• critics express concerns
•Oyo won’t permit illegality – Makinde
MURIC talks tough
‘I don’t think we are ready for Sharia court’

Controversy has erupted in South-West Nigeria over the establishment of Sharia panels in the region, with Muslim leaders emphasizing their right to self-determination and non-Muslim groups expressing apprehensions about the potential implications of such panels.

The distinction between Sharia courts and panels is at the heart of the controversy.

However, Muslim leaders maintain that Sharia panels are not courts but rather arbitration committees that handle civil matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and disputes over contractual agreements between Muslims.

Sharia court is part of the judicial system in the North where Muslims are dominant in population. Still, there have been agitations for the court to also operate in the South-West where Muslims have a large presence but Christians are dominant in many states of the region.

Beginning

It all started after a group in Oyo town in Oyo State, South-West signalled its intention to set up a Sharia panel in the area.

The Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria, SCSN, (Oyo Branch) announced the indefinite postponement of the inauguration slated for yesterday, January 11, following widespread outcry.

In a statement signed by the Khadimul Muslimeen of Oyo Kingdom, Imam Daud Igi Ogun, the group said, “The inauguration ceremony of the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (Oyo branch) has been suspended until further notice. Islam portrays peace.”

The planned inauguration was to take place at the Muslim Community Islamic Centre in Mobolaje Area, Oyo.
Prominent Muslim leaders expected at the botched ceremony included the Basorun of Oyoland, High Chief Yusuf Akinade Olayinka, and the Aare Musulumi of Oyoland, Alhaji Chief Tajudeen Abdul-Hammed Kamorise, amongst others.

But the suspension did not stop some individuals under the aegis of Yoruba Council Worldwide (Igbimo Apapo Yoruba Lagbaye) from threatening to institute legal action against the promoters of the Oyo Sharia panel if they did not completely abandon the plan.

A group, Muslims Rights Concern (MURIC), joined the fray, last week, when it dared the Yoruba Council Worldwide to do its worst, saying the Sharia panel being planned in Oyo was different from Sharia court.
For emphasis, MURIC said critics of the Sharia panel were ignorant as the development was not new to the South-West as it has operated for years in many parts of the region.

It said in a statement signed by its Director, Prof Ishaq Akintola: “A Yoruba group under the name Yoruba Council Worldwide (Igbimo Apapo Yoruba Lagbaye) has threatened to take legal action against Muslims planning to launch Sharia court in Oyo town, Oyo State if they go ahead with the plan.

“But this is a deliberate attempt to create tension because, in reality, nobody is planning to inaugurate a Sharia court. What is being planned in Oyo town is a Sharia panel. It is only the state or Federal Government that has the constitutional power to create a court.

“On the contrary, any group of people can set up a panel. A panel is just a committee. A group can set up a committee or panel and an organization can do same. The Yoruba group is just crying wolf where there is none because we explained all these in our statement of Thursday, 26th December, 2024.

“We want to correct the impression that Oyo Muslims plan to inaugurate a Shari’ah court. What Oyo Muslims are planning is not a Shari’ah ‘court’ but a Shari’ah panel. This is something that has been in existence in Yorubaland since 2003 to date. It therefore accused the Yoruba group of making a mountain out of a molehill.

“How sensible is it for anyone to say Muslims should not form a committee? How logical is it to say Muslims should not hold meetings inside their mosques and halls? This Yoruba group is not well informed, otherwise it should have known that what it is trying to stop already exists in all the states of the South-West.

“Already, there are Shari’ah panels sitting at the Central Mosque, Oja Oba, Ibadan, Oyo State (since 1st May, 2002); Abesan Central Mosque, Ipaja, Lagos State (since 2003); Egba Muslims Central Mosque, Kobiti, Abeokuta, Ogun State (since 17th January 2018); Osun State Muslim Community Secretariat, Ring Road, Oshogbo (since 2005).

“Going by the venues mentioned here it is clear that the Shari’ah panels are not using government’s buildings or courts. They use mosques because the Shari’ah panels are private arbitration panels. But they already exist. So this Yoruba group is trying to shut the stable door after the horse has escaped.

“Only those who want to make caricatures of themselves will think of stopping the Shari’ah panels. They are not disturbing anybody. They have never and will never invite Christians to appear before them.

“Even the Muslims who appear before them do so voluntarily because the Shari’ah panels have no power of enforcement. So what is the big deal? Why so much fuss? Isn’t this much ado about nothing? What does this Yoruba group want except to heat up the polity? They are attention seekers.

“Even the letter sent by the group was addressed to the wrong person. The letter was addressed to Shaykh Abdul Rasheed Hadiyatullahi whereas the latter is not part of the Oyo town team. He is in Iwo, Osun State.
“Their claim that Shari’ah has no history in Yorubaland is absolute bunkum. To set the records straight, Shari’ah is of great antiquity in this part of the country. We will tell them about it because our people say ‘when a child rejects pounded yam in the evening, his parents will narrate the story of his mother’s marriage to him.’

“Where were these people who are now opposing ordinary Shari’ah panel in Yorubaland when Oba Abibu Olagunju of Ede employed Qadi Sindiku to operate the Shari’ah court at Agbeni area of Ede town? The court functioned at Agbeni up till 1913. It was moved to Agbongbon area of the town in 1914.

“Where were they when Oba Momodu Lamuye who died in 1906 established a Shari’ah court in Iwo? Were they born yet when Oba Aliyu Oyewole of Ikirun employed Mallam Bako as the qadi (judge) from 1910? This is history. This is our past, the past of Shari’ah. We will not allow anyone to cut us away from our past. Today was born from the wombs of yesterday.

“It was the British imperialists who curtailed the application of Shari’ah via the repugnancy and validity tests and replaced them with Christian common law in the whole South-West but they retained civil Shari’ah in the North.

“It is only that civil Shari’ah that Yoruba Muslims are activating in their Shari’ah panels without official involvement because none of the South-West governors since independence have had the liberal or democratic mien to allow the application of Sections 275(1), 276 and 277 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution which allow the practice of Shariah in any state with substantial Muslim population.

“It is gratifying that the Yoruba group has threatened to go to court. We assure them that Yoruba Muslims are not afraid of legal action over Shari’ah. The law is on our side. But we advise that they should take a good look at the sections of the constitution cited above before doing so and make sure they ask those who went to court before over Shari’ah. We are waiting.”

‘Oyo won’t allow illegality’

Reacting, Governor Seyi Makinde declared that government would not allow illegality.

His Chief Press Secretary, Dr Sulaimon Olanrewaju, said: ”Oyo State will not permit anything illegal. The focus isn’t about wanting Sharia or not but ensuring that any structure aligns with the legal system we operate”.

Also, Makinde, in a statewide broadcast, acknowledged that the initiative had caused anxiety and promised to uphold the laws and the Constitution of Nigeria.

“If their actions are within the law, fine, if not, they should expect that I will insist the law must be followed”.

Perspectives

In a bid to explore the intricate dynamics surrounding the establishment of Sharia panels in the South-West, Sunday Vanguard engaged with both Muslim stakeholders and non-Muslims to gather a diverse range of perspectives on the matter.

As discussions intensify regarding the role of Sharia in the region’s legal framework, opinions vary widely.

Supporters expanded their wish to include the establishment of Sharia courts as a means of recognizing and accommodating the unique legal needs of the Muslim community, while critics expressed concerns about potential implications for broader societal cohesion.

This engagement aims to illuminate the complexities of the ongoing debate, highlighting the hopes, fears, and historical contexts that shape the views of both communities.

A legal practitioner, who is also a Sharia judge (Qadi) at the Sharia Panel in Lagos State, Mr. Trimizee Adisa Dairo, said the quest for Sharia panels is about asserting their right to live according to their faith.
“Sharia is part and parcel of a Muslim’s life,” Dairo emphasized. “It encompasses our private and public life, social and economic life. Our lives are regulated by Sharia.

“Sharia is part and parcel of a Muslim’s life, and no Muslim will deny that.

“Again, Sharia is wide and comprehensive. It encompasses our private and public life, social and economic life. Our lives are regulated by Sharia.

“Therefore, it is impossible for a Muslim to live without Sharia. Once you take away Sharia from the life of a Muslim, he becomes a non-Muslim. That is how important it is. It is not like other religions that regulate their practices on a matter of faith. That is why Sharia is very important to a Muslim and in a Muslim’s life.”

Difference

“There is agitation by Muslims in the South-West to allow the application of Sharia so that Muslim marriages will be governed by Sharia as opposed to Yoruba customary law, Muslim inheritance will be governed by Sharia as opposed to customary law, and the guardianship of children will be regulated by Sharia law.

“These are permissible, and these are what are going on in the North. It is the right of Muslims in the South-West to be governed by the law of their religion regarding those highlighted matters.

“Since the Constitution expressly provides for this, it is a genuine agitation that has been ongoing for some time.

“That is as far as the official courts are concerned because it is the business of the government to establish courts to govern people in the state.

“Also note that none of the states in the South-West has acceded to that; they have all rejected it, apparently because of criticisms and opposition from non-Muslims. “But on the issue of having a panel, it is different. It is like arbitration, and the law of arbitration is very clear. A Muslim can decide to contract his marriage under Sharia and within the fold of Islam, and when this is done, he has the fundamental right to seek redress on the same issue under an arbitration panel.

“That does not require any form of state approval because it falls under the freedom of association to submit willingly to arbitration proceedings.

“If both parties submit to the arbitration proceedings, then the decision becomes binding on them.

“It is not for Christians and non-Muslims alike to begin to cry out about why Muslims want to have an arbitration panel; it shows they are ignorant of the issue they are criticizing.

“For a Christian who has issues in his marriage, he has a place to go, which is the High Court.

“For those who willingly decide that they want to be bound by the customs and traditions of the Yoruba, if they have issues in their marriage and inheritance, they go to the Customary Court, and the customs will be upheld there.

“For Muslims who do not consent to either of the two, where do you expect them to go when they have issues? We have seen situations where Muslims go to the Customary Court on issues of marriage, and the court says it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the marriage is governed by Muslim law, not customary law.

“Remember that the government has failed to create a court that will look into such matters.
“So, in order to fill the gap and circumvent that problem, Muslims have come together to establish arbitration panels.

“That is exactly what Muslims are doing all over the South-West.

“It is the failure of the government to do the needful.

“Our government officials attend Muslim marriages, but they fail to understand that the couple has no place to turn to when issues arise in their marriage. This is where the Sharia panel comes in.

Addressing misconceptions

“I think non-Muslims only focus on one aspect of Sharia, which is the criminal aspect.

“One of the public laws in Sharia is the non-criminal aspect.

“Just as Sharia is a system of law, people are always apprehensive about any law; they become apprehensive about the punishments.

“They hear about stoning to death, cutting off hands, and so on, but Sharia is not limited to that, and it is rarely possible because its execution is the duty of the state, not individuals.

“Besides, it is optional if you choose to be bound by that.

“So, I don’t know why non-Muslims should entertain any fear. Nigeria is ruled by a Constitution, and we can have two systems of law running concurrently; Sharia is allowed with very limited application as it relates to a Muslim’s private life.

“That is why the Constitution allows Muslims to be governed by Sharia in the aspects of marriage, divorce, inheritance, guardianship of children, and to some extent, in any contractual agreement. “These are the areas, so outside these areas of law, Sharia is not applicable, at least at the official level in Nigeria.
“So, non-Muslims are only being apprehensive without any basis”.

Need for panel

Responding to how Muslims were resolving marriage disputes before the advent of Sharia panels, he noted, “If those disputes had been resolved by the conventional court, it means they didn’t take cognizance of the fact that they were contracted ab initio under Islamic law, and, moreover, because there was a dearth of experts in Islamic law.

“It is not as simple as that. Muslim marriages are not the same as Christian or customary marriages.
“Yes, you can rightly assume that Christian marriages are statutory marriages.

“That is why when there are issues, they go to the conventional courts.

“As for Muslims, they cannot go to the conventional courts because Muslim marriages are Islamic in nature and regulated by Sharia.

“That is why I said earlier that Sharia governs the private and public lives of Muslims.

“These benefits are enjoyed by our northern brothers because they go to the Sharia courts on such issues.
“It should also be noted that these Sharia courts do not entertain complaints from non-Muslims.

“I don’t know the reason for the apprehension because it is strictly for Muslims and not for non-Muslims.
“You will not hear of a Sharia court in the North assuming jurisdiction over a Christian or someone whose marriage was not contracted according to Sharia.

“That is what we are clamoring for here. The agitation is simple: to adjudicate Muslim marriages, guardianship of children, and inheritances.”

Spread of Sharia

“It is not possible unless it is codified or passed into law by the state House of Assembly.

“In criminal law, you don’t commit an offence unless that offence is expressly written as a law.

“The criminal aspect has not been approved or codified by the state, so, there is no way the Sharia court will do that. “There are aspects of the Sharia the Constitution allows.

“These are areas of marriages, divorce, inheritance, guardianship and, to some extent, contract. It’s a constitutional provision”.

Between Litigation and Arbitration — Olarinde

An Ibadan-based legal practitioner, Marthina Olarinde, on his part, said, “I don’t think we are ready for that (Sharia court). It is a structure that is very rigid, and there is no escaping it. Once a judgment is pronounced, it is difficult to overturn.

“This is about religion, and you don’t play around with it. Once it is declared to be A, they go for A.
“Whatever justification anyone provides will not change that. As long as it is related to religion, it is inflexible. It is strict, and I believe we are not prepared for that.

“However, having said that, as long as anyone chooses to be bound by it, it shouldn’t pose any issues.
“The fact is that it is optional. It is up to the individual to decide whether to pursue litigation or arbitration”.

Panel can’t compel people to submit to arbitration — Shakirullahi Obale, judge

Mr. Shakirullahi Obale, another Sharia judge at the Abesan Sharia arbitration panel, offers a perspective. “The Sharia panel we are talking about in the South-West cannot compel people to submit to its arbitration.

“It is a misconception—and indeed a sign of narrow-mindedness—to believe that Islamic Sharia is solely about killing, stoning, amputation, and similar punishments.

“Today, we have Jaiz Bank and other Islamic alternative financial institutions, including Sukuk bonds and others.

“Are the operations of these Islamic-based organizations and policies about killings? “No, they are not. However, there are ill motives to distort the perception of Islam.

“There is a difference between Sharia panels and courts. A Sharia panel is solely for arbitration. As one of the judges (Qadi), we have two panels in Lagos State—one in 1004, Lagos, and the other at Abesan Estate.

“Unlike the courts, which are established by state law, a Sharia panel cannot compel people to submit to its arbitration.

“No individual or organization can establish a Sharia Court of Appeal.

“Those who criticize it and those who threaten legal action are raising issues without any basis.
“Sharia, as we know it, has been in existence in Nigeria since 1908. Some people are determined to castigate anything related to Islam.

“The Sharia panels operate in mosques to settle issues regarding marriage, inheritance, divorce, guardianship, and contracts. Therefore, there is no basis for criticism.

“Some of those who criticized Jaiz Bank and Sukuk in the past are now benefiting from them.

“They may lack knowledge about their operations, but they find it convenient to criticize. As it stands, Islamic law is recognized by the Constitution.”

‘Govt failed Muslims’

He explained further: “Muslims in the South-West are agitating because it is their right.

“The Constitution expressly provides that a Sharia Court of Appeal can be established by any state, provided it is passed into law by the state House of Assembly.

“This agitation has been present, yet none of the states in the region has acceded to the demand.
“Several proposals have been made, but they have been rejected, apparently because of criticism from non-Muslims.

“As for the establishment of a panel, it is intended for arbitration.

“The law of arbitration is very clear: it serves as a means of mediation to resolve disputes.

“In that regard, Muslims can choose to participate or not in matters related to marriage, divorce, and other issues mentioned earlier.

“This does not require any form of state approval; it is about the freedom of association. This situation arises because the government has failed in its duty to do the right thing. No Muslim can live a life outside the Sharia. It is not possible.”

Despite all the criticisms, Obale expressed optimism that the agitation will come to pass sooner.
“Yes, I hope so, and Insha Allah, it will happen”, he said.

“Whether they like it or not, we will have a Sharia Court of Appeal. I am surprised that Lagos State has not initiated this because it is known as a leading state in many aspects.

“The administration of criminal justice was started by Lagos State. One day, we will have this in one of the states”.

It’s unnecessary noise —Islamic scholar

Contributing to the Sharia controversy, the Vice President, Academy of Islamic Propagation, ACADIP, U. S. Imam, said “the Yoruba group is making an unnecessary noise as Sharia already exist in the South-West.
“lslamic law, known as Sharia, already exists and its panels have been sitting in various parts of the South-West. Besides, it is stated in the Nigerian Constitution as well; so, it is not a new concept or issue”, Imam said.

“The Constitution provides that any Muslim who wishes to be tried under Sharia law should be allowed to do so. The issue of Sharia applies to civil matters.

“Sharia is mentioned in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) more than 21 times and its applications only apply to Muslims who wish to apply it in their issues and covers civil matters.

“It does not cover the entire civil issues but those of marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody and endowment among others.

“So, Sharia is part of our legal system and whatever anyone says is a mere opinion; as long as Muslims desire to apply Sharia in the legal issues they can have it so”.

Development won’t lead to full-blow Sharia in South-West —Islamic leader

Prof. Sabit Olagoke, founder of Shafaudeen-in-Islam, also speaking, said Sharia panel is not a court of law but a platform for arbitration, allowing Muslims to address family disputes and issues related to Islamic law in a manner that respects “our cultural and religious heritage”.

“Concerns about the panel leading to a full-blown implementation of Sharia in Oyo and the broader South-West are unfounded”, he said.

“Sharia panel operates within the framework of civil arbitration and does not possess judicial powers. It is a form of self-governance that respects our rights as a community without imposing on others.

“Recognizing that Sharia, in this context, is about facilitating peaceful resolutions among Muslims is essential, rather than establishing a parallel legal system.

“I do not harbor fears concerning the establishment of the Sharia panel. The panel has been a longstanding feature in Yorubaland, and its function is well understood by our communities.

“The resistance we are witnessing from certain groups stems from misinformation and a lack of understanding of the Sharia role in our society.

“My advice to all parties involved is to engage in constructive dialogue rather than resorting to threats of legal action.

“It is crucial for the Yoruba Council Worldwide and other stakeholders to educate themselves about the nature of the Sharia panel.

“Recognizing that this initiative is rooted in the principles of coexistence and mutual respect is vital. “We should foster an environment where different religious and cultural practices can thrive side by side, understanding that each community has the right to manage its internal affairs.

“The Sharia panel is a legitimate forum for arbitration and should not be misconstrued as a threat to the social fabric of Yorubaland.

“We must work towards understanding and tolerance, ensuring that our diverse communities can coexist peacefully”.

Secretary General, Muslim Council of Ogun State Alhaji Kamaldeen Akintunde, said that Muslims in the South-West, under the Constitution, has right to make a demand for Sharia court.

“Of course it explains why it is operated side by side with the British legal system which the country operates, especially in the northern part of the country”, Akintunde said.

“Good enough, Nigeria is a pluralistic state and multi religious.

“Making such demand or seeking to establish a Sharia panel is not out of place or something extraordinary.
“Such panel undertakes matters between Muslims. It has nothing to do with non-Muslims.

“Nevertheless, it is beneficial to non-Muslims as well since it is to regulate the affairs of Muslims in accordance with the Sharia provision which has its root in the Islamic Scripture – the Glorious Qur’an”.
“Therefore, non-Muslims as neighbours will enjoy good neighbourliness.

“Moreover, there exists such panel in the neighbouring Osun State, with Ekiti which has just inaugurated its own.

“In Ogun, it exists and it has been resolving cases such as divorce, conflicts, and personal related matters”.

“Notwithstanding that Yoruba Council has right to institute litigation, it should think twice and avoid a dissipation of energy because it is not being forced on them, including Muslims among them”.

Agitation lawful — Islamic scholar

An Islamic Scholar and public affairs commentator, Dr Akeem Bello explained that the distinction between Sharia panel and Sharia court lies in their purpose, legal authority and scope of operation.

The panel’s purpose, according to him, “is to provide Muslims with an alternative, faith-based mechanism for resolving personal disputes such as marriage, inheritance, and family matters”.

He added: “Such a panel aligns with Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom, and Section 275, which permits states to establish Sharia court for personal law issues where there is a substantial Muslim population.

“This is particularly relevant in Oyo, which has a significant Muslim community that could benefit from such a mechanism.

“The establishment of the panel is not unprecedented.

“Similar mechanisms exist in other parts of the country, including Lagos, where informal Islamic arbitration systems operate effectively.

“These systems coexist peacefully with the secular courts, resolving disputes among consenting Muslims without infringing on the rights of others.

“If implemented properly, the Sharia panel in Oyo could serve as a model for promoting religious inclusivity and enhancing access to justice”.

Addressing the concern that the development could lead to full blown Sharia in Oyo and the South-West, he said it was largely unfounded.

‘No comment’

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) Chairman, YEWA South, Ogun State, Catchiest John Akapo, declined comment, saying: “I don’t know anything about the agitation for the Sharia panel and I can’t comment on that”.

Sharia panel is a threat to peaceful co-existence — CAN leader

But Oyo State Chairman of the association, Apostle Joshua Akinyemiju, described it as “unconstitutional and a threat to the state’s secular nature.

Akinyemiju said: “This should not happen in Oyo State where Christians and Muslims co-exist in nearly every family.

“There’s no law to support this, and the government is not aware. We won’t allow anything that jeopardizes the peaceful coexistence we enjoy”.

Let’s avoid religious violence — Cleric

Addressing the issue, Senior Pastor of the Second Coming of Christ’s Ministry, Adewale Giwa, condemned the proposed Sharia panel’s introduction in Oyo.

Giwa said: “Oyo is not a Muslim state. It comprises all religions, especially those belonging to Islam and Christianity.

“Therefore, it is unbiblical and unconstitutional to have a Sharia panel set up in the state.

“Most of the states in the northern part of Nigeria where Sharia is operating are not peaceful. We should be very careful to avoid religious violence.

A lawyer, Taiwo Adediran, insisted that it would be illegal to embark on something that is not backed by the Constitution.

“What the Constitution recognizes is the customary court in the South and Sharia court in the North”, Adediran said.

“And if at all any state in the South wants to create Sharia court, there has to be an establishment law made to that effect by the Oyo State House of Assembly and the jurisdiction of the country will also be determined by the law made by same Assembly”.

Also speaking on the issue, Mr Deola Fehintola, a legal luminary said, “The issue of implementation of Sharia as a court or panel has to derive its authority from the Constitution through the State Assembly.”

‘Sharia is in the Bible, Quran’

To Alhaji Lai Gidado, the Publisher of Ebony Herald International Magazine, “Sharia is our daily way of life. We are practicing Sharia unconsciously. “I remember when I was growing up with my grandma, anytime I misbehaved, the next thing you hear is (ma da seriah fun e ni sin).

“My advice is to make less noise about it. Sharia is in the Bible, it is also in the Qur’an”.

Historical perspective

The Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN), a legally registered entity, has been at the forefront of this struggle.

According to the SCSN, Shariah law is not just a moral code, but a complete system of law that governs all aspects of a Muslim’s life.

The group argues that the Lagos State government’s failure to establish Sharia courts has led to the marginalization of Muslims in the state.

Currently, only Common Law and Customary Law are recognized in the state, leaving Muslims without a legal framework that aligns with their faith.

The SCSN points to the 1999 Constitution, which recognizes Shariah law as one of the three legal systems in Nigeria. The group argues that the Lagos State government’s refusal to establish Shariah courts is a violation of Muslims’ constitutional rights. The SCSN has been working tirelessly to establish Shariah panels in the state, which have been operating since 2002. These panels have received widespread acceptance from Muslim Lagosians and have published select judgments in a law report.

Despite the progress made, the SCSN faces opposition from some quarters, including the Yoruba Council Worldwide, which has threatened legal action against the group. However, the SCSN remains undeterred, arguing that the demand for Shariah courts is not a new phenomenon, but a century-long struggle for recognition and justice.

The group’s efforts have been bolstered by court judgments, including a 2008 Lagos High Court ruling that Sharia law is not the same as Customary Law. The SCSN is confident that its demand for Sharia courts will ultimately prevail, citing the constitutional provisions that recognize Sharia law as a legitimate legal system in Nigeria.

[Vanguard]

Darkoo, the Nigerian-British rapper, has accused Peter ‘Mr P’ Okoye of sabotaging her newly released song ‘Focus on Me’.

In a series of tweets on X, Darkoo said she had obtained the necessary clearance from Psquare for the sample used in her song.

The rapper said Psquare was entitled to 50% of the song’s earnings. She, however, alleged that Peter demanded to be featured on the track — a request she initially declined but considered for a possible remix.

Darkoo claimed Mr P thereafter facilitated the copyright infringement tagged on the music video on YouTube after she refused to feature him in the song.

“I wasn’t going to say anything, but Peter of P-square took down my music video for six days in an attempt to completely sabotage the song. (Fortunately, the video is back up now.) https://youtu.be/4wj0nhz_6t0?si=-75ujqiue4_z-ysl. Let me be clear: I had all the necessary clearance for the sample. This is not my first rodeo using a sample, as you know, and I did everything by the book,” the tweet reads.

“To put things into perspective, they are receiving 50%… rightfully so. Yet, Mr. Peter wanted to be featured on the song, even creating his own new verse for it. He told me not to speak to or clear with his brothers Jude and Paul (who, by the way, have been incredibly helpful in resolving issues). He claimed they would bring ‘unnecessary problems’ for me.

“But as soon as the song dropped, Mr. Peter completely switched on me. He started causing problems because he wanted to be featured on the track. Even though I wanted him to be on the remix, I guess that wasn’t enough. Instead, he chose to act out of anger, manipulate the situation, and try to sabotage the song… simply because I didn’t bow to his demands….

“Taking my video down wasn’t about copyright or contracts…. It was because he didn’t get what he wanted (to be featured), & I quote saying to my team that I “disrespected him” that’s why he’s taking down the video.”

The rapper expressed her disappointment and heartbreak over “Mr. P’s actions”, stating that she had grown up admiring him and his music.

“His actions have impacted me deeply, hurting my fans, ruining my hard work, and all the time and money spent. It’s heartbreaking because I grew up admiring him, and to see someone I once looked up to try to hurt me and block my success actively is incredibly painful,” she said.

“For the record: I had the clearance, the contracts, and the paperwork from “Psquare”. I went above and beyond to ensure their rights were respected and handled correctly with the right people. Ensuring that all contributors were coverd. This isn’t how our OGs are supposed to be moving. It’s sad and disappointing.”

Darkoo also revealed that the music video is now back online after being taken down for six days. She urged her fans to support her by watching and sharing the video.

Peter has yet respond to Darkoo’s allegations as of the time of this report.

[TheCable]

A year ago, Mr Olanipekun Olukoyede, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), openly lamented the “craze and quest for gratification, bribes and other compromises” by some of the commission’s investigators. “They are becoming too embarrassing and this must not continue,” he said. Monday last week, the EFCC dismissed 27 officials over alleged fraudulent activities and misconduct. Two days later, the agency detained 10 officers of the Lagos zonal command over alleged theft of operational items. Now I am beginning to take Olukoyede more seriously about his pledge to cleanse the agency of corrupt elements. It is non-negotiable.

Things had gone so bad with the EFCC that some of its offices had started competing with a typical police station where extortion and impunity are common. The EFCC, as a special body established to tackle corruption, cannot afford to become a cesspool of decay. That would be exceptionally tragic. Many Nigerians have lost faith in the commission over the years. It is common sense: if the anti-corruption agency is itself full of corrupt officials, how can it use corruption to fight corruption? I am happy with Olukoyede’s recent crackdown on the bad eggs in the institution, but I would say the job has just started. He has to do a regular house-cleaning exercise while staying above board himself.

Thankfully, Olukoyede is also aware of the common scam in which someone would pose as an agent of the EFCC chairman and ask for some crazy amount of money to help stop or stall an investigation. Two persons said to be members of a syndicate were recently arraigned on allegations of demanding $1 million from Mr Mohammed Bello-Koko, former MD of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), for onward delivery to Olukoyede to give Bello-Koko “soft landing” on an investigation that never existed. It could be that this sinister trade was real at some point in the commission’s history — let’s not forget the fact that some of the chairmen have been removed over allegations of corruption.

If someone says he is acting on behalf of the chairman and asks for bribe to stop an investigation and, indeed, the probe is halted after the “something” is delivered, how would the suspect not believe the boss is involved? I was also shocked to read that some EFCC officials were reportedly asking for as much as N60,000 bribe from not-for-profit organisations before issuing the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML) certificate. Those who refused to corrupt the officials would wait till eternity for the certificate. That is why the bad eggs have to be regularly identified and flushed out. There are too many of them at the agency. Olukoyede knows this well.

Another area Olukoyede has to address is media trial. A lot of people have been tried and convicted by the EFCC in the media with information leaks that were eventually not substantiated in a court of law. Reputations are damaged and lives ruined as a result. In the end, many who heard the beginning of the story would not hear the end. I was particularly disappointed with the OPL 245 cases which I followed keenly. The impression in the media, particularly online, was that the EFCC had mass and mass of evidence to prove money laundering and fraud. Incredibly, all the court cases in Italy, the UK and Nigeria crumbled one after the other despite the heavy media show. I was genuinely startled.

For instance, in dismissing the case against Mr Mohammed Bello Adoke, the former attorney-general of the federation, and six others, Justice Abubakar Idris Kutigi of the FCT high court declared: “Mere allegations, no matter how weighty, do not translate to or are tantamount to facts and evidence that will at least raise a prima facie case, even if weak… Filing of criminal charges in court which involves the liberty of individuals is a delicate exercise that must be carried out with a huge sense of responsibility dictated solely by the quality of the facts and or evidence and the ultimate cause or truth and justice.” The EFCC prosecutor had indeed admitted that there was paucity of evidence.

I should think Olukoyede is learning from the past. He initially struggled with the Yahaya Bello case, going live on TV to confront the media power of the former Kogi governor, but it appears that phase has faded away. The EFCC has now charged four former governors to court without drama. That is how it should be. Former ministers are also answering to court charges without much ado. We are now only getting to hear the details of the charges when they are filed in court. The tradition used to be daily leaks from the interrogation room. As a journalist, I would not run away from leaks because they are legitimate but I doubt this strategy delivers justice beyond enabling media/public lynching.

I agree with Olukoyede that cases against politically exposed persons are always a tough nut to crack because of their ability to undermine the system and slow down or upturn the wheel of justice. It could be frustrating. It takes time to build criminal cases which rely on concrete evidence for conviction. Many would want an accused person arrested, tried and jailed in two minutes. It doesn’t always work like that. While we await the outcome of the high-profile cases, it is encouraging that  the EFCC is making good progress in fighting cybercrimes. Assets are being recovered from yahoo guys and restituted to the victims. These criminals are hurting genuine international transactions.

The biggest criticism of the EFCC from time immemorial is that it is a political tool deployed by the federal government against its opponents. I have not heard much of this in the Olukoyede era, perhaps because the accused persons under investigation or on trial are mixed: they are not from one particular political party or persuasion. There will always be murmurs, sure, but this misgiving can only be addressed if the commission continues to prove to Nigerians that there is no political vendetta. In addition, Nigerians often complain about the EFCC’s heavy-handedness in its operations, such as storming hostels and hotels in the dead of the night and turning things upside down.

The major challenge for Olukoyede — and any other anti-graft czar for that matter — is the Nigerian society at large. Even though we all complain about corruption and theorise on how it is impeding our progress as a nation, the truth is that many, if not most, of us have a pro-corruption attitude. We look for excuses to justify and celebrate corruption, maybe because it is perpetuated by our kith and kin, or people who have our political or religious sympathies, or those we benefit from. We become so blinded and emotional that we are not ready to deal with the facts. We even allege that accused persons are being persecuted rather than ask them the basic question: “You thief abi you no thief?”

With Olukoyede showing an inclination to doing things in a civil way, he should rev up the public sensitisation campaign (not to be confused with media relations) to secure the buy-in of Nigerians. There was a vibrant engagement arm when Mallam Nuhu Ribadu was EFCC chairman. Its “Fix Nigeria” campaign was led by my friend, Dr Chido Onumah. The EFCC should work hand-in-hand with the National Orientation Agency (NOA), which has just launched the “7 for 7 National Values Charter” to promote the “promises and obligations” of the Nigerian government to the people and the “responsibilities” of the citizens to the country. I plan to examine the charter in another article.

The Supreme Court further empowered the EFCC recently when it stopped an attempt by 19 states to dilute the powers of the commission. The court ruled that the law establishing the EFCC was constitutional. Some things are so simply stated that the significance can be easily lost on the audience. If the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise, the justices would have successfully issued a new exploration licence for corruption to the political class in a bid round to formalise impunity in the polity. The consequences, I would loosely allow myself to speculate, would be greasy, spiral and dire. Even with the EFCC, the states are still reckless. Now, imagine if the agency is relegated…

Apparently, a justice of the Supreme Court had previously declared that the EFCC was a product of a UN convention and had no business looking into the finances of the states. The Kogi state government, in a last-ditch attempt to prevent the trial of its ex-governor over allegations of corruption running into hundreds of billions of naira, filed a constitutional case and was joined by many states in a scary show of solidarity, some claiming they already had their own anti-graft agencies. The apex court clarified that a “treaty” is between countries and needs domestication but the EFCC Act stemmed from a convention the UN of which Nigeria is already a member country.

Commenting on the verdict, Olukoyede said: “The judgment makes us stronger than ever before. Number one, they said that the EFCC has power over federal agencies, state agencies and local government agencies. Number two, they said where the EFCC is working, it has the right to cover the field. It is what we call the doctrine of covering the field in Nigeria. It’s a legal doctrine. It’s a principle that says that where a federal agency has covered the field, no state or local government agency has the right to compete with it. In other words, wherever the EFCC is operating, state or local government agencies don’t even have the power to meddle.” Let’s hope this finally settles it.

As Olukoyede himself knows, it is not just the governors who have grouses with the EFCC. Different people have different reasons to oppose the EFCC. Therefore, no matter how favourable the Supreme Court verdict is, he still has his work cut out for him to restore the confidence of the generality of Nigerians in the commission he leads. Anti-graft war is best fought with the buy-in of the people, and the people can withhold their support for various reasons, some of which I have stated. For now, he should keep going steady, keep cleaning up the mess in the commission, continue to apply maturity in investigations and steer clear of politics as much as he can. That is wisdom.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS..

TELCO TARIFF

From what I can see, it is no longer in doubt that telecom tariffs will be reviewed upwards. It is the quantum and time that we don’t know yet. The Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON) and the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria (ATCON) have been making a case to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to approve a tariff hike in view of rising operational costs caused by the devaluation of the naira and the removal of subsidies on petrol and electricity. I think the NCC is reluctant because of the likely backlash among the youth who are the most active on the internet. The economic case will prevail. Inevitable.

PRIMITIVE PEDAGOGY

A teacher at Christ Mitots School in Ikorodu, Lagos state, was filmed apparently beating a little boy who could not write “6”. She was arrested — but we are missing the real issues. One, we have a problem with pedagogy in Nigeria generally, not just Ikorodu. At 3, a toddler should be learning by rote and developing personal, social and emotional skills, not necessarily writing A to Z or 1 to 100. Two, an older child who cannot spell or write may have a special need, but do we factor that into the pedagogy? Three, beating should be completely outlawed in schools. They whipped us silly in primary and secondary schools but Nigeria is still like this. Maybe beating is not the solution. Reform.

WAR BEFORE WAR

Anybody expecting the atmosphere of the 2027 presidential election to be better than that of 2023 should perish the thought: we are in for a long thing. A TV interview by Mr Felix Morka, spokesman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), has led to allegations of threat to life and produced hundreds, if not thousands, of death threats on social media — and to think the election is still two years away. If the atmosphere can be this burning hot when the presidential race has not officially started, then picture the looming firefight and fireworks. My most anxious moments in Nigeria are election times. Social media platforms become so unpleasant I usually exit certain groups for my own sanity. Toxic.

NO COMMENT

Someone said this local government autonomy stuff is beginning to yield all kinds of fruits. Chief Chijioke Ihunwo, chairman of Obio-Akpor LGA of Rivers state, has just appointed 130 special assistants. In July 2024, when he was appointed caretaker committee chairman of the local government, he also appointed 100 special assistants. He really loves special assistants. If he becomes a commissioner, how many assistants will he appoint? If he becomes governor, there will be no enough room to contain his assistants. The population of Rivers state is estimated at 7.3 million, so I am guessing Ihunwo would appoint almost every resident as a special assistant. Wonderful.

The National Assembly officially started consideration of the 2025 federal budget last week. At no other time in the last 25 years has the legislative process on a full-year budget started this late. Senator Solomon Adeola, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriation, ascribed this to the ‘distraction’ caused by the four tax bills, which were sent for legislative treatment on 3^rd October 2024. This is as lame as an excuse can be. President Bola Tinubu did not present the 2025 proposed budget to the National Assembly until 18^th December 2024, exactly a week to Christmas. With festivities and holidays of the period, it would have taken more than magic for legislative work to commence on the budget in 2024. So, the blame lies elsewhere, and Senator Adeola knows it.

This tardy episode should focus attention on certain aspects of our budget process that need interrogation and reform. A country’s budget is more than a mere statement of intention or a wish-list. It is a sacred document that outlines the priorities of the state and authoritatively allocates scarce resources among competing needs in society. The budget process brings together two arms of government, with distinct roles, and culminates into a law of the land—the appropriation act. Such a document and the process that produces it should be imbued with the rigour and the sanctity they deserve. They should not be turned into an annual hollow ritual that is treated with levity. Neither should they be casually and serially violated by key actors in both the executive and the legislative arms.  

Over the time, there have been attempts to strengthen our budget process and public finance management in general. Some of these attempts include putting each budget in a multi-year context by mandating the development and approval of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and setting a limit on budget deficit as stipulated in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007; and outlining the conditions guiding the overdrafts that the central bank can give to the federal government as contained in the CBN Act 2007, etc. Some of these safeguards are observed in the breach, and without consequences. We need to change this. In addition, we need to tackle other challenges that have come to the fore.

First, we need to devote enough time to the budget process. Senator Adeola pledged that joint committees of the Senate and House of Representatives will attend to the ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) to ensure that the 2025 budget is passed by 31^st January 2025. That’s a kind concession. But such a concession would not have been necessary if the budget had been submitted much earlier. We need a law that clearly states that the president must submit the budget proposal for the next financial year not later than 30^th September of the current year. With this, the Budget Office can send out the budget circulars and budget envelops to the MDAs before or by June and the executive arm can submit the MTEF to the legislature by July or August.

There is nothing about the budget process that cannot be started early. The only reason for late presentation of budget proposals is because no law stipulates a deadline. Being mandated to submit the budget at least three months before the new financial year gives both the executive and the legislative arms enough time to do a more thorough job. It will also allow the executive adequate time to review the budget passed by the legislature and request for changes, if necessary, before presidential assent. A known fact is that those on the legislative side take advantage of the sense of urgency occasioned by late submission of budget proposals and that presidents have had to sign appropriation bills grudgingly just to save time. The way to cure this is to set a hard deadline.

This is a good segue to the second issue. There is need for clarity and safeguards about what the legislators can and cannot do to budget proposals. To be sure, sections 80 to 83 of the 1999 Constitution grant the National Assembly the so-called power of the purse: no money can be spent from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) except as authorised by the parliament through an appropriation act. This accords with the principle of checks and balances: while the executive prepares and implements budgets, the legislature vets/passes the budget, and the president signs the approved budget for it to become law and operational. The powers granted to the legislature on appropriation are not meant to be absolute or an excuse to impinge on executive powers.

The legislators have the powers to query, cut and even re-assign proposed expenditures within each MDA. They can also adjust, with justifications, the budget assumptions. But they do not have the latitude to rewrite the budget. It is also bad form for legislators to encourage MDA heads to lobby for increase in budgetary allocations. That should be off territory. Besides, having such latitude is an open licence to abuse. And there are well-documented cases of such over-reach, including legislators unilaterally creating and inserting projects into budgets and increasing the allocations of some MDAs in multiple folds, reportedly in favour of the principal officers and some committee chairpersons. This is a point where legislative over-reach, conflict of interests and abuse of powers intersect in a gaudy way.

Over different administrations, there have also been reported cases of direct extortion and intimidation of MDAs by legislators during budget defence, with willing collusion by some MDA heads and public push-backs by some. However, the executive folded by succumbing to what they frame as ‘constituency projects,’ a stratagem through which legislators get assigned projects in the budget and even reportedly nominate contractors. This may not be as brazen as legislators inserting projects into budgets or padding budgets but it is sleazy nonetheless. A ready excuse would be that even in America they practise pork barrel politics. But this is more of ranking Congressmen advocating for the accommodation of their constituencies in projects designed and implemented by the executive. 

However, it is not uncommon for our legislators to openly boast, without any sense of irony, of being the sponsors of certain projects in their constituencies. It is understandable that legislators also have a need to show that they are working for their constituents, but they do not have a responsibility for constructing or sponsoring roads, schools, stadiums, boreholes etc. Their responsibility is to make laws and to oversight the executive. Allocating projects to legislators creates distortions and a perverse sense of entitlement. The practice needs to be reconsidered. Budget padding should not only be immoral but also illegal and criminal. Overall, it is important for the executive to seek judicial interpretation of the extent of the constitutional powers of the legislators on budgeting, then set and enforce the limits.

Actually, the country and the budgeting process will be better served if legislators focus more on one of their core responsibilities: exercising oversight powers more diligently and effectively, and without an eye for personal gain. Budget defence by MDAs usually starts with a review of the performance of the previous/current budgets. Such reviews, alongside legislative oversight visits to MDAs, should surface issues not just about budget performance but also about possible violations that should be nipped in the bud. For many years, the executive was accumulating unbudgeted loans from CBN and in a way that contravened the CBN Act, and left lasting impact. This was the famous ways and means.

The legislative committees oversighting the Ministry of Finance and CBN should have picked this up if they were doing their jobs properly. If they had asked basic questions about revenue and expenditure of government, they would have figured out that the deficit was being financed outside of the authorised borrowing plan. The country did not get to know about FG’s growing indebtedness to CBN until after more than N20 trillion had been accumulated. Even after the loan has been securitised, the country is yet to live down the adverse effects of such a dramatic increase in money supply that was not backed by production.

It is possible the National Assembly dropped the ball wilfully or because of lack of capacity. There is definitely a knowledge asymmetry on the management of the economy. Those in the executive arm will always be ahead. But there is a provision for members of the National Assembly to engage experts and hire competent aides. They rarely do. Also, there have been talks for decades about the need to establish the equivalent of the US Congressional Budget Office, staffed with experts that can undertake cutting-edge economic analyses and projections to support our legislators. The third area of reform will thus be how to build the necessary supporting capacity, activate the appetite of our legislators for such technical knowledge and incentivise the will to undertake real budget work.

The fourth area is the need to eliminate off-budget spendings. We need to bring all expenditures under the budget to ensure full visibility and scrutiny and to prevent the natural consequence of opacity. Sunshine still remains the best disinfectant. No public money should be spent without appropriation, even if through default appropriation, supplementary appropriation or advances from contingencies’ fund as stipulated in sections 81, 82, and 83 of the 1999 Constitution. Without a doubt, there are extra-budgetary expenditures going on which apart from not passing through the parliament are also not following due process. There are two obvious ones: the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway and the presidential jet. There may be others. Even if good intention and justification are to be assumed, such a practice does not pass the smell test and should never be normalised. Whatever lacuna that is being exploited should be shut.  

Lastly, we need to change how we resource agencies that have been assigned dedicated revenue handles. Even with the policy on automatic sweep of operating surpluses, most of these super agencies are still awash with more cash than they need. And once available, money will be spent, and mostly on frivolities. The National Assembly does little in scrutinising the budgets or expenditures of these agencies. Rather, they treat them like juicy and special agencies—the same way the executive authorisers on these super agencies treat them.

The end result is that a handful of agencies have enormous resources to play with (and that is the appropriate term) while pressing areas of national need are under-resourced. These agencies should definitely be adequately funded, but their funding should be based on justified needs and available resources. Granting some agencies a portion of the revenues they generate or collect on behalf of government confers a special status on them. Worse: it turns these agencies to slush funds and centres of sleaze. This practice is suboptimal for the country and should stop.

The “Jaguda” is a sort of rough -hewn familiar type in Nigerian urban street  parlance. He is a general communal presence in such urban neighbourhoods, an outlaw that is often tolerated for his use value in times of trouble. He is a thug owned by the community in case rascality is needed. But the ‘Jaguda’ is publicly disowned when civility is back in demand. As a type, he  lives dangerously, wages senseless fights and deploys vile methods and rough language to fend off dangerous adversaries. The ‘Jaguda’ is  therefore a communal necessity in times  of unplanned trouble requiring insane courage and deliberate rule-breaking for communal good. Communal crisis management has no code for the methods of the Jaguda. A necessary outlaw, the fellow is his own law and makes his own rules. The jaguda’s methods are unpredictable, unscripted and unregulated by the rules of normality. He is capable of  multiple risky escapades. He is a familiar rule breaker who however gets bad necessary things done. The Jaguda’s  methods are usually unorthodox and even lawless but his results justify his unusual methods. Only communities in dire desperate scarcity of sensible leadership cede the throne to a jaguda as king. The result is always a whirlwind of unimaginable consequences.

The recent triumph of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections looks like a vindication of the Jaguda as a leadership type in America’s political culture.  He has been in Washington before. The first time he defeated Hilary Clinton, he shocked the mainstream international liberal media.  In all our reading of the polls and projections, we were dead sure that Trump would be defeated. But we were dead wrong. Reflecting then on Trump’s initial victory, I felt in good company: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, Financial Times, The Cable News Network (CNN) and indeed the entire gamut of influential global media and world leaders. We all gave the Manhattan real estate merchant with a discoloured hair patch skimpy chance. It has happened again. The media and the elite gave Trump skimpy chance against Kamala Harris this time around. But we were wrong again. Trump is now a  reality that America and indeed the world has to live with and deal with.

Trump’s trail was untidy enough to deny him the presidency this time around. We concluded that a man with such a rough first term and a pile of criminal indictments and civil infractions could not possibly win a re-entry into the White House.  In mistaking politics for Sunday School morality, we were wrong again. Trump won an even more robust victory over the Democrats’ Kamala Harris, a nice, ever smiling aunty next door -type candidate of the Democrats. But see what we have? Donald Trump is US president imminent. As Garrison Keillor wrote in The Washington Post of 9th November when Trump first won:  “Raw ego and proud illiteracy have won out, and a severely learning-disabled man with a real character problem will be president.” In the contest against Hillary Clinton back then, easily one of his signature verbal indiscretions was at the final debate when he interrupted Hillary Clinton on the debate podium: “Nasty Woman!” Now, perhaps we can all greet Trump in this euphoric moment by shouting: “Nasty man!”

Yet, whether we like it or not, both Trump I and Trump II are products and outcomes of democracy. As it turns out, every now and again in history, democracy delivers an illegitimate child. Adolf Hitler was one. Closer to this copy is Silvio Berlusconi, another licentious and noisy moneybag who straddled over Italy for decades. Here comes another, Trump, a loud, foul -mouthed and unstable Manhattan real estate vendor with a scant knowledge of government.

One term in the White House and four years out in the cold rough and tumble of ordinary life have reinforced Mr. Trump’s credentials as a licensed thug and unashamed rascal, a quintessential jaguda as king. He is as comfortable in the humiliation of the courtroom docks as he is in corporate boardrooms. He has now won both the Electoral College and Popular Votes by a wide margin for a return to the White House with a familiar drunken swagger. A publicly licensed thug and convicted felon is perhaps the most dangerous burden that a democracy can inflict on itself. But as they say, it is what it is. The people have spoken. We can only speculate on the prospects of a second Trump Presidency both for the US and the rest of the world.

Yet the Agbero or Jaguda as a type of political hero has in recent times emerged as a democratic outcome. It is not only in America. It has happened elsewhere. Trump has expressed an appetite to use the military to fight the “enemies within” the US, meaning his political opponents. The Pillipines” Duterte used summary executions to combats drug lords and sundry criminals and open repression to fight press freedom. Hungsry’s Viktor Orban fights his opponents as viciously as external aggressors. Vladimir Putin has virtually exterminated his political opponents, adversarial journalists and  dissidents using assassinations, targeted poisoning, gangster style street  executions and targeted bombings etc to ensure he remains the last man standing on the Russian power podium.

Democratic populism, illiberal democracy. Neo nationalism and creeping authoritarianism are all political and ideological contexts in which this new type of leader – the jaguda- have sneaked back into our political reality. In previous eras, fascism and communist totalitarianism and military despotism allowed for the emergence of Hitler, Mussolini and their Latin American clones.

This latest electoral victory does not absolve Mr. Trump of the heinous negatives that have become the trademarks of his previous tenure and track record. The man remains a racist, bigot, misogynist, merchant of hate and unscrupulous businessman. His political message for America at home remains a divisive one. The best that can be expected from his presidency going forward would at best be a moderation or modulation of these tendencies forced by public opinion and stiff opposition.

While waiting for formal inauguration, Trump has been rehearsing new Jaguda antics, sowing the seeds of catastrophic upheaval.  Right from the confirmation hearings on his appointments by the Senate. He has nominated a slew of  controversial  persons for positions  for which they are either not qualified or have baggages of controversy  that would make them difficult to confirm. For Health and Human Services, he has nominated Robert Kennedy Jr., a man whose controversial views on public heath issues with annoy drug and health majors. He initially nominated Mr. Matt Gaetz for Attorney General and stuck to the choice until a barrage of evidence surfaced that a Congressional committee report had indicted the man for serial misdeeds ranging from sexual harassment, sex with minors and sundry racketeering. 

Similarly, he nominated Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence , a top National Security lob even though she is a known admirer and advocate of known US adversaries like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. His nominee for Secretary of Defense , Pete Hegseth,  is a veteran of slim executive experience of defense and national security issues at the high level who happens to be a television anchor. Unlike in his first term when he deliberately went star hunting for people of gigantic stature, he has now opted for minimals, people who are loyal to him and would rely on his approval to get anything done. From the relative inexperience of some of his nominees to their questionable track records, there is evidence that Mr. Trump prefers to appoint mostly people whose competence and experience is thin but whose loyalty to him is unquestionable. Clearly, the confirmation hearings for most of these nominees will be turbulent on the floor of the Senate and only serve Trump to divide and rule the Senate.

In the area of foreign relations, he has been tossing potentially incendiary foreign policy propositions. He would rather make Canada an additional US state after imposing a 25% tariff  on all imports from Canada. He advances the naïve notion that the United States can use economic blackmail to turn Canada into America’s 52nd state. He would pursue his border war against Mexico and hurriedly ship home illegal Mexican immigrants living in the US He would like to rename the Gulf of Mexico into the “Gulf of America”. More bizarrely, he would revoke the Panama Canal Treaty and retake control of the Canal. On Gaza, he has warned Hamas to hurry on the release of hostages in return for an Israeli seize fire or “all hell will be let loose” in the region. He has expressed interest in annexing Greenland as a US territory. Barely a fortnight to is second inauguration, his son, Donald Jr. ,has jetted off to Greenland on a tourism or exploratory trip. He has reiterated his first term threat to reduce US financing and support of NATO and leave the Europeans to pay most of their defense and security bills.

Taken together, the totality of Trump’s pre-inauguration foreign policy blunder has the potential of turning the world as we have known it upside down. Any attempt to forcefully take over Greenland will upset relations with Denmark, the sovereign authority over Greenland. Animosity over Greenland with Denmark would be a head-on collision with the European Union and NATO. Not just that. The Russian share a border with Greenland and have an obviously strategic interest in the status of Greenland as a free territory for scientific and military exploits. Canada can hold out on its own and align with Mexico to mobilize the rest of the Organization of American States against US hegemony. A confrontation with Panama over the Canal will antagonize most of Latin America and earn Panama the financial support of China which is already a beneficiary of the present status of the Panama Canal.

Mr. Trump may not understand that the world as we know it is sustained on long standing alliances and alignments. The global stability on which America’s hegemony depends is built on the sustainability of these global alliances. To pursue a foreign policy that upsets many of these alliances is to turn the world upside down and keep America busy fighting fires that it may have lit by the actions of its rascally political leadership.

It is easy to dismiss these threats to our world order as part of Trump’s familiar bluster aimed at advancing his transactional style of presidency. It is a known feature of Mr. Trump’s method to increase the dramatic intensity of his reign by throwing up such hair- brained propositions. It earns him global media attention. It sends the leaders of the target countries into a panic mode. At bottom is the inevitable question: what concession does Trump want to extract?

Meanwhile, Trump’s overloaded moral baggage remains alive in the form of his numerous court cases and legal proceedings. A New York judge has slammed an conviction on Trump in his hush money case, insisting that he remains guilty but will not serve a jail term on account of his presidential immunity. Trump’s request for a Supreme Court intervention to prevent the sentencing has fallen flat. He has hurled invectives at the judge and threatened fire and brimstone. The judge remains determined to sentence him, making him the first convicted person to be sworn in as President. 

Mr. Trump is not just a casual Lone Wolf political rascal. He is a lead participant in a growing worldwide political trend. He just happens to have sprouted in a most unlikely political environment- the United States. He is pushing the extreme limits of a far right conservative tendency with the assistance of people like Elon Musk. His disruptive politics has a context. He is a disciple in a tradition where people like Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom and a bit of Marie Le Pin in France are timid advocates. Trump is a harbinger of a new version of conservative populism which is targeting liberal democracy. He is coming at his political agenda and ideological onslaught with familiar instruments-  economic nationalism, trade isolationism,  tariff barriers, strict immigration controls and the reawakening of ethnic and racial myths. Above all else, the economic nationalism of this new conservatism is likely to further enrich the super rich and keep the poor content with inflation reduction gimmicks. Trump is made more dangerous by his American location.

Yet, Trump’s single most prized leadership trait is his admiration of ‘strong’ leadership  defined in terms of the ability of leaders to bend the popular will to do their personal biddings, all in the name of their nations. Trump has repeatedly brandished such counter democratic or outright authoritarian figures as Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Kim Jung Un as his preferred leadership models.

This strange leadership preference is perhaps part of the interest in the dramatic essence of the Trump phenomenon. As an outcome of a democratic election, the emergence and re-emergence of  Donald Trump as US President is an interesting proposition in the evolution of global democratic culture. Democracy in its glory place has given  birth to an authoritarian  ruler, its direct opposite aim. In other words, can a democracy in its maturation give birth to an outcome that is capable of enthroning an autocracy? Is there a possibility that authoritarianism and liberal democracy can be born by the same mother from the same womb? Political scientists may indeed encounter in Donald Trump an interesting subject matter.

Trump’s familiar assault on conventional media fits into the character of this new disruptive neo-conservative tendency. During his chaotic first tenure, he challenged the concept of the truth and fact as bedrocks of journalism we have come to know it. A man who used the power of the media to burst into political limelight has been intent on undermining the foundation of the media!

That earlier time, it took the unexpected eruption of the Corona pandemic to stop Trump from upturning the world order and upending the very foundations of America’s order. Now the Jaguda President is back with a far more convincing electoral mandate.

Trump is largely a bit of suspense theatre, an exciting departure from the humdrum drabness of politics in Washington. The man is a decisive departure from the language and mannerisms of the crass theatre of every parliament in every national seat of power.  Anticipating Trump’s impending landfall is sufficiently suspenseful theatre full of questions and uncertainties and open questions

Will he send the military after his political opponents? Will he send the US military to annex Greenland? Will he forcefully retake the Panama Canal? Will he engage China in a trade war over tariffs? Will he impose tariff on all imports from Canada and therefore blackmail Canada into becoming the 51st state of the US? Is he likely to arm Israel to wipe out the Palestinians of Gaza if Hamas fails to reach a cease fire agreement with Israel by the time he is inaugurated?

There is an impending historic explosion in the event that Trump 2 proceeds with some of his previewed foreign policy gambits. In a world that is faced with  a clear and present confrontation between freedom and democracy on one hand and growing authoritarianism on the other, Trump is somewhat anachronistic. Here is the leader of the so-called ‘free world’ rehearsing openly to lead his nation in the fashion of the worst authoritarians. 

The Year 2024 has been flogged to death! With 2025 now underway, it’s clear that this year will be crucial for Nigeria and Nigerians. To ensure a game-changing year, the government must develop a comprehensive framework to address the economic, social and political challenges ahead.

To begin with, President Bola Tinubu should leverage his political expertise to facilitate a consensus-driven approach to the Tax Reform Bills currently before the National Assembly. This requires negotiating with regional stakeholders, addressing politically-driven concerns, and finding common ground to ensure the Bills’ successful passage.

The Tax Reform Bills are to be commended as the much-needed attempt to get the country back to where it was before the suspension of the 1963 Republican Constitution by a misguided set of people in 1965. Yes, Nigeria must become a producer nation again! This is the only way to pull tens of millions out of poverty, create jobs and nurture a political economy based on shared economic prosperity.

The fantasy coming from some people that Nigeria can continue to defy the law of gravity and go on with the assumption-based political economy must be consigned to the dustbin. So, the Federal Government has a responsibility to push upfront an economic spokesperson who can present its economic position with the clear lucidity necessary to shift the territory of the debate in favour of its own position. This has to be done with the sense of urgency that the current situation demands!

When President Tinubu took office, Nigeria faced significant challenges, including widespread insecurity, underdeveloped infrastructure and a debt service-to-revenue ratio of 97%. The country also struggled with a massive Forex backlog of $7 billion and many state governments’ inability to pay salaries. These pressing issues underscored the need for urgent reforms to get the country back on track.

By 2025, Nigeria’s economy is poised for growth, driven by increased oil production, projected to reach two million barrels per day, and enhanced domestic refining capabilities. Building on recent momentum, Nigeria has achieved notable economic gains, with its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growing by 3.46% and unemployment rates decreasing to 4.3%. The country’s fuel imports are also declining rapidly, and it has begun exporting Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) to West Africa and Europe.

Contrary to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s claims, Nigeria has made significant strides in managing its debt. The country has reduced its revenue-debt service ratio from over 90% to 64%, indicating a marked improvement in its debt management. Furthermore, Nigeria’s foreign reserves have increased substantially to over $40 billion, despite the challenges of servicing external debts and clearing foreign exchange backlogs. These positive developments are expected to strengthen the naira, ultimately leading to a reduction in the cost of goods and services.

Infrastructure development is another area where Nigeria is making progress. The Lagos-Calabar coastal road is under construction and it’ll soon be the turn of the Sokoto-Badagry highway. Likewise, initiatives such as the student loan scheme by NELFUND and consumer credit by CrediCorpNG are gaining traction, providing financial support to individuals and businesses.

The Tinubu-led government is taking steps to promote autonomy for local governments, modernize the livestock industry and restructure social investment programs. Efforts to address insecurity, such as (the detention of) Simon Ekpa, banditry and farmers-herders clashes, are also yielding positive results, indicating improved social cohesion.

To effectively address inflation in 2025, the government should consider implementing a comprehensive Inflation Reduction Act. But then, this would require strong political will! Key components of the Act should include cost-efficiency measures, such as implementing the Oronsaye Report and designating a cost-efficiency czar – preferably the Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance or the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. This czar would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of performance-based budgeting, ensuring the budget is aligned with specific timelines and objectives.

The National Assembly should adopt a Performance Planning Budgeting System for its oversight functions. It is alarming that, since 1999, the Assembly has not established a Congressional Budgeting Office to provide technical expertise. This oversight contributes to Nigeria’s underperformance, and the current Assembly must address this flaw. To tackle economic challenges, implementing the Inflation Reduction Act and declaring a State of Emergency in ports and trade facilitation systems could help streamline trade processes, reduce inflation, and stimulate growth.

Nigeria must revamp its trade facilitation mechanisms. There’s no alternative! This overhaul should be accompanied by an Inflation Reduction Act that fosters partnerships with the states and local governments to revamp rural roads and promote integrated rural development. To combat food price inflation, the president should reinvigorate his commitment to creating an enabling environment for modern commodity exchanges. These exchanges are a crucial tool in reducing inflation and addressing the current economic challenges. Ultimately, the government must prioritize inflation reduction in its economic policy and ensure this goal is reflected in the 2025 budget.

It is our belief that there’s already a Technical Committee in progress, examining what will be the signs and wonders of the Trump Presidency in terms of the global cost of oil prices and the effects of proposed tariff hikes on international trade. Since we are not God, instead of questioning Donald Trump’s character, we must be as proactive as we were in responding to the devaluation of the British Pound Sterling in 1967. Nigeria’s response to the British devaluation as a member of the Sterling Group earned the country great plaudits and admiration across the world. Essentially therefore, there must be a plan! Before we start clapping for Trump, there must be strategies in place to project his policies rather than his character!

A Trump Presidency begins on January 20; and, like the Boy Scout, Nigeria must be prepared! It is to be hoped that a savvy international trade negotiating team is already in place. It is going to be very hard! We must be prepared!

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

*KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk)

In an era marked by economic volatility, ethical lapses, and mounting mistrust in financial institutions, it is imperative for Nigerian bankers to revisit and strictly adhere to Hugh McCulloch’s timeless advice. McCulloch, an American banker and the first Comptroller of the Currency in the United States, introduced the Bankers’ Creed in 1863. This creed is not just a relic of history but a robust guide to ethical banking practices that resonate with the current realities of Nigeria’s financial sector. If Nigerian bankers adopt these principles, they can foster stability, rebuild trust, and contribute to sustainable economic growth.

The Nigerian banking sector is a microcosm of the nation’s economy. It wields immense power to shape financial inclusion, economic stability, and development. However, the industry has not been without its challenges. Cases of unethical practices, reckless lending, insider abuses, and corporate governance failures have often marred its reputation. Instances such as the 2009 banking crisis, which exposed massive non-performing loans (NPLs) and led to the dismissal of several bank executives, underscore the critical need for stringent adherence to ethical principles.

McCulloch’s advice offers a pragmatic solution. By aligning their operations with the creed’s principles, Nigerian banks can enhance their resilience and reaffirm their role as pillars of economic progress.

Revisiting McCulloch’s advice from the perspective of securing lending practices, it is germane to opine that his advice begins with a fundamental rule: “Let no loans be made that are not secured beyond a reasonable contingency.” This principle is especially pertinent in Nigeria, where non-performing loans have been a recurring problem. Banks must prioritize due diligence, ensuring that loans are extended only to creditworthy borrowers and secured with adequate collateral. Reckless lending fosters a culture of speculation and financial instability, as seen in the collapse of several banks in Nigeria’s history.

From the perspective of avoiding speculation, McCulloch’s warning against fostering speculation is critical in today’s context. Speculative activities, such as risky investments in volatile assets, have led to significant losses in the banking sector. Nigerian banks should focus on funding legitimate and productive ventures that contribute to economic growth, such as infrastructure, agriculture, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This approach not only ensures sustainable profitability but also aligns with national developmental goals.

On diversified lending, the creed’s emphasis on distributing loans rather than concentrating them in a few hands addresses a common pitfall in Nigerian banking, overexposure to large corporate borrowers. Such concentration poses systemic risks, as the default of a single entity can jeopardize a bank’s solvency. By diversifying their loan portfolios and extending credit to a broader customer base, banks can mitigate these risks and promote financial inclusivity.

From the perspective of customer-centric policies with firm control, McCulloch’s advice to treat customers liberally while retaining control over banking policies is a call for balanced customer relations. Nigerian banks must build trust with their customers by providing transparent services, fair lending rates, and innovative financial solutions. However, they should resist external pressures to compromise their policies for short-term gains. This balance is essential for long-term success.

From the side of integrity and accountability, the creed’s stance on integrity is unambiguous: “If you have reasons to dismiss the integrity of a customer, close his account.” In a nation where corruption is pervasive, this principle should be non-negotiable. Nigerian banks must establish stringent measures to detect and deter fraudulent activities. Dealing with dubious characters under the guise of profitability not only undermines a bank’s reputation but also exposes it to regulatory sanctions.

In a similar vein, from the perspective of fair compensation and ethical leadership, McCulloch’s advice to pay bank officers respectable salaries and ensure they live within their means is vital for maintaining ethical leadership. Nigerian banks must invest in robust human resource practices that prioritize merit, integrity, and accountability. Any signs of financial impropriety or extravagant lifestyles among staff should be addressed promptly to uphold public confidence.

Also, from the angle of capital authenticity and responsible banking, the creed’s insistence on real, not fictional, capital underscores the importance of financial transparency. Nigerian banks must maintain robust capital adequacy ratios and comply with regulatory requirements. Furthermore, they should avoid the allure of “splendid financing” schemes that promise high returns but entail significant risks. Legitimate banking should always take precedence over speculative ventures.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to ask, “How can the Creed be implemented in Nigeria by bankers?” To adopt McCulloch’s principles effectively, Nigerian bankers and regulators must take deliberate steps that cut across enhanced regulatory oversight, capacity building, transparency, technological integration and stakeholder collaboration. 

To put the foregoing in an explanatory detail, it is germane to suggest in this context that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) should strengthen its supervisory role by ensuring strict compliance with lending guidelines, capital adequacy requirements, and corporate governance standards.

Secondly, banks should invest in continuous training for their staff to instill a culture of ethical banking and sound risk management practices, even as financial institutions must prioritize transparency in their dealings, providing clear and timely information to stakeholders.

In a similar vein, there is the need for leveraging technology for credit risk assessment, fraud detection, and customer service can enhance operational efficiency and reduce human errors. Also, banks, regulators, and industry associations should collaborate to promote ethical practices and address systemic challenges collectively.

Without a doubt, Hugh McCulloch’s Bankers’ Creed is more than a historical artifact; it is a beacon of wisdom that can guide the Nigerian banking sector toward stability, integrity, and prosperity. By adhering to these principles, Nigerian bankers can navigate the complexities of modern finance while maintaining their ethical compass. In doing so, they will not only safeguard their institutions but also contribute to the broader goal of national economic development. It is high time for Nigerian banks to embrace this timeless advice and uphold their responsibility as custodians of the nation’s financial future.

The member representing Ideato North/South federal constituency of Imo State in the House of Representatives, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere, has congratulated Senator John Azuta-Mbata on his emergence as the new President-General of the Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide.

Azuta-Mbata, who is a former Senator representing Rivers East Senatorial District, emerged on Friday during the selection of new executives for the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, held at the Old Government Lodge in Enugu.

Reacting to the development, Ugochinyere said the emergence of Azuta-Mbata from Rivers State as Ohanaeze President has shown that Igbos were one united and indivisible people anywhere they belong across the country and beyond.

The chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum (Downstream), in a statement he personally signed on Saturday, urged the new president to lead Igbos to a new economic dawn.

“I heartily congratulate and identify with Distinguished Senator John Azuta-Mbata on his emergence as the new President-General of the Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide.

“His (Azuta-Mbata) emergence as President though from South-South geopolitical zone, other than the South-east, is a testimony and affirmation of the fact that Igbos are one united and indivisible people devoid of regional colouration.

“I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that as a former lawmaker of the National Assembly’s Red Chamber, the new President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide has impeccable credentials and requisite credentials to steer the affairs of the prominent Igbo socio-cultural organisation.

“I, therefore, appeal to Senator John Azuta-Mbata to deploy his wealth of experience and political cum leadership acumen to lead the Igbo race to a new economic dawn; fostering unity and peace.

“Accept, Distinguished, on behalf of the good people of Ideato North/South Federal Constituency of Imo State who I represent, the assurances of our support to enable you succeed in this critical role you have assumed for the unity, peace and prosperity of Igbo race,” Ugochinyere stated.

The South East Senate Caucus has endorsed and congratulated Senator Azuta Mbata on his emergence as the President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo Worldwide.

In a statement in Abuja on Saturday, the leader of the Caucus, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, said Senator Mbata’s victory at the election during the Ohaneze General Assembly in Enugu, marks a milestone in the history of the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation.

The caucus, he said, has firm confidence in Mbata’s pedigree and leadership qualities that are solid enough to steer Ohaneze to achieve the much desired unity and development in Igboland and command the ability to also reach out to similar associations outside Igboland to enhance good relationship for the unity of Nigeria.

“We as a caucus have the confidence that Ohanaeze as constituted under the leadership of Senator Mbata would weave the entire Igbo race cohesively together in unity, peace and make Ohanaeze a veritable rallying point for Ndigbo wherever they may be.

“Such trajectory we believe would no doubt encourage, instill confidence and reinvigorate the ability of our people to pursue their individual and collective goal to achieve sustainable development for the overall benefit of Igboland and Nigeria.

“The caucus also lauds the delegates at the general assembly and the political leadership, particularly the state governors for their unwavering commitment to support the new Ohanaeze leadership to succeed,” Abaribe said.

The caucus congratulated the outgoing PG Nze Ozichukwu for leading Ohanaeze to hand over the reigns of leadership to Senator Mbata in a peaceful election.

The caucus enjoined Ndigbo to give Senator Mbata and his executive full support in carrying out his mandate to restore the dignity and prosperity of Alaigbo.

[DailyPost]

The Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt.-Gen. Olufemi Oluyede, has approved the posting/appointment of some senior officers to various command, staff and instructional positions.

Army spokesman, Maj.-Gen. Onyema Nwachukwu, who announced this in a statement on Saturday, January 11, explained the posting/appointment was part of the COAS strategic moves to enhance operational effectiveness and administrative efficiency of the Nigerian Army.

Maj.-Gen. Nwachukwu said the redeployment also underscores Nigerian Army’s commitment to ensuring robust and dynamic leadership structure capable of addressing emerging security challenges.

He said the redeployment cuts across Principal Staff Officers (PSOs) at the Army Headquarters (AHQ), General Officers Commanding (GOCs), Corps Commanders, Commandants of Army training institutions, Brigade Commanders and other key positions. 

Some of the senior officers appointed as Principal Staff Officers at the Army Headquarters, according to the army spokesman, are: Maj.-Gen LA Fejokwuw who is moved from National Defence College to Department of Army Administration and appointed Chief of Administration (Army); Maj.-Gen GU Chibuisi, from Nigerian Army Resource Centre to Department of Civil Military Affairs and appointed Chief of Civil Military Affairs and Maj.-Gen AS Ndalolo, also from the Nigerian Army Resource Centre to Department of Army Training and appointed Chief of Training (Army). 

Others are: Maj.-Gen OS Abai, from Department of Army Training to Department of Army Transformation and Innovation, appointed Chief of Transformation and Innovation and Maj.- Gen JH Abdussalam from Headquarters 6 Division to the Department of Special Services and Programmes and appointed Chief of Special Services and Programmes. Maj.-Gen EI Okoro has been redeployed from the Department of Army Logistics to the Department of Military Secretary and appointed Military Secretary (Army).

The senior officers appointed as General Officers Commanding (GOCs), according to Maj.-Gen.Nwachukwu include Maj.-Gen OT Olatoye from Nigerian Army School of Infantry to Headquarters 82 Division/Joint Task Force (JTF) South East Operation UDO KA (OPUK) as GOC 82 Division/Commander JTF OPUK and Maj.- Gen EF Oyinlola from Department of Military Secretary to Headquarters 3 Division as GOC 3 Division/ Commander Operation SAFE HAVEN (OPSH). 

The Army spokesman said that the COAS has also confirmed the appointment of Maj.-Gen AGL Haruna as GOC 7 Division/Commander Sector 1 JTF North East Operation HADIN KAI and Maj Gen IA Ajose as GOC 8 Division/Commander Sector 2 JTF North West Operation FANSAN YANMA, respectively have been confirmed substantive in the recent redeployment.

He said: “Other senior officers redeployed are Maj.-Gen GO Adeshina from Headquarters Nigerian Army Signals to Nigerian Army Heritage and Future Centre and appointed Director General while Maj.- Gen GM Mutkut is posted from Nigerian Army Heritage and Future Centre to Headquarters MultiNational Joint Task Force Njamena as the Force Commander.

“The redeployment also featured Maj Gen MC Kangye from Headquarters Nigerian Army Corps of Artillery to Defence Headquarters as the Director Media Operations.  

“Senior officers appointed as Corps Commanders include Maj.-Gen OC Ajunwa from Nigerian Army Heritage and Future Centre to Headquarters Nigerian Army Armour Corps and appointed Commander, Maj.-Gen HT Wesley from the Department of Special Services and Programmes to Headquarters Nigerian Army Ordnance Corps, appointed Commander and Maj.-Gen TT Numbere from Nigerian Army Heritage and Future Centre to Headquarters Nigerian Army Engineers and appointed Commander. Others include Maj.-Gen NC Ugbo from Department of Civil Military Affairs to Headquarters Nigerian Army Signals and appointed Commander, Maj.-Gen ZL Abubakar from Department of Army Transformation and Innovation to Headquarters Nigerian Army Corps of Artillery and appointed Commander and Maj.-Gen AP Oguntola from Nigerian Army College of Education Science and Technology to Headquarters Nigerian Army Education Corps and appointed Corps Commander. 

“Other senior officers also affected in the redeployment are Maj.-Gen JO Sokoya, appointed Commandant Nigerian Army Training Centre, Maj.-Gen UM Alkali appointed Commandant Army War College Nigeria, while Maj.-Gen FS Etim from Department of Army Transformation and Innovation is redeployed to Nigerian Army School of Infantry and appointed Commandant. Maj.-Gen AB Mohammed has been redeployed from the Department of Army Operations to Depot Nigerian Army and appointed commandant. 

“Other newly appointed senior officers are Maj.-Gen IE Ekpenyong now Commandant Nigerian Army School of Military Engineering and Maj.-Gen AO Adegbite appointed Commandant Nigerian Army School of Supply and Transport, while Brig.- Gen AM Umar is redeployed from Army War College Nigeria to Warrant Officers Academy and appointed Commandant, among others.”

Maj.-Gen. Nwachukwu said the COAS charged newly appointed senior officers to bring renewed vigor, dedication and commitment to their duties, “particularly while ensuring the sustenance of the ongoing onslaught against terrorism, insurgency and other threats to national security.”

“He equally charged them to ensure that the welfare of troops remain paramount as they assume their new appointments,” he said.