Earlier in the month, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, obtained a ruling on a final forfeiture of an estate in Abuja containing 753 units of duplexes. The ruling of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, on Monday, effectively transfers the estate measuring 150,500 square metres on Plot 109 Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, to the federal government. It is easily the single largest asset recovery by the agency since its inception in 2003, a landmark and cheery news coming from an organization that has for some time faltered on its mandate.

Beyond the celebration of that landmark, however, questions have been raised about the refusal of the EFCC to identify the culprit in the case. Though it referred to “a former top brass” in government and “a government official who fraudulently built the estate,” the anti-graft agency refused to lift the veil on the criminal involved, a decision that represents a troubling lack of transparency in the actions of the agency that has in the recent past worked so hard to earn public trust.

In a country where corruption has undermined governance and public trust, the opacity gives rise to rumours and conjectures and widespread suspicion has fallen on former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele as owner of the property. For a man whose tenure was marred by allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and abuse of power, such suspicion is easy to stick. While the EFCC defends itself that the action is in line with Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act which is a civil proceeding that allows for action-in-rem rather than action-in-personam, against a property and not an individual, and which allows it to take up a forfeiture proceeding against a chattel that is not a juristic person, it does not answer the key question of public trust.

The judgment as well as the pronouncements by the agency also contradicts this position. At least Justice Onwuegbuzie pointed to a ‘he’ when he held that the “respondent has not shown cause as to why he should not lose the property which has been reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.”

If Emefiele is indeed the owner, the silence is even more troubling considering it would signify a monumental breach of public trust and nobody believes the EFCC which, in admitting that “the substantive criminal investigation on the matter still continues”, insists that it would be unprofessional of it to mention names. Has that always been the practice in the agency that has always gone to town with the names of suspects?

The excuse, double standards in this case, flies in the face of its claim to a renewed offensive against corruption, an offensive that must thrive on transparency as a key pillar. With a solid judgment in hand, the agency which is the nation’s leading anti-corruption body, failed in its responsibility to demonstrate transparency in its dealings; rather, it chose to contradict its mandate of promoting accountability in public office, an action which further erodes the public’s confidence in it. While opening itself to accusations of selective justice, the action has the capability to reinforce the perception of the agency’s scandals where looted properties are reportedly re-looted by connected officials.

The scale of the assets and the high-profile nature of the alleged suspect—if indeed it is Godwin Emefiele or another “top brass” figure—places this case squarely in the public domain. The public has a right to know who is responsible for amassing such wealth, especially since the EFCC has previously disclosed the identities of individuals implicated in high-profile cases, often to demonstrate its resolve in fighting corruption. For instance, names of politicians and former public officials linked to fraud or illicit enrichment are routinely released to the media. Why, then, is this case different?

While the EFCC argues that withholding the name preserves the integrity of an ongoing investigation, the justification fall short in the face of overwhelming public interest. The seizure of 753 duplexes, which are collectively worth billions of naira, suggests an unprecedented case of economic crime, an issue that transcends individual privacy and demands public disclosure. The EFCC has a duty to ensure consistency and adopt a uniform policy regarding the disclosure of suspects’ identities in high-profile cases, as this helps sustain public confidence that is critical to fostering a culture of accountability and ensuring that the fight against corruption is sustained.

When a baby chick ventures into the Village Square alone under the midday sun, it has volunteered to be snatched up as a snack by any hovering hawk. When a chick which does not venture into the Village Square, ignores the “kwom-kwom” calling sound of the mother hen, it is bound to get into the trouble sooner than later. Against the background of the foregoing, let those who are prancing all over the place today and threatening to redefine pristine Igbo cultural values, customs and tradition wake up to their folly.

It takes more than preposterous self-inflation and self-delusion to be a leader of subsisting value. Look at Agbogidi and several other traditional rulers in Igbo land. How do they come across to you? Now look at the would-wielders of un-nuanced leadership authority, as well as their major promoters. They are all demanding to be taken seriously, right?

Utter bunkum! Stupidity is stupidity, not a different approach to doing anything under the sun.

The following three factors seem to be partly responsible for the attempt to prop up a new-found, and fortunately still-born, excrescence and cultural monstrosity called Mayor Ndigbo: (1) Swollen egos that are threatening to get bigger than the national stadium in Abuja, even while the core of the habour nothing profound; (2) Some people’s false perception of their financial worth in the grand scheme of things, as well as their bankable social network and value in society outside the tiny worlds they have created and within which they are mini deities; and (3) A vaulting desire to preside over some kind of court of great significance, not minding if their Royal Stools bestride a sewer in some low-grade neighbourhood.

As our people are wont to say: “You do not give the title of Onu n-ekwuru Oha (spokesman of the People, or The Voice of the People) to a drunkard, or a stammerer”. The title of Ogbuagu (Leopard Killer) is not bestowed on the village coward.

The first thing I noted, on seeing the invitation card to the conferment of the title of Mayor Ndigbo on Chief Chidi Anaegbu, was the absence of any reference to the person, persons, group, or groups conferring the title/honour on the man. The second was the conspicuous display of the names of President Obasanjo and others, Obi of Onitsha and other traditional rulers, as well as the names of many state governors. How could this assembly agree to do such harm to Ndigbo, I wondered.

Allen Onyema, proprietor of Airpeace, was on the card as Chairman of the occasion. That people of repute and substance would gather for what seemed to me a vacuous and perfectly scandalous innovation.

No! I forwarded a soft copy of the invite to a very close and trusted friend of Onyema, along with this text: “Allen’s name is most probably being used for a scam here. He had better check it out”. The recipient of my text replied me thus: “I am aware. This is authentic. MAYOR NDIGBO LAGOS. By the entire Igbo community in Lagos. I will be at the event also”.

It all came across as a bit incomprehensible, even patently irresponsible and, anon, roundly cheap and ridiculous to me. I called another mutual friend and shared my concerns. I also brought up my once-expressed misgivings about Allen Onyema’s occasional choices for self projection over the years. I reiterated my view that such a well-meaning, and highly successful business man is badly in need of native guidance and sobriety on many issues. But that is a matter for another day.

Mayor Ndigbo kwa? Ejikwa m ogu o! Now that it has all gone burst, it seems like everyone is running for cover.

The questions for me are these: (1) Will this Mayor Ndigbo, based on this title conferred by persons of questionable ontological credentials, break the kolanut in the presence of any genuinely titled person even in Lagos? (2) Will the title give him precedence over anyone of his own kindred in his village, or in the city, at any official function when the question of who should break the kolanut arises? (3) Can a Mayor Ndigbo walk into the Council Metting of his own traditional ruler uninvited, based on this absolutely inconsequential title? Just asking.

Our people say that the fact that a bat can fly does not make it a bird. Our people also say that any reckless insect that gets too close to an open flame out of ignorance gets burnt to death or, at best, loses its flamboyant wings for good.  Thus de-winged, the insect ceases to fly. Not being able to fly, it becomes a crawling thing, and no longer a flying thing. Thus diminished, it ends up being eaten by a toad, a worm or a rodent.

Our people say that is the name you give your dog that people will call it. They say that it is how you present yourself that determines how your observers will rate you. They know, and say, that a full-bodied man who elects to walk with a limp has himself to blame if he is called a cripple, or if his name is not included in the list of those who can take part in a race.

The Igbo also say that anyone who enters the village square during a wrestling event without being prepared for a fight will find his back on the ground, sooner or later. He will have “defeat” recorded against his name, even if he argues later that he entered the arena by mistake. Do the Igbo not say that a woman who brings out a dreadful pot of bitter leaf soup cannot complain that her cooking condiments were not complete, since she was the one who brought out the culinary abomination for public inspection and enjoyment.

Part of the point being made here today is that there are Rules of Engagement in all things. There is also always be the right or wrong decibel of propriety and dignity for whatever anyone wants to do in the name of a people. The matter of Mayor Ndigbo would probably not have arisen if some people thought through the philosophical underpinnings of the serious business of the Kolanut ritual for group cohesion.

As was said here on February 14, 2014, “There is probably no greater forum for the display of the solemn, almost priestly, majesty of a mature Igbo elder than in the process of blessing and breaking a kolanut. I speak of ‘process’ here because there is the process of dealing with the kolanut and then there is ‘the fact’ of the breaking of the kolanut among the Igbo. That is why you have the Igbo saying: “When an old dibia (native doctor) makes an offering to the gods it is as if he is the handing over of the sacrifice to the spirits by one who is seeing them face to face”.

The core community values encapsulated in the ‘process’ of eating the kolanut are such that the person whose duty it is to break the kolanut does not just pick it up and break. He may begin by saying: “He who brings kolanut brings life’. To explain this common preface to the kolanut business in Igboland, we need only remember that when kolanut is served, no one eats it without first calling on the gods and the good ancestors for protection and guidance.

This means that the presence of the kolanut at a gathering is, first and foremost, an opportunity for prayers. The purpose of prayers is to strengthen life and the living. Therefore, to bring kolanut is actually to bring an opportunity for prayers, for humble appeal for guidance and for the strengthening of life and the living.

The living envisaged in the Igbo notion of community is always a ‘living together with one another in goodwill’. The person praying over the kolanut before breaking it will say: ‘He Who lives above, the Giver of life, protect us’. He will also say that the river should not dry up and that the fish should not lack water to swim in, thereby emphasizing the interdependence and reciprocity in nature.

Against the background of the foregoing, I invite Ndigbo to take a close, cool, calm and sober look at the concept of “Mayor Ndigbo”. Look at the Ikenga of the individuals concerned. While at it, remember that a man’s Ikenga tells you everything you need to know about him, because it is all etched on the Ikenga. An Ikenga that is mostly front-loaded with material success, business longevity and sociopolitical prominence may still lack the full ontological credentials to stand forth as embodying leadership qualities and not have its fundament challenged

When it is said, in the process of breaking the kolanut “Elders shall live and the young shall live”, or the one who says: “Our harvest shall be rich and none shall pray for the misfortune of another, lest his farm be the only patch of earth without rain” it is all about community of all things, in that broader, overarching notion of spiritual reciprocity.

There are quite a few things that the progenitors, and propagators, of the idea of Mayor Ndigbo most probably dd into think through. Who did they consult. How would Mayor Ndigbo stand before real traditional rulers? What messages are they conveying to the younger generation, with the invention of mayor Ndigbo? Will some Yoruba people in Ugwuoba, Onitsha, or Enugu metropolis choose for themselves a “Mayor” without recourse to their “Custodians of Value”, in the form of traditional and culture icons? Will Fulani, Ijaw, or Igbira people do the same.

These are the real questions for many who think that they are helping to advance Igbo interests, values and culture by all manner of excrescences.  They should remember the virtues of the kolanut ritual for the good of all and restrain themselves from taking domestic matters to the monthly village market.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Proverbs 26: 4 - 5).

Once again, the media is agog with allegations of assault on freedom of speech. In this age of Citizen Journalism, such an assault, real or imagined, is also seen as an assault on journalists and press freedom, even when many of those involved may not be professional journalists in the real sense of the word. In this age of social media, it has become very difficult to define who is a journalist and who is not.

Even when those involved can lay claim to having seen the four walls of a media organisation or having conducted interviews or read news on television and radio, quackery, half-baked as well as fake journalists are a headache to dyed-in-the-wool journalists these days.

Everyone who has an android phone and can string one or two sentences together, however poorly constructed, can claim to be a journalist. This was the kind of bastardisation of “Socialism” in their own days that made Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels recoil from calling their manifesto “The Socialist Manifesto”, naming it “The Communist Manifesto” instead.

When I consider some of the persons who parade as journalists these days, biblical Nabal’s words echo in my ears as apprentices (for those of them who even ventured near a media house) who graduate themselves before their due date for “freedom”. Nabal’s exact words: “There be servants now a days that break away every man from his master…”; but we all must carry the can for them!

Many of the acts that trigger so-called assaults on press freedom are the unprofessional conduct (overzealousness, political partisanship, quackery and corruption) of desperate journalists and their Citizen Journalism counterparts. I am yet to see dyed-in-the-wool journalists of my own generation or those before and after making the egregious errors that viciously violate the ethics of the profession!

Now, what is press freedom? According to Wikipedia, “Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the fundamental principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely”. Other definitions say press freedom is “the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government”. Thus, press freedom “protects the right to spread thoughts, ideas, news and views by publishing them”.

While press freedom may be seen by many as freedom allowed exclusively to journalists or media persons but exercised on behalf and in the interest of all, freedom of speech and of expression is more omnibus as it bestows rights on everyone and these include “the right to hold opinions and to express them and the right to the free flow of information and ideas across borders through any media”.

Section 39 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees the freedom of expression as follows: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impact ideas and information without interference”.

Unknown to many, however, there are no freedoms or liberties without obligations or restrictions. Your freedom must be exercised responsibly; otherwise, you may run yourself into trouble or the society itself may become ungovernable - like a Hobbesian “state of nature… of the war of all against all”! Your rights stop where those of others start! This is where many people, especially those not grounded in the ethics of the journalism profession, miss it.

Many people “practise” as journalists today without proper training. You cannot just don the wig and gown and walk into a courtroom and begin to operate as a lawyer without first acquiring the requisite training. So also can you not just hang a stethoscope and don a lab coat and saunter into a hospital and begin to perform surgical operation! But that is what many people who claim to be “journalists” do today!

You are not a journalist simply because you are a lawyer; you have a flair for writing; you love the profession or you have a mastery of the English Language! There are basic rules, tenets, and ethics of the profession that you must first learn. And you must take your time to be really “cooked’, as it were. Many of the cases that have landed some so-called journalists in trouble are as a result of the elementary rules that they never learned, such as: Is it the truth? Am I being fair to all? Have I acted professionally? Am I not serving or being used by vested interests? Is the story libelous? Will it run my organisation into trouble?

A reporter is as good as his source; facts are sacred, opinion is free; if in doubt, leave out; you must hear from the other side(s) to balance your story; the 4 W’s (what, when, where, why) and how of the story. Is it in the public interest? Does it endanger national security? Does it offend public or ethical sensibilities? These days, none of these count for those intent on settling scores; who are making skits to make money; who are hunting down political opponents or who want to write and publish just anything to make some dough to make ends meet.

If you are interested in the Journalism profession, there is no offence! Go to school and learn! There are many universities, polytechnics and monotechnics teaching Mass Communication or Journalism courses all over the country. For the professional journalists practising according to laid down rules and regulations, faithfully abiding by the ethics of the profession; they have enough constitutional backing and protection.

It is not for fun that they are called “the Fourth Estate of the Realm”; the three other estates being the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Chapter 2 section 22 of the Constitution entitled “Obligation of the mass media” states that “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people”.

In short, the media is empowered by the Constitution, the highest law of the land, to hold the Government accountable to the people. Which is why the media is also called the “watchdog”. There is also the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011 which seeks to make public information more accessible to the public by granting access to such information to the media and other interested persons.

Section 39 of the Constitution protects Citizen Journalists who operate largely on social media - but there are also rules moderating that space and you ignore them at your own peril. For instance, there is a law that criminalises what they call cyberbullying.

Yes, none of the laws that protects is as emphatic as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states unequivocally that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”; the real problem here, however, is that even the existing constitutional provisions protecting and promoting press freedom or freedom of expression are observed more in their breach than in their observance. The FOI is a case in point.

If we have here leaders like the third US President Thomas Jefferson, the laws in our statute books are more than adequate to guarantee press freedom and freedom of expression. Jefferson it was who said: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” Yet, this was a man the American media gave no breathing space!

Now, recent assault on publicly-outspoken Nigerians, among them journalists, has raised concern as to whether press freedom and freedom of expression are under attack. Are these assaults consistent and systematic? And for what purpose? Are the victims carefully selected? Are they those who speak out against the Government and is the assault meant primarily to punish, pulverize and silence them as well as intimidate others in the clear and unambiguous message the assaults send?

For me, it is too early to jump into that conclusion. There are many journalists and outspoken individuals pouring venom on this Government - but doing so professionally and fantastically - and they have not been touched. Which is where professionalism comes into play!

No one in his right senses will say that anyone that commits an offence should not be called in. What I disapprove of is the crude, Gestapo style often adopted by the security forces. Abductions and uncivil rendition of citizens, denying responsibility afterwards while keeping the victims in solitary confinement, is not only dangerous and worrisome but also barbaric. To make matters worse is the fact that they are then released after public outcry without anything incriminating being found against them!

Why arrest them in the first place? If you have suspicions or questions to ask, invite them, interrogate them in the presence of their lawyers, treat them decently, keep within the confines of the law and allow courts of competent jurisdiction to do their job. Security agents should not dabble in civil matters or constitute themselves into courts - which they are not. Instead, let the aggrieved go to court to seek redress. That was what Femi Okunnu did with Wole Soyinka in 1978 over his book “The Man Died”.

In the specific case of Chief Afe Babalola versus Dele Farotimi, I am of the opinion that the Chief has the right to complain and seek redress, although I think by now we should have distanced ourselves from colonial-era laws of sedition and defamation used by Imperial Britain to cower Nigerian nationalists in their struggle for Independence. Note that Chief Afe's grouse, like Okunnu's, originates from the puɓlication of a book by Farotimi.

By now my readers must have accepted the fact that I love quoting scriptures - like the one that opened this discussion! Consider another: Apostle Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians 6: 12 that “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”

I never heard of Farotimi’s book until Chief Afe’s complaint engendered Farotimi’s arrest and detention. Now, the Chief has unwittingly helped to promote Farotimi and his book. Should the Chief have kept quiet and ignored Farotimi and his book, including whatever it contains? If he does, silence can be taken to mean consent.

Yet, there is another saying that there are occasions when silence is golden! Which, then, is which, in this case? Answer a fool; do not answer a fool as stated in the quotation above! Tough decisions! But the Chief has chosen the path of seeking redress. Much thought and deliberation must have gone into that decision. With his pedigree, age and wealth of experience, the Chief is not likely to take critical decisions without having considered the pros and cons.

The petition Chief Afe Babalola fired to the police was self-evident. His credentials as espoused therein were intimidating. There is no doubt he is a highly revered public figure and role model. If he chooses not to allow the achievements of a life-time to go up in flames, no one should grudge him. The catch here, however, is that being a public fugure and role model makes him a subject of public interest. His life is an open book for all to peruse.

On the opposing side, Farotimi has said he is ready for the legal battle of his life. If you ask me, I will say he has more than Mount Everest to climb! The allegations he levied are so weighty and whichever of the two sides that fails to prove its case must be visited with the severest sanction possible. More than Afe or Farotimi, the judiciary that is on trial in this case is touted as “the last hope of the common man” and if gold rusts, what will iron do?

Perhaps this case will settle more than the Farotimi issue. I once listened to a very senior SAN also grumble about the Chief. Is this another Tan'fe-a-ni or pull him down syndrome at work? That is understandable: A kii moo rin ki ori ma ji. No how, no do: the head must shake on the neck! No one achieves anything without stepping on toes.

But my suspicion is, in the final analysis, both the super dog (Afe) and the under dog (Farotimi) will gain something while also losing something. Street sympathy and support for the underdog and pyrrhic victory for the super dog! So, let the battle be joined and let scores be settled once and for all! Let anyone with an axe to grind come into the open now - or forever keep their peace! And allow Chief Afe Babalola his well-deserved place in history!

Nigerian Gospel singer cum founder of Spotlite Nation, Moses Bliss, has broken silence about the early exit of former signee, Ebuka Emmanuel Hillary, known professionally as Ebuka Songs.

Naija News reports that during a press conference at The Experience 2024 music concert, the ‘Daddy Wey Dey Pamper’ crooner claimed that Ebuka violated a three-year contract by leaving after just 11 months.

Bliss said he has no grudge against Ebuka Songs, adding that the goal is for Jesus to be seen and give people the opportunity to minister the gospel.

“Me and Ebuka Songs? There are no issues between us. Of course, he was signed to Spotlite Nation. He just said he wants to do things on his own.

“Our contract didn’t end when it was supposed to end. It was a three-year contract. I think 11 months into it, he said he wants to do his music alone. I prayed about it and I said, ‘You can go’.

“We hold no grudge against him. The goal is for Jesus to be seen. Our goal is to give people the opportunity to minister the gospel.

“We are not fighting. I love him and I am happy to have been part of his journey and wish him the best,” Bliss said.

[NaijaNews]

Much ado about a book! There will always be hawks and doves on both sides. It is at such times that I appreciate the admonition of Gordon B. Hincklrey:

“A small publication that came to me some years ago carried the following: ‘Once a man who had been slandered by a newspaper came to Edward Everett asking what to do about it. Said Everett, ‘Do Nothing! Half the people who bought the paper never saw the article. Half of those who saw it, did not read it. Half of those who understood it, did not believe it. Half of those who believed it are of no account anyway’ (“Sunny Side of the Street,” November 1989). So many of us make a great fuss over matters of small consequence. We are so easily offended. Happy is the man who can brush aside the offending remarks of another and go on his way.”

The heavens have no fury like a lawyer scorned. On account of Aare Afe Babalola’s complaint that Dele Farotimi criminally libelled him in his book, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System”, the younger lawyer was bundled from Lagos to Ado-Ekiti to face the music. Social media has since been clogged with positive and negative reactions on both sides. The matter has become so incendiary that even senior lawyers and commentators have been very careful in their analyses. Nobody wants to be at the receiving end of criminal liability, least of all lawyers and columnists!

Civil Or Criminal?

Aare Babalola, 95, is a legal icon and the revered founder of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD). He was called to the Bar in England after being awarded the University of London’s LLB in 1963. The defendant is the gutsy 56-year-old Dele Farotimi, also a lawyer, a seasoned political activist and author. He was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1999 and was in active legal practice until 2018.

Luckily, eggheads in the legal discipline have been educating “unlearned” members of the public about the bolts and nuts of the matter in contention. The first thing that befuddled people outside the legal field was the confusion over whether libel was a civil or criminal matter.

Dr. Olusegun Abejide generously shares his professional view: “Civil defamation focuses on providing remedies to the victim through compensatory or punitive damages. The defamed individual brings a lawsuit against the defamer, seeking redress for the harm done to their reputation. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defamatory statements were false, damaging, and made with malice or negligence. When the aggrieved party seeks monetary compensation or a public apology to restore their reputation, they often pursue civil cases.

“Criminal defamation, on the other hand, involves treating defamation as a public wrong. Here, the state prosecutes the defendant, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offence and its impact. Criminal defamation emphasises deterrence, sending a clear message that slander carries severe consequences.”

But why was Farotimi’s case treated as a criminal matter and not a civil suit?

Defamation

Abejide explains: “Defamation remains actionable as both a civil and a criminal matter under Nigerian law,” enshrined in statutes and judicial precedents. Section 373 of Nigeria’s Criminal Code Act provides the framework for prosecuting criminal defamation, underscoring its significance in maintaining societal order and protecting individual reputations…

“Take the hypothetical scenario involving “Mr. Farotimi and Chief Afe Babalola,” a prominent figure based in Ado Ekiti. If defamatory material targeting Chief Afe Babalola originates in Lagos but affects his reputation, businesses, and personal relationships in Ekiti, the legal right to address the matter in Ekiti is unequivocal. The ‘theory of effect’ upholds the principle of establishing jurisdiction when the defamatory act yields tangible consequences.”

This explanation seems to neutralise the accusation by Farotimi’s teeming admirers who have seized the cyber superhighway by the jugular alleging that the lawyer was conspiratorially and illegally abducted from Lagos to Ado-Ekiti in a replay of the same kind of accusation of self-help he had made against Aare Babalola which caused the original problem. Why would his accuser use the state’s law enforcement machinery to “abduct” the accused to Ado-Ekiti if not as a result of collusion?

The arrest of the human rights advocate sparked so much public interest in his book, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System” to the extent that it became the bestseller on Amazon and Kindle, and also generated worldwide buzz on the internet.

However, in addition to the 16 counts of criminal defamation senior lawyer Babalola filed against him based on excerpts from the book before a chief magistrate’s court in Ado Ekiti, the police also filed new charges focusing on Farotimi’s comments in online interviews in which he reaffirmed allegations made in his book.

Two Camps

The arguments that Nigerians have marshalled can be categorised into two camps. Farotimi’s sympathisers are convinced that Babalola is using his connections as a top lawyer with high connections in government to intimidate a professional junior. Many senior professionals are, however, on the ABUAD founder’s side. Among them is Dr Olusegun Abejide who argues as follows:

“The case of Chief Afe Babalola serves as a cautionary tale for those who assume they can defame others with impunity. The notion that a defendant should be immune to prosecution outside the location of their act reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of legal principles. Just as defamatory material can damage a reputation globally, so too can its accountability transcend borders…

“Let this serve as a reminder: free speech is a right, but with every right comes responsibility. Defamation is recklessness, and those who walk it must be prepared to face the consequences when the aggrieved seek justice. In a world where words have power, let us wield them with care, respect, and an unwavering commitment to truth.”

But the masters of the trade used to counsel temperance in days gone by. Let’s take a story told of the respected jurist Dr. Akinola Aguda who had served as Chief Justice of Botswana and opened a legal consultancy service after retirement. As narrated by Richard Akinola: “He told me that two briefs he usually advised against were Defamation and Divorce matters, particularly if the person is old. According to him, at the hearing, lots of unpalatable things that people never knew about, may come up, to the embarrassment of the parties and their children. For instance, in defamation matters when your reputation is in question, a defendant is at liberty to bring up a dirty past the plaintiff may have forgotten.…”

Different Folks, Different Strokes

Akinola also recounted another option open to anyone who has been libelled. Call it the Gani Option and you wouldn’t be wrong. It was the option taken by the inimitable lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (now deceased) when his erstwhile friend, Dr Olu Onagoruwa, wrote a book titled, “A REBEL IN GENERAL ABACHA’S GOVERNMENT” to justify his serving in the Abacha government.

Fawehinmi wrote another book to counter the false assertions against him in Onagoruwa’s book.

While it is within the right of any individual to choose his right of action when defamed, the admonition of Dr Aguda is quite instructive. Let the sleeping dog snore!

Nuptial Bliss

Happy married life to Ololade Anifowose and Kolawole Olawale. Best wishes for nuptial bliss and continued happiness.

The question as to whether the law of defamation is a hindrance to freedom of speech and a curtailment to democratic norms confronted the Burkinabe, a few years ago. Lohe Issa Konaté was Burkina Faso, that landlocked West African country’s own Dele Farotimi. He was a journalist with the newspaper, L’Ouragan (The Hurricane). Like a tempestuous hurricane, on August 1, 2012, Konaté published a series of articles in the weekly newspaper attacking the conduct of a local prosecutor in a money counterfeiting matter. A week later, Konaté doubled down on this same allegation against the judicial system of Burkina Faso by writing a stinging piece on another matter instituted by the same prosecutor.

Like Farotimi, Konaté shot bullets of expletives, which included “rogue officer,” against the prosecutor while alleging corruption in the country’s judiciary. Angered by this against-method manner of publicly shaming the judicial system, the prosecutor promptly filed a complaint against Konaté through a defamation suit. In it, he alleged public insult and contempt of court against the journalist. Alongside these, the state also filed criminal charges against Konaté and sought damages. In October, 2012, Konaté was found guilty by an Ouagadougou High Court. He was then sentenced to one-year imprisonment, fined US $3000, and a US $9000 damages to be paid by him to the prosecutor. The court was not done yet. It suspended the L’Ouragan newspaper which published the articles for a period of six months. At the Ouagadougou Court of Appeal, the court upheld the judgment.

Dr. Kayode Fayemi, former governor of Ekiti State, last Thursday, in Ibadan, the capital of Oyo State, delivered a thought-provoking lecture to mark the 80th birthday of journalism colossus and Nigeria’s former ambassador to the Philippines, Dr. Yemi Farounbi. In the lecture, entitled “The Future and the Challenges of the Nigerian State”, Fayemi invoked the spirit of that ever-engaging locus-classicus book on Nigeria, The Famished Road, authored by Ben Okri. In it, Okri looks at the concept of nation-building as a generation-to-generation effort. Each generation possesses its own predilections, with which it confronts nationhood, he says. The generation that will take over from us is an impatient generation. It is the generation called the Gen Z. It was the generation whose impatience for excuses of previous generations goaded into trooping to the streets in what has now been known as the #EndSARS and #EndBadGovernance protests. It is fearless. It suffered yet-to-be-properly-enumerated casualties in the process. It is a defiant generation, what Yoruba call the esin-ò-ko’kú (the fly fears no death) generation.

In the lecture, Fayemi compares that generation to post-Apartheid generation of South Africa called the “Born free” generation. The generation literally carries no baggage and holds no captive. It is a generation that the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus was probably referring to when he said you cannot step into the same river twice. Everything happens for and to it at supersonic speed – inventions, technology etc. In Nigeria, that generation didn’t witness the orgy of military rule and a roulette of coups. It didn’t live to see the wickedness of rulers and servile, even if complicit following. One feature that hallmarks this generation is impatience with norms, long-held views, traditions, practices and orthodoxies.

Look at the Farotimi and Afe Babalola legal duel which is the main issue of discourse in Nigeria today. Take a look also at the huge swath of public opinion behind Farotimi. Not that Farotimi himself is a youth, properly defined, but he carries its anger, its venom and dis-alignment with the ruinous Nigerian status quo. You will locate impatience with orthodoxy in this horde of youthful supporters egging Farotimi on, in spite of his alleged violation of legal orthodoxy. The youth is not interested in the obsessive fascination of the generations before it with norms, whether legal, social or political.

While legal orthodoxy tells us about the ancient rules of defamation, even criminal defamation, and the boundaries that must not be crossed, the youth cares less. It asks brash, carelessly confounding, even if seismic questions. It asks, for instance, how those rules can help in fighting endemic corruption which, with its twin, bad rule, has conspired to under-develop Nigeria. The Nigerian judiciary, the youth is aware, is complicit in and has been known to be the imperial castle where corruption resides in Nigeria today. The youth doesn’t care if Farotimi’s allegations against Babalola are unfounded in law. It doesn’t care that Afe, a legal colossus, has the right to defend himself against this autumn tsunami which threatens to drown decades of his contributions to law and statesmanship. It doesn’t care that Afe is one of Nigeria’s greatest private investors in education. It just doesn’t care. Generations before this generation are the enemies of the youth, the Gen Z generation says.

If public opinion is the barometer for measuring guilt or innocence of action, check the social media: Afe Babalola is guilty as charged. I am not surprised that Babalola’s counsel, on Friday, chose to address a press conference on the matter, in disregard for the upbraid of Nigerian lawyers, especially senior lawyers’ penchant for discussing cases pending in the court, by Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Kuburat Kekere-Ekun. The CJN upbraided the lawyers during her screening in the senate in September. There, she decried senior lawyers’ declarative or authoritative pronouncements that border on the subjudice.

One of the beliefs by those against legal orthodoxy is that the law of defamation is anti-democratic and has served as bulwark against the fight against corruption. Taken in its totality, the defamation law has been held to constitute an impediment to the guarantee of rights to freedom of expression and a major shield against promotion of democratic virtues.

Among the major cancerous afflictions that Nigeria suffers today is corruption. Judicial corruption is its handmaiden. Corruption’s audacity and permeating influence are terrifying. It is almost an impossibility to get anything done in Nigeria without corrupting officials. All over the world, the renown of Nigerian institutions as beehive of corruption precedes any interface with them. Globally, Nigeria wears its maggots-laced badge as the place where the umbilical cord of corruption was buried. A pervasive stench culture of corruption and impunity reigns here. This culture is almost unanimously accepted as native to us, though it hinders effective governance and erodes public trust. The culture also kills enterprise, industry, talent and excellence, replacing them with mediocrities and reign of the adder-brained in public service.

Since the advent of colonial rule, so much fuss has been made about how ingrained corruption is in the heart of Africa. Some claim it is genetic since, even pre-colonial rule, African relations were watered by kleptocracy. Judicial corruption is king here. Though many attempts have been made to dress it in borrowed robes of euphemisms, judicial corruption is growing in leaps and bounds in Nigeria. In its bother about corruption in the house of justice, Transparency International affirms that all sectors of society rely on the courts to sanction corrupt officials, politicians, citizens and businesspeople, who steal resources and weaken integrity in public and private life. It maintains that, when the judicial system is corrupt, justice cannot be done and the whole society is done for.

As if bitten by the metaphysical bug the Yoruba call sìse-sìse – inexplicable constant errors – in June last year, Nigerian senator, Adamu Bulkachuwa, whose wife, Zainab, was judge and President of the Court of Appeal, publicly confessed to influencing his wife’s judicial decisions. He had said: “My wife, whose freedom and independence I encroached upon while (she) was in office, and she has been very tolerant and accepted my encroachment and extended her help to my colleagues.”

Miscarriage of justice by judicial officers and judicial corruption is not a new phenomenon in Nigeria. Hubert Ogunde’s famous play, Yòrùbá Ronú – Yoruba, think! – performed in 1964, though aimed as an attack on S. L. Akintola, Premier of the Western Region, was a damming review of intra-Yoruba relations where probity was becoming an anathema. Ogunde excoriated a phenomenon where the guilty are set free and the innocent are adjudged guilty “wón á gbé’bi f’áláre, wón á gb’áre f’élébi”. Earlier, in the 1962-published book, The Incorruptible Judge, written by D. Olu Adegoke, the concept of corruption was brought to the fore and how the judiciary can help tame it through its impartiality. The virus of compromise of court decisions has become cancerous today as it is generally believed to be a recurrent happening. That was why when Bulkachuwa confessed to the crime in the Nigerian parliament, without prodding, many Nigerians saw it as Karma fighting for the common man. But, what has happened ever since?

As stated above, many people are bothered that the law of defamation seems to excuse the excesses of the Nigerian elite. As it is constituted, it will be almost an impossibility for a defendant to substantiate corruption allegation against a public officer. There are also many real but unsubstantiated allegations of cahoots between judges and senior lawyers in perpetration of judicial corruption. You must be against method and possessing the wild spirit of the Gen Z generation to say this openly and pin names and faces to it. Corruption in the judiciary is however not an openly advertized bazaar. It is operated under cultic darkness by the parties. While lawyers know among themselves who and who are corrupt elements, lawyers also know pliable judges who can be bought for a price. It is to this set of people that they go when there is the need for mortgaging of conscience for a fee.

Both Farotimi and Afe Babalola, as lawyers, are aware that the vermin of corruption is destroying the judicial institution in Nigeria. However, if Farotimi does not have evidence that irresistibly points at the facts before making all those weighty allegations in his book, it will be the height of recklessness by any worshipper ever in the temple of justice. If he has evidence, it will be good for the sanity of the legal system and the expansion of democratic frontiers in Nigeria, especially in combating the demon of judicial corruption.

But, come to think of it, which institution in Nigeria is corruption-free? Are judges and lawyers not part of the corruption bug sucking the blood of Nigeria like a leech? Is journalism corruption-free? The other day, the EFCC said it seized 753 duplexes, its highest-ever recovery since its inception. The political class swims in sewage, bankers do and Nigeria in totality is one huge stinking sewer.

Legal orthodoxy does not support Farotimi. That is why many lawyers feel scandalized and horrified at the claims in his book, Nigeria and its criminal justice system. However, Farotimi represents the growing impatience with a reality that Nigerians know, are aware of the destruction it daily wreaks but are consigned into silence because of judicial orthodoxy. This orthodoxy spells out silence if the one who alleges does not have irrebutable evidence to buttress their claim. What Farotimi did with that book was to peer torch into the eyes of the leopard in the dark (gbé’ná wo’jú olóólá, ekùn). What he did, even if a mountainous animal like the elephant does it, the animal will get his horns twisted (ìwo è á ló!). Farotimi has figuratively entered a mythic forest called Forest of the Wicked, the “Igbó Òdájú.”

While entering this forest, the elders warn the faint-hearted not to dare come near them. The ones whose mothers have not weaned from suckling are exempted. Mothers are also warned to hold their children with a leash, lest they stray into the forest. It is a forest where flesh-eating animals inhabit – the leopards, lions, jackals and the Queen of fishes – Àrògìdìgbà. Farotimi’s matter is made worse because the judges who he alleged as recipients of the alleged bribe will sit in judgment over the matter. But if Farotimi survives in this task of breaking the coconut pod on his own head – and I pray he does – he may have begun a major revolution against corruption.

(Being Lecture delivered at the 6th General Assembly and Conference of the Association of African Public Service Commissions (AAPSCOMS) which was held in Nairobi, Kenya on 6-8 November, 2024)

We now live in a world that is daily undergoing what has been called a polycrisis—crisis situations that are not only fundamental, but are also interlinked in ways that affects several regions of the world. In administrative terms, the polycrisis define a VUCA—vulnerable, uncertain, complex and ambiguous—policy environment where governments have to anticipate challenges before they even happen. With the COVID-19 pandemic, public administrators and public managers are confronted with the contexts of a new normal in all aspects of public administration. And in maneuvering through the landmines of this new normal in governance, governments and administrative contexts all across the world depend significantly on public policy professionalism and expertise that ensure that what governments intends for their citizens are what get implemented by public servants. Successful governments all over the world, in other words, achieve good governance by paying critical attention to their public policy architecture.

Public policy indeed emerged as a fully developed field of study in the nineteen century, and within the context of a flurry of theoretical and practical development that came after the Second World War. Several contextual issues—the emergence of statistical analysis, management science, social science research methodologies, as well as the emergence of research institutes, policy schools and several think tanks—instigated a series of significant developments that consolidated policy analysis and policy-engaged research as a critical dimension of the policy inputs into government work and into public administration. By the time American universities began cooperating with think tanks, from the Brooking Institution to the Rand Corporation, policymakers, development workers, policy managers, public administrators and even policy researchers were all totally inundated within a robust policy ambience that generated seminars, workshops, public policy courses and discourses which enabled capacities to ground the policy process on solid evidence-based research protocols.

The public policy framework that we just sketched briefly above provides the handle by which the government in developed societies cumulate the benefits of their intellectual capital. This is the sense in which policymakers and researchers/academics collaborate to facilitate policy-research linkage that burrow into the transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of public policy research to ground development planning and good governance. Unfortunately, Africa’s contribution to the global public policy and research experience is almost next to nothing. What the current global framework demonstrates is that most African states fixate on the hardware of development in terms of infrastructural development indices—roads, schools, hospitals, etc.—with no critical attention to the intangibles that serve as the bedrock for development and governance itself, from human capital and the rule of law to institutional stability and the quality of education.

And to arrive at a cogent diagnosis of what had gone wrong with the failure of the continent to contribute to the global policy framework, we need to peer deep into the exogenous nature of the policy dynamics on the continent. Africa’s policy protocol is poor for three major reasons. The first is principally ideological—Africa’s insertion into and fixation with the Western neoliberal economic paradigm, and especially the Washington Consensus, that dictates supposedly universalist recommendations and conditionalities which are always at odds with local and regional economic and developmental realities. The second unfortunate reason that circumscribes Africa’s poor policy-research nexus is essentially political. It derives from the fact of bad politics that sees politicians formulating policies to satisfy clientelist interests and patronages, rather than fulfilling the social contract and servicing the common good. This is also further complicated by the stringent conditionalities that politicians and the political class needed to embed into the policy formulation framework that in the final analysis hurt public interest.

This political perspective undermines the technicist view of policy formulation and implementation as a straight and linear process. On the contrary, it is often smeared by political consideration that are not always salutary. The last reason has to do with the conflicting time frame that conditions the policy-research relationship. On the one hand, politicians and governments need a quick turnaround time on policy implementation that provides political capital, but on the other hand, policy researchers build their policy intelligence and recommendations on long-term incubation of policy ideas and paradigms for action. In other to undermine the gross uncertainties that often characterize policy design and implementation, policy must be preceded by research and intelligent evaluation and assessments.

Africa’s development is therefore caught in a bind. Given the macroeconomic shocks that have kept assailing the world before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, many African governments have failed (a) to ground the framework and protocols of their policymaking practices on economic and statistical rationalities; and (b) rather than exploring and exploiting local capacities to design and formulate policies that align with local interests and needs, many of these governments have ceded or outsourced the policy initiatives to donors to articulate solutions that are far from and sometimes totally disconnected from local realities. One sorry fact about the African policy management crisis is that a significant proportion of usable development statistics about African countries are generated and funded by foreign development agencies, from the World Bank to the United Nations. The chances of achieving success with such hastily drafted and non-indigenous policy recommendation becomes very low because it becomes top-down in ways that undermine the ability of the local population to own the policies.

Nigeria presents a rather symptomatic example of this general analysis. At the height of Nigeria’sfirst development plan after independence (1962 to 1968), the World Bank seconded Prof. Wolfgang Stolper as a technical adviser to assist with the design and implementation of the NDP. In 1966, Stolper penned his experiences in a book, Planning without Facts: Lessons in Resource Allocation from Nigeria’s Development. Stolper’s central experience which grounds his arguments in the book is that the first national development plan was articulated without the benefit of a data and statistical culture around which evidence-based development practices are founded. And so, given this paucity of data, development becomes a process of optimizing as one goes along. In other words, since there is no statistical analysis to optimize a long-run scientific projection, one is forced to depend on series of short-run decisions and planning that limits the extent of the future one can predict. This lack of statistical parameters makes sustainable development a mirage for policymakers. And it is therefore not surprising that from the first NDP (1962 to 1968) to the 1992-1994 rolling plan, Nigeria has barely been able to articulate a sustainable development that impacts good governance for Nigerians. And so, insecurity, terrorism, climate-change-induced disasters and macroeconomic challenges that other countries are managing with success go out of hand for Nigeria.

We can therefore conclude that Nigeria has been beating about the development bush because we lack a cogent understanding of what development demand—a strong collaboration between policymakers, researchers and think tanks. The policy-research linkage demands a significant relationship between the government and research institutes, tertiary institutions and think tanks that bring a certain sophistication to leadership and the change space of distributed leadership. This collaboration enables the leadership of a state navigate the VUCA administrative environment and the demands of a knowledge and technology society. And that linkage comes with its own unique peculiarity in the Nigerian policy space. On the one hand, consecutive governments in Nigeria don the toga of anti-intellectualism that sees the research industry as interlopers in the policy process rather than as staunch allies and stakeholders. While researchers do not often generate solutions to governance problems, they have the capacity to articulate different scenarios that enable government to better understand different problems that can enhance better policy choices. On the other hand, researchers and scholars also face significant challenges in their commitment to government policy demands. For example, such researchers stand the risk of lower scholarly performances in terms of academic parameters and scholarly rating. Indeed, such scholars also generate some level of suspicions as to the genuineness of their research findings.

Resolving the disconnect between policy and research on the continent demands some critical imperatives in terms of how policy and research are framed for governance and development purposes that connect policymakers, policy researchers and research centers and institutes. The core imperative is that policy management must be a cumulation of policy research, strategic intelligence and pragmatic statecraft cum intuition that scientifically and practically guide the path of governance projection. And this demands that government needs cogent collaborative plans that focus the research profile of research organizations and think tanks. This is crucial because these organizations, institutes and centers are usually torn between the imperatives of conducting research and the demand of generating policy intelligence and scenarios simply as publications to earn promotion. There is therefore the need for a blueprint that helps research institutes to maneuver between external partners, civil society organizations and the organized private sector in their mandate to mobilize resources, and the necessity of their autonomy as institutes and centers that generate objective and evidence-based data and statistical analyses that government can use.

The other dimension to the resolution of the policy-research disconnect is that research institutes and the universities need to also revisit their mandates and modus operandi. The town and gown initiative becomes an imperative that balances the need for research with the demand of development. The town-and-gown framework generate a dynamic of co-creation that expands the depth of what research implies. For instance, universities and tertiary institutions, as well as think tanks, can no longer ignore the fundamental implications of expanding the traditional content of who a faculty member is through the integration of the expertise of professors of practice and scholar-practitioners as a mean of jumpstarting a seamless interdisciplinary and interdependent policy-research partnerships. On their parts, the public service in African states must also invest enormously in the professionalization of planning and policy analysis departments. Such departments will be manned by a special core of experts and consultants that will lead the research onslaught into developing future research and scenario planning on what is needed to be done to make the public service to be world-class in spirit and in truth.

Professor Tunji Olaopa is a Professor of Public Administration & Chairman Federal Civil Service Commission, Abuja.

MORE facts have emerged on reasons behind the sealing off of the entrance gate leading to the palace of the Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi II, on Friday

Though the Nigeria Police were yet to speak on the matter, a reliable source disclosed that the action carried out by law enforcement agency was aimed at preventing the breakdown of law and orders in Bichi town where Emir Sanusi was scheduled to visit to install a district head for the town.

A source, who preferred anonymity, said that the residents of Bichi town had allegedly mapped out plans to prevent the installation from taking place.

The feelers were, however, not favourable to security operatives, as they swept into action to prevent the Emir of Kano from attending the programme.

It was also believed that the move was also taken to prevent eminent personalities from visiting Bichi town to attend the same event.

Sunday Tribune learnt that many residents of Bichi town were not happy about the planned installation, querying the rationale behind the idea of a district head.

Some residents who spoke with our correspondent felt that the planned installation was to demote the town.

According to them, when the five Emirate councils established by former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje were sacked by current Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, he [Governor Yusuf] went ahead to appoint second-class emirs for three of the sacked Emirate councils and excluded Bichi town.

Some of the residents said the reason for their planned resistance to the Friday’s installation was because the governor demoted their kingdom to be ruled by an ordinary district head while the others towns that were sacked alongside are now being ruled by second-class emirs.

Some stakeholders, who confided in Sunday Tribune, admitted that the police action could be a blessing in disguise as the situation could have caused a serious crisis in Bichi town which could escalate to many communities and state capital.

It will be recalled that as of 7 a.m. on Friday heavily armed policemen had taken over the entrance leading to Emir Sanusi’s Kofar Kudu palace.

[Tribune]

President Bola Tinubu has said things are taking shape for the better, even though people may not like his government.

He said amid the tough challenges in the country, his administration had made some progress, noting that there are better days ahead.

The President, who was represented by the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, made the remarks at the graduation ceremony for the Executive Intelligence Management Course 17 at the National Institute for Security Studies in Abuja, on Saturday,

He said, “Things are happening in our country today. People may not like us. They probably will disagree with one or two. But fundamentally, things are changing. And Nigeria will change.

“The economy is changing. Very tough, very difficult, very huge challenges we are facing. But I can assure you, better days are ahead of us,” he stated.

Tinubu also assured Nigerians of his administration’s commitment to ensuring security and stability in the country.

He said people with questionable character,  would face justice irrespective of where they live.

“If you are a bad man, whether you are inside Nigeria or outside, you are in trouble. We will go after you. We will bring you to justice,” he stated.

[DailyTrust]

The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has described the expulsion of the House of Representative member from Ideato North/Ideato South Federal Constituency of Imo State, Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, as null and void.

PDP National Working Committee, NWC, said Ugochinyere’s expulsion by his Ward chapter of the party was of no effect.

The PDP Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward chapter of the PDP had expelled Ugochinyere for gross indiscipline, insubordination and anti-party activities.

Ugochinyere’s expulsion was contained in a letter from the Ideato LGA chapter of PDP, dated December 5, 2024.

The letter was signed by the LG party chairman, ThankGod Okeke, and the secretary, Onyebuchi Umeh.

Ugochinyere’s expulsion followed the report of the party’s disciplinary committee, dated November 27, 2024, which investigated misconduct charges against him in line with Section 57 (1-4) of the PDP Constitution, 2017, as amended.

The lawmaker was initially suspended at his Umuopia/Umukegwu ward on October 14, 2024, after failing to honor an invitation to appear before the ward executive committee on October 5, 2024.

He was summoned to answer allegations of disciplinary offenses, and ignoring reminders and further invitations sent to him on October 7, 2024.

However, in a statement on Saturday, the PDP NWC insisted that Ugochinyere is a bonafide member of the party with all rights and privileges.

Parts of the statement, signed by PDP spokesman, Debo Ologunagba, read: “The attention of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) @OfficialPDPNig has been drawn to the purported expulsion of Hon. Ugochinyere Ikeagwuonu @IkengaImo from the Party by the Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward Chapter of the PDP in Imo State.

“The NWC declares the said purported expulsion as null and void and of no effect, not being consistent with the express provision of Sections 57 (7) and 59 (3) of the Constitution of the PDP (as amended in 2017) and laid down Rules of our great Party.”

The party relied on Section 57 (7) of its Constitution to affirm Ugochinyere’s continued membership.

Meanwhile, the LG chairmen of the PDP in Imo State at the weekend named Ugochinyere the leader of the party in the state.

Ugochinyere is the highest ranking government official elected on the PDP platform in Imo State.

The Imo PDP local government leaders, who passed vote of confidence on Ugochinyere, also insisted that the party’s acting national chairman, Umar Damagun, and national secretary, Samuel Anyanwu, should be immediately removed to pave way for the reinvigoration of the opposition party.

[DailyPost]