a government, there is an opportunity cost for it which was abandoned and that’s why before embarking and wasting money on a project, the government should ask the hard question; “is the project really necessary at this point”? 

For any flyover built, there are schools which ought to be built or renovated which were sacrificed as an opportunity cost to erect a flyover. For every airport built, there is money which ought to be pumped into an educational subsidy to subsidize the cost of university education in the state; Ebonyi state university is one of the most expensive state-owned universities in Nigeria and for a state like Ebonyi which is the state in southern Nigeria that tops the rank of educational less developed states, the state should have prioritized instead on subsidizing the cost of tertiary education to encourage education amongst the indigenes and also investing in projects that will attract industries that will create more jobs. 

What the state government like Ebonyi should consider now is the creation of long term and sustainable jobs, inviting and attracting investors through different incentives like stable and low-cost electricity, tax abatement/ reduction and building of more schools and subsidizing the cost of education in state-owned institutions to encourage education.

Building flyovers, and airports and spending millions of dollars painting the city walls just for decoration and aesthetics are just so unnecessary (at this point) and will never attract investors or create long-term jobs 

AS an aspirant in 2022, the President of the Nigeria Bar Association, NBA, Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau, made a pilgrimage to Keffi, Nasarawa State. He needed the blessings of one of the most consummate and influential law professors the country has ever produced: Onje Gye-Wado. The latter from 1999, was for four years, Deputy Governor of Nasarawa State. He was also former Law Dean of the Nasarawa State University, and Dean, Faculty of Law, Birmingham University.

He agreed to support Maikyau provided he agrees to use his NBA Presidency to fight for a better country because he believes that lawyers should be the engine of change in society. This was no mere rhetoric because Gye-Wado not only passionately believes it, but lives it. He was one of the enthusiasts of the legendary former NBA President, Alao Aka-Bashorun who built the pro-people foundations of the association and made the NBA a body even military dictators had to contend with.

Gye-Wado is not just full of law and enthusiasm for the Nigerian people, he is also passionate about football. He helped develop the sport in the country at various levels, including being at a time, Member of the Nigeria Football Association, NFA.

What many may not know about the quiet Professor Gye-Wado is his reach in the Labour Movement. When the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, moved its headquarters from Lagos to Abuja in 2002, my colleague, Chris Uyot who was in charge of information, and I travelled to see Gye-Wado in Keffi, not just to inform him we had moved to Abuja, but primarily to drink from his ever-flowing fountain of knowledge.

When in 2004, the Labour Party, then known as the Party for Social Democracy, PSD, ran into leadership problems, it was to Gye-Wado the NLC leadership turned to for assistance. Congress approached him to become the party chairman and steer it along the pro-masses lines for which it was established. Although he eventually did not become the chair, but it was an indication how high the Labour Movement held Gye-Wado.

But Prof is like a rich orange tree many want to pluck from; unfortunately, these included terrorists and bandits who made some attempts to kidnap him. On Good Friday, April 7, 2023 Gye-Wado was in his village, Gwagi, Rinza near Wamba in the Wamba Local Government Area of Nasarawa State to observe the Easter period. Bandits broke into his home and abducted him. They are demanding a N70 million ransom. The kidnappers must think his richness in humanism means he is financially rich. We all should rally round the family and support all efforts to get this consummate humanist released.

The attack on Gye-Wado is not isolated. It is part of the lawlessness that pervades the country, especially the North-Central. A combination of terrorists, bandits, local and foreign armed militias have turned the region into killing fields.

Three days before Gye-Wado’s kidnap, armed men invaded Umuogidi Village in the Enetekpa Adoka District of Otukpo Local Government Area of Benue State and killed three persons. The next day when the people gathered to bury the dead, it turned out to be a trap. The criminals descended on the mourners and massacred 51 of them. This case is not just about the massacres but the cynical way of getting the people to gather for burial and then opening fire on them. It is the Islamic State, ISIS, template of triggering off a small bomb, and when a crowd gathers to rescue the victims, a bigger bomb is set off. This is to ensure maximum casualty.

This same Good Friday Gye-Wado was abducted, bandits attacked internally displaced persons, IDPs, at their shelter in the LGEA Primary School, Mgban, Nyiev Council Ward, Guma Local Government of Benue State killing at least 43 persons, including pregnant women and children, with scores injured and several people missing. If the goal of the attackers is not genocide, why after forcing people off their ancestral lands, would they still massacre them in the IDP camps?

Earlier on Monday in the region, bandits who had abducted 60 persons in the Adunu and Kwagana communities in the Paikoro Local Government Area of Niger State, executed five of the hostages, including a serving police officer, and his retired colleague, Moses Tanko alias Arada System. They were executed following the two communities inability to meet a Sunday, April 2, 2023 deadline that they pay N100 million ransom. After the executions, the bandits sent three women who they had raped for about two weeks, to take the news back to the communities and warn them against further delay of the ransom.

In March, 2023 alone, at least 26 violent crimes were visited on the people of the region. In Benue State in the past 40 days, alleged herders have killed over 157 persons: 41 in Kwande; 8 in Gwer West; Agatu, 4; Guma 10; Mgban 43 and 51 in Umuogidi. These are mainly terrorist acts perpetuated, especially by foreign armed groups who seize villages, settle in, and rename them without any known challenge from the Nigerian Armed Forces, or order from His Excellency Muhammadu Buhari, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces that the invaders be flushed out.

These acts of genocide have been brought several times to his attention, including by Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom. But he has not ordered the military to take back these dozens of villages and towns, and return the victims who are forced to live in Internally Displaced Peoples camps. This may stem from President Buhari’s insistence that the on-going massacres in Benue and Plateau states are not armed invasions by local and foreign armed militia, but merely “inter-communal conflicts”. This claim, he repeated in his Saturday April 8, 2023 reaction to the unconscionable massacres in Umuogidi.

The Vanguard Newspapers in June 30, 2018 reported that as at five years ago, these ethnic militias had invaded, seized and renamed over 54 communities in Plateau State alone! Are these “communal” clashes?

Since they have been unchallenged over the years, these bandits and terrorists have spread their crimes against humanity to Niger State where towns have been sacked and citizens forced to live in IDP camps or flee to safer areas, including Abuja. In March, 2023, bandits in the state killed six and abducted 50 in Rafi and killed 15, including four soldiers in Munya with 15 held hostage.

A caveat on these serious crimes statistics is that they are conservative as they reflect only verifiable ones, crimes the victims report or those that got media attention.

The nation has lost its way. I do not have faith in the out-going government; the hope is that the in-coming administration will change the security narrative.

Diya completely underrated Abacha and was basically incapable of reading the political situation. Even when those of us, outsiders could read changing situation, he could not. By the time Diya realised he was riding on a tiger’s back, he had practically ended up in its stomach.

Abacha had Ibru shot on February 2, 1996; he survived, but lost an eye and two fingers. He got his killer squad on June 4, 1996 to execute Mrs. Kudirat Abiola, Chief Abiola’s wife, on the streets of Lagos. Abacha went after Onagoruwa by killing his son, Oluwatoyin, a lawyer, on December 18, 1996. He then sent Diya to officially commiserate with him. Then, he went after Diya.

After two assassination attempts on Diya, including in December 1997, blowing up the aircraft he was to take on official assignment to Benue State, Abacha manufactured a phantom coup under which Diya in April, 1998, was sentenced to death. It was the second of such coups. The first was in 1995 under which men like retired Generals Olusegun Obasanjo and Shehu Yar’Adua were convicted. The latter was poisoned in Abakali Prisons.

After the sentence, videos emerged of General Diya kneeling down before Abacha, weeping and begging for his life. His life might have been spared only because Abacha lost his own on June 8, 1998. That enabled Diya to live another 25 years in virtual obscurity before he finally bowed out on March 26, 2023. May we never witness such regimes in Nigeria again. Amen!

“A social movement that only moves people is merely a revolt. A movement that changes people and inculcates ideas is a true revolution” — Martin Luther king Jr.

NIGERIA’s political environment has assumed a new but disappointing and frightening mob culture over an election that has been won and lost. In a previous article, I pleaded for peace and asked that we should stand together as we await the outcome of the petitions at the election tribunal. I am sure I was not asking for too much.

Understandably, there are frayed nerves and bitter emotions exerted in the form of intimidation, cyber-bullying and hate speeches, but we do not have to burn down the country because of one election. Have we forgotten that Nigeria belongs to all of us or should we create two green-white-green countries as Donald Trump did when he created two Americas? That would not be a good idea.

Since 1999, we have been taking learnings from every election cycle and there is always room for improvement. This year, we conducted our 7th general election, however flawed these elections might have been. Isn’t that a good thing and something to cheer?

The reactions that have trailed the presidential election since February 25 give the impression that some people own Nigeria more than the rest of us simply because Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), lost an election.

I have friends, classmates and colleagues who are Obidients and supporters of Peter Obi. That is the beauty of democracy; it allows for freedom of choice. There are family members who belong to different political parties but they still eat and drink together. In the last presidential election, I know a couple that voted for different parties. They are still living together. Why should our political differences separate us?

I have a brother who is an Obidient. He was very hopeful that Peter Obi would be declared the winner. I have long-standing associates at work (both in Nigeria and the diaspora) who are also Obidients but we understand that our political affiliations and worldviews will not affect our work and relationship.

Our agreement is that superior arguments based on facts – and not emotions and sentiments – should always prevail. Personal attacks are also forbidden, although in many chat rooms, that is the order of the day. Many participants spew garbage in their attempt to “take Nigeria back” for Peter Obi.

Even when there are heated arguments as I have witnessed on different occasions, the debaters should have the presence of mind to calm down afterwards. But Obidients believe it must be their own way or no other way. This is an exaggerated sense of entitlement and it shows that they are incapable of tolerating other people’s views. Previously, I refused to accept this characterisation of Obidients but not anymore.

The time has come for a reality check because we can disagree without being disagreeable.

What has become evident is that Obidients mismanaged their expectations because of the rising profile of Peter Obi. Popularity of candidates and opinion polls don’t win elections. If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have defeated Donald Trump in the US presidential election in 2016.

Talking about Donald Trump, no one expected him to win that election but he gained the advantage at the Electoral College and became the 45th US President. Heavens did not fall – despite Hillary winning the popular vote.

The same Trump and his supporters refused to concede defeat to Joe Biden four years later, even going as far as instigating an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 where lives were lost and property destroyed. It is the same scenario that is playing out with the duplicitous behaviour of Obidients who insist that Peter Obi won the presidential election.

No one promised Obi a coronation party in Abuja and winning the presidential election is not a stroll in the park. You need a winning strategy to gain competitive advantage. The presidential election was keenly contested and it showed in the results.

There was no way Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) would have gone down without a fight. These are formidable politicians with rich experience, influence and political capital that they amassed over a long period.

Once you hold a different view from Obidients, they will attack you? Why should it be so? Why can’t we have a healthy debate and exchange of ideas, even if we disagree? On social media, they resort to cyber-bullying just like Trump supporters who believe erroneously, like Trump, that the election was stolen from them.

Obidients must note that they cannot bully the rest of us into submission and accept their propaganda as the truth. Not one Obidient has shown me the pathway to Obi’s victory but they expected the crown to be handed over to Obi on a platter of gold. When you want to build a house, you start from the foundation before pillars and beams are introduced.

Two data scientists based in London, UK and Atlanta, USA carried out independent forensic examinations on their own on the presidential election using data they obtained from multiple sources. They found out that Obi was popular and represented a new political force; he could be trusted by his supporters who wanted “change” from the old order (meaning they were tired of APC and PDP) but he clearly did not achieve the national spread required to win the election.

Obidients were the biggest threat to Obi’s aspirations. In addition, since about 47% of registered voters were below 50 years old, Obi needed this demographic, based on previous projections assuming they were correct, to win only if they came out to vote. Go and verify the ratio of voters on February 25 as a percentage of the 95 million registered voters as per the various demographics and see whether Obi had the numbers and spread to win.

This brings me to an important management tool known as SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. If Obidients truly want to be honest and conduct a comprehensive SWOT analysis, it will reveal that Obi could never have defeated Tinubu or Atiku.

Obi’s strengths were his popularity, “frugal” nature, and so on. But did they review his weaknesses? Did they also verify his antecedents? What of the opportunities (e.g. coalitions across regions and tribes and religion) and threats (e.g. Obidients)? Obi only ticked one out of the four quadrants and it is not enough to win.

The recent music released by Falz, Nigerian musician and son of legal luminary, Femi Falana, is part of a groundswell of coordinated attacks aimed at de-legitimising the victory of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. But how far can his adversaries go?

Even before the presidential election, several attempts were made from different quarters to discredit Tinubu (there were 18 presidential candidates) and damage his chances. There was nothing that was not thrown at him – every bad adjective was used for full effect on Tinubu before and after he became the president-elect.

Obidients believe that Obi won the presidential election and we are having a situation whereby friends are becoming sworn enemies just because they disagree on the matter concerning Obi. I do not think it makes sense for politicians to divide us.  By the way, we must also note that ethnicity and religion have become two combustible and dangerous elements that politicians use to weaponise us.

Obi was popular and he was therefore expected to win the election. That’s the story repeated by Obidients, believing that it will become the truth. It does not work that way, a fact Obidients have refused to accept.

Obidients deploy hateful and hurtful drivel to push their narratives and gag the civic space – a dangerous and counter-productive idea. It explains why they have continued to thrash the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), accusing the electoral body of rigging the election in favour of Asiwaju Tinubu.

There were other candidates in the election but the attention was always on Asiwaju Tinubu. Obidients will not agree but Tinubu had a better resourced-campaign and his ground game – grassroots mobilisation – was better. He also built a formidable northern coalition over the years.

Asiwaju is not called the “last man standing” for nothing.

Overall, Tinubu had a better campaign strategy. No one expected the 2023 elections to be perfect but it is also wrong to assume that there were large-scale electoral malpractices sufficient to invalidate the whole process.

In how many polling units out of 176,606 PUs nationwide were there irregularities? Let us even assume without conceding that the elections were flawed, is that enough reason to say the president-elect should not be sworn into office on May 29? Obi himself knows that he did not win the election but he does not have the courage to admit it because of Obidients. He cannot control them.

But for the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), it would have been business as usual for the leading political parties in their respective strongholds. Let us celebrate the little wins that we achieved and thank President Muhammadu Buhari for giving us the Electoral Act 2022.

The same election described as flawed produced winners from Labour Party in the National Assembly. Those winners were happy to receive their certificates of return but they refuse to acknowledge that the statistical distribution of winners from APC, PDP and Labour Party in terms of ratios is consistent with the outcome of the presidential election. 

By the way, Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of PDP and a veteran of the game, was second to Asiwaju Tinubu while Obi came third, an achievement the Obidients should ideally celebrate as a victory for our democracy. Tinubu won in 12 states; Atiku also won in 12 states while Obi won in 11 states and the FCT, yet Obidients believe Obi won the presidential elections. They should go and read Section 134 of the Constitution.

Atiku also filed a petition – just like Obi did – challenging the outcome of the presidential election but he does not have a mob behind him. The Waziri Adamawa has displayed maturity like a true statesman.

Maybe Obi and Obidients are forgetting that PDP was weakened as the main opposition party having been splintered into four units: Atiku, Obi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso (of the New Nigeria People’s Party) and Nyesom Wike’s G5. They made victory easier for Tinubu and APC. The two Data Scientists also cited this disadvantage/threat in their reports.

The former Anambra State governor left PDP and joined the Labour Party at the last minute. He became the party’s flagbearer. Apparently, the likes of Prof Pat Utomi had to step down for Obi because he was hailed as the messiah that would “redeem” Nigeria.

I’m still of the view that Obi should not have left the  All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), the party that gave him a wide berth to be Anambra State governor for eight years. Prof Charles Soludo, the incumbent governor, made this point in his famous article (Part One) on Obi.

By now, APGA would have been a force from the South East comparable to what ACN (Action Congress of Nigeria) was in the South West and CPC (Congress for Progressive Change) in northern Nigeria.

It takes time for political alliances to mature but Obi, it would appear, was in a hurry. In a multi-ethnic society like ours where Christians and Muslims live side by side, you need a pan-Nigeria mandate anchored on broad and strategic coalitions and partnerships supported by efficient foot soldiers to win the presidential election.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against Peter Obi but he should be magnanimous in defeat just like Hillary Clinton. The reports by the international observers are encouraging but the impression created by biased media reports and social media activists as well as commentators was that they rejected the process and results of our elections. This is patently false.

What we call electoral malpractices include isolated cases of violence, ballot box snatching, voter suppression, late voting and the incompetence of some security agencies and INEC officials. These problems will not go away overnight but we must constantly seek to improve by working together.  

The elections have come and gone and the next task before us is healing and reconciliation. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, a staunch supporter of Obi, believes we need to stand together at this time and he has asked the incoming administration to list and promote “healing process” as top priority.

Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) provides that judicial proceedings should be conducted in public. If so, can the subsisting arrangement of allowing only a few people to watch proceedings in a courtroom be described as public? Some people would answer this question in the negative because the attendees are hardly representative of a typical Nigerian community.

Besides, some judges behave as if the court is a private entity.In 2015 for example, some journalists were arrested and detained for three hours on the order of a judge attached to a state High Court, in Ota, Ogun state. The detained Journalists had been deployed by different media organizations to cover two proceedings listed for hearing that day. Their offense was allegedly their failure to show their authorization by the court to cover the cases. The judge reportedly stated that the High Court, contrary to the impression of the media, was not a public place that could be entered without authorization.

The implication of the argument was that the Nigerian public was left in the dark about events in that court and perhaps in some others whose judges have a similar perception of a court system that is shielded from the people.

But why should events happening in any societal institution be made a secret to the same peoplefor whose sake the institution was set up and indeed, maintained by taxpayers’ money? Section 22 of the Nigerian Constitution mandates the media to make all public authorities accountable to the people. How can the mandate be successfully handled if the same public authorities are able to empower themselves to bar the media from court rooms? The trend may have been encouraged by some old colonial convention but it can hardly be sustained for long because the judicial arm of government cannot be exempted from the constitutional directive that government as a whole should be accountable to the people. 

Luckily, events of the last few years particularly those concerning politics and elections have pushed Nigeria to a junction where activities in the arm of government often described as the last hope of the common man can no longer be detached from the masses. The ‘winner-takes-it-all’ political system which Nigeria runs is naturally subjected to the principle of all is well that ends well, making it appear rational for contestants to employ whatever can win an election irrespective of approved rules for the game.

This explains the numerous strategies by politicians to buy their way to success especially by bribing state actors- election officials, security operatives and judges. The case of the latter is slightly more worrisome because at the end, no other lawful framework is available for reviewing final and binding judicial decisions that are sometimes jaundiced. People ought not to be left confused as to how such critical decisions were arrived at.

Whereas there are many judges who are quite diligent and forthright in the performance of their duties, a few have become so wealthy throughabuse of office. As the late Supreme Court legend, Kayode Esho once testified “the election tribunals were turning judges into billionaires.” To imagine that the said corruption is limited to the lower courts is wrong because as far back as 2005, Samson Uwaifo, another well-respected retired Justice of the Supreme Court had confirmed that corruption “had gradually crawled to the Higher Courts…” Revealing how this is done, Justice Stanley Shenko Alagoa said some judges collect bribe from politicians and traditional rulers to pervert the course of justice.

Chukwudifu Oputa another retired Supreme Court Justice discovered “dishonest lawyers who after charging their normal fees, charge extra for the judge.” Painfully,such criminal-minded judges, were according to Femi Falana (SAN) “not prosecuted but merely retired by the authorities on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.” 

Today, the general perception is that the image of the judiciary is far lower than the abominable testimonies of the past. If corruption in the Nigerian judiciary is so rampant as to warrant public apprehension, why not embrace the open justice principle which requires that judicial proceedings be conducted in a transparent manner; and with the oversight of the people? With this question in mind, there appears to be no better time than now to attain open justice by televising the proceedings of election petitions.

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association Yakubu Maikyau, SAN,illuminated the perspective with his argument that such”live broadcasts will give citizens the opportunity to follow the proceedings, have better knowledge of the facts and an understanding of the reasoning behind decisions of the courts in those matters.” It will in earnest help to reduce the tension generated by what people see as a lack of openness and transparency in Nigerian elections especially those held in the country on February 25 and March 18, 2023.

Of course, those who normally profit from election rigging would put up their usual argument that Nigeria is not ripe to adopt the technology for beaming television signals from courtrooms to homes. Yet, in the last two decades, Nigeria homes have been watching live telecast of other events especially those sponsored by politicians and political office-holders.  Even before voting day, many judicial decisions concerning elections are magically resolved to the extent that both parties in a case end up claiming to have won.

Nigerians would for instance love to watch the process which converted a non-aspirant to a candidate in the last senatorial elections. In fact, many would have keenly watched how our judiciary collated votes in a previous election that made a governorship candidate to score more votes than the number of persons who voted at the election. Television signals would probably have exposed what influenced courts to accept disparities between recorded votes and accredited voters where accreditation and voting were simultaneous.

If to televise court proceedings is new to Nigerians, it is not to other African countries that follow global realities. Ghana introduced live telecast of court proceedings in 2012, that is, more a decade ago. In truth, it is Nigeria that should have adopted the strategy a year earlier when Hilary Clinton while submitting the Department of State’s Country report on Human Rights practices for 2011 stated that “Nigerian judges frequently failed to appear for trials, often because they were pursuing other sources of income.”

Unfortunately, Nigeria discountenanced the report thereby remaining behind others.

South Africa is probably the best example in the Continent that has fully embraced open justice with admirable innovations and progressive interpretations. This has helped the country to accept that the workings of the justice system ought not to be shielded away from the public domain. The cases of Mamabolo (2001) and Shinga(2007) established the point that the right to public courts ought not to be seen as belonging only to litigants but to the world at large.

Another persuasive pointmade in the 2014 case of MultiChoice (Pty) was that because courts exercise public power over citizens, it is important for their proceedings to be open so as to encourage public understanding as well as accountability. As a result, people should be empowered to discuss, endorse, criticize, applaud or castigate the conduct of courts which in the first instance belong to them. 

It is certainly unacceptable that in Nigeria, litigants are able to use the courts to win elections, which is probably why most aggrieved persons continue their pursuit for justice until the case is heard by the last and highest court.

Thus, many who are made to accept the decisions of the Apex Court are not necessarily persuaded by the rulings. Accordingly, it is simplistic to label such persons as bad losers because they lost to extra-judicial influences. If anyone is to object to the call for live telecast of court proceedings especially those concerning politics and elections, such objections should not come from judges and lawyers whose conduct necessitated the call. It is in the interest of all lawyers and judges to conscientiously support the call which can among many other benefits, protect diligent actors in the legal system and uphold the integrity of the Nigerian Bar and Bench.

Macky Sall, Senegal’s president, since the beginning of April 2012, has had somewhat of a charmed life. Born in December 1961, he has lived at the cutting edge of his country’s political leadership for over a quarter of a century as city mayor, cabinet minister, prime minister, president of the National Assembly, and president. Over this period, he has been a leader in the opposition Democratic Party of Senegal (PDS), protégé and later opponent to President Abdoulaye Wade, and since 2008, founder of a party political start-up, Alliance for the Republic (APR).

To become president in 2012, he defeated the incumbent, Abdoulaye Wade, precluding him from re-election to what would have been a third term. Now approaching the sunset of his second term, which will end in 2024, Macky Sall wants to up-end his country’s constitution and do that for which he excoriated and ultimately defeated his predecessor and mentor – run for a third term. After months of ill-concealed dithering, he has all but confirmed his intention to run for what would be a constitutionally prohibited third term in a recent interview with French Magazine, L’Express.

Article 27 of Senegal’s 2016 constitution could not be clearer: it prescribes the duration of a presidential term as five years and adds that “[n]o one may exercise more than two consecutive mandates”. If Macky were to finagle a tilt at the presidency for a third time, he would be in breach of this provision.

For the moment, it seems, his plan is more than merely to run again. To make that happen, he seems intent on dictating whom he will run against too. His strongest opponent is the Mayor of Ziguinchor and founder of the ‘Yewwi askan wi’ (Free the People) coalition, Ousmane Sonko, whom Macky has systematically sought to tarnish and exclude from the contest with a succession of desperately specious criminal charges, so he can designate a hapless paper-weight as his opponent.

Macky Sall is the latest of Africa’s presidents in search of an interminable presidency. If he succeeds, he will be at least the 15th African president to do so in eight years since 2015. It was not supposed to be this way.

Independence in many African countries arrived as somewhat of an anti-climax. In its wake, constitutional instability established itself as the preferred means of succession to power. In the 50 years from the beginning of 1955 to the end of 2004, West Africa alone reported 169 “military interventions of some type”, both successful and unsuccessful. Then from 1952 to 1998, the continent recorded 85 successful coups. The cost to the continent was incalculable. Ironically, Macky Sall’s Senegal was one of the few countries on the continent that has so far not reported any.

The mutual assurance of non-interference on the back of which this toxic trend was established began to suffer re-examination following the onset of the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone in 1989. In 1990, Nigeria led the launch of a regional peace-enforcement intervention in Liberia which altered the way in which the continent responded to internal instability. The following year, African leaders in Kampala, Uganda, diagnosed the interminable presidency as central to the continent’s conflict and instability pathologies and agreed that “[t]here should be a periodic renewal of the mandate of political leaders. At the same time, the tenure of elected leaders in various branches of government should be constitutionally limited to a given number of years”.

In the four years that followed, 37 African countries altered their constitutions with 37 of them introducing presidential term limits. At the continental level, regional institutions, including the Economic Community of African States, ECOWAS, and the Organisation of African Unity, OAU, which became the African Union in 2000, began to evolve rules for oversight over elections and constitutional instability.

What emerged by the turn of the millennium was a continental package deal by which the leaders of the continent agreed on three things. First, access to political power would be based on political legitimacy conferred through credible elections, supervised by regional institutions. Second, to guarantee political competition, presidential term limits will be limited. Third, in return for respect for these two stipulations, the continent outlawed unconstitutional changes in government or coups.

By 2014, the continent went further to make the unconstitutional change in government an international crime in Africa. Those involved in it will become liable to be tried before the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights. This was far-reaching.

In effect, the prohibition against unconstitutional changes of government in Africa was part of an implicit bargain to install guardrails against abuse of presidential incumbency on the understanding that those who seek power had to undertake to abide by some determinate rules for access thereto. These rules were meant to ensure that they will not seek to convert incumbency into interminable rulership.

But, far from eventuating, what has happened nearly across the continent is that incumbents and their parties, aided by the willing complicity or abdication of regional institutions, have retrenched the norms on term limits and credible elections, while simultaneously entrenching the prohibition against unconstitutional changes in government into a rule for interminable presidency.

In response, coups are making a return to the continent on an “epidemic” level. Take Guinea for instance. The country had never had a peaceful transition of power in over half a century of independence before 2010 when it installed Alpha Condé as its elected president. Under the constitution, he was allowed two terms of five years each, which were to lapse in 2020. But, rather than quit power as stipulated, President Condé, who was born in 1938, chose at 82 to organise a rigged referendum to amend the constitution, enabling him to rule until he was at least 94 years old. To ensure this, President Condé deployed the military, killing many protesters against the referendum.

Seven months later, amidst even more violent protests and more killings, Condé got himself proclaimed winner in elections for his interminable presidency boycotted by the opposition. Neither ECOWAS nor the African Union remembered that there were continental norms against interminable presidency and rigged ballots. In September 2021, the military overthrew President Condé, whereupon ECOWAS and the African Union quickly re-discovered their voices.

As President Condé was busy securing his interminable presidency in Guinea, the ruling party in Mali organised elections under cover of COVID-19, at the end of which they used the judiciary to steal seats won by the opposition. What followed was a mass uprising which ultimately led the military to sack an unpopular ruling party and take over power. Once again, the AU and ECOWAS, complicitly silent in the preceding manipulation and fabrications, suddenly perked up.

By the turn of the millennium, military rule in Africa had rightly passed its sell-by date. Yet since 2002, the African Union has recorded and acted against 14 successful coups, most of them the result of presidential abuse of power or against the designs of an interminable presidency.

Africa, the continent with the youngest demographic in the world now has the distinction of having the four longest-serving elective presidencies in the world. In Gabon and Togo, the Bongo and Eyadema dynasties have been in power for 55 years each. Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang approaches his 44th year as president, while Cameroon’s Paul Biya has clocked over 40.

Across the continent, elections are in disrepute and the interminable president is back in vogue. Senegal’s Macky Sall is its latest poster boy. What happens over the next year with his effort to dismantle the constitution will be pivotal for the fate of the continent.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.