That Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission and Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, scion of stormy petrel of Ibadan’s 1950s politics, Adegoke “Penkelemesi” Adelabu, could conspire to place University College Hospital, or “Oritamefa,’ in financially suffocating Band A premium electricity market segment is a wicked act against the minister’s fellow Ibadan citizens.

It shows that NERC, the minister, and the government they serve have no human feelings. Anyone who puts “Oritamefa” in disgraceful and dire straits and compromises its services to the Ibadan community has done the same grade of psychological damage that those who rested Kingsway Stores did to the Baby Boomer generation of Nigeria.

UCH, to those who may not know, is a folksy rock star institution to the Ibadan, nay, the old Western Nigeria, of a period spanning the closing years of the colonial era, the First Republic, the Second Republic, and the first of the misguided military regimes in Nigeria’s chequered political history.

UCH, the oldest university teaching hospital in Nigeria, established in 1952, was initially quartered at the Eleyele fort of the West Africa Frontier Force that fought in Burma during the Second World War. Construction of its current site, started in 1953, was completed on November 20, 1957.

With hospital beds estimated at 1,000 and nearly 7,000 workers, UCH, host of the older University of Ibadan College of Medicine that was established in 1948, is reputed to have been the preferred hospital of Saudi Arabia’s ruling house in the 1960s and 1970s. Now that the old landmarks have collapsed, the Saudi royals will never subject their health to the care of UCH.

It must be stated, as many times as it is necessary, that the failure of Nigeria’s electricity sector is largely from the national grid, owned and operated 100 per cent by the Transmission Company of Nigeria, which is, in turn, owned 100 per cent by the Federal Government of Nigeria on behalf of the mythical public interest.

Reports indicate that the damn thing has broken down more than 10 times in 2024 alone and more than 100 times, from the days of the government of President Muhammadu Buhari, Sai Gaskiya, and Seriki Integrity, that was swept into office in 2015 through the auspices of a special-purpose political vehicle called the All Progressives Congress.

The problem of the national grid doesn’t look as if it is going to go away very soon when you consider the bumbling and rambling that Coach Fanny Amun would have described as “wobbling and fumbling” of the managers of Nigeria’s electricity sector.

A viral amateur video shows some UCH patients, after enduring seventeen days without electricity, protesting, from their wards to the offices of the staff, to demand, in Yoruba, “E tan ina fun wa. Ee fun wa ni ina, ee fun wa l’omi. UCH, e ma pa wa. E lo san owo ina. Aa kii se eranko.”

If roughly translated into English, it would be: “Give us light. You didn’t give us light; you didn’t even give us water. UCH (management), do not kill us. Go and pay your outstanding electricity bill. We are not animals!

An overwhelmed, but unidentified, officer tried to assuage the protesting patients who switched off the lights (probably provided by generators) in his office, apparently to “democratise” the absence of electricity. He lapsed into a mix of Yoruba and English.

He went: “Now, nwon a lo wa solution sii. But, oro ina, o ti koja agbara ibi yi. Ki NEPA maa mu bill N88, N99 million! Ki awa na ba ara wa so ooto oro. Eni to ye ka pariwo si, oun ni awon Abuja ti nwon so pe nwon maa fun wa ni 50 per cent, ti nwon de se. Se o ti ye nyin bayi? So, e lo calm down.”

Translation: “They’ll go find a solution. But the matter is beyond this place. Imagine NEPA (the name of the government-owned electricity company before partial privatisation of the electricity sector), bringing N88, N99 million monthly electricity bill.

“Let’s also tell ourselves the truth. The one that deserves a protest is Abuja (the Federal Government), which undertook to pay 50 per cent of our electricity bill but failed to do so. Do you understand my explanation? Now, go and calm down.”

After the kerfuffle, Oladayo Olabampe, Chairman, Joint Action Committee of UCH trade unions, gave a Television Continental anchor person a more elaborate explanation of what led to the protest by the “sick” patients, if you will permit the redundancy.

It is just a way of borrowing the double superlative literary device of William Shakespeare, who coined the expression “the most unkindest cut,” to drive home the point that even so-called loyalist and closest friend, Brutus, plunged his dagger into the chest of Julius Caesar.

Olabampe explained: “The reason we find ourselves in this situation is… when you manufacture a product that (the elite) don’t consume… The problem we have with the sector is that… our governments do not patronise our hospital… and so we are left in the hands of manipulators (like Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company) who bring power bills that they like.

“Imagine power (bill) running into… N99 million… Where are we going to get such money from? When they were bringing N40, N50 (million) before they started the upgraded power bills, we were not able to sustain it.

“While we were battling with that, they said they put us in Band A, and that made the bill skyrocket. From N50, N40 million, we come to N80, N88, N99 million (monthly electricity bill). There is no way we can cope.”

If relatives of Minister Adelabu, who still remain in his native Ibadan hometown for the obvious reason that not every one of them will be able to live the luxurious life of a minister with him in Abuja, were among the wailing patients of the UCH, one wonders if he would not have been overwhelmed by the pathos and found an immediate solution to the problem.

He probably has no way to empathise with these poor patients and their scared relatives because his Abuja residence and office, the premises of his NERC and that of IBEDC, and the Aso Rock Villa residence of his principal, the President, and ministries, departments, and agencies of government have generators, euphemistically referred to as “off-grid sources of electricity!”

Well, if you have not noticed, “Oritamefa,” which means a crossroad of six roads, is an apt metaphor for the choices that must be made for Nigeria’s comatose healthcare delivery system. As it is with “oritamefa,” so it is with Nigeria’s healthcare delivery system.

By the way, what and who is responsible for the appearance of allocations for construction and equipping of intensive care units and amenity centres in Ijero Ekiti, Efon Alaye, and Aramoko, all in Ekiti State Central Senatorial Zone of Senate Majority Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, in the budgetary provisions of University College Hospital, Ibadan?

If medical doctors, Prof. Ali Pate, Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, and Dr. Tunji Alausa, Minister of Education, can find a common ground to “resuscitate” “Oritamefa,” they could find a solution that runs through both the healthcare and the education sectors of Nigeria.

And the three attributes of Nigerian workers—energy, skills, and time—would have been further enhanced.

As Nigerians woke up today, November 20, 2024, the airwaves and social media are abuzz with warm tributes and fond memories of a man whose name has become synonymous with a calm demeanor and democratic tolerance, former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. On this special day, this writer and all his readers and well-wishers across the globe celebrate a leader whose prophecy about his presidency and its significance resonates even louder today.  

Goodluck Jonathan once famously remarked: “You will miss me when I leave office.” At the time, many dismissed this as a self-serving statement. However, nearly a decade since he left office, his words now seem almost prophetic. For many Nigerians grappling with the socio-economic realities of today, his tenure increasingly feels like a bygone era of relative economic stability, freedom of expression, and national unity.  

Today, as Dr. Jonathan celebrates his 66th birthday, the fondness for his time in office is palpable. Nigerians remember a president who, despite his imperfections, prioritized the welfare of the people and made difficult decisions to preserve the country’s fragile unity.  

Jonathan’s tenure (2010–2015) was not without challenges, but it was marked by strides in key areas of national development. Among his administration’s most notable accomplishments were education reform, agricultural transformation, and infrastructural development, freedom of expression, and concession of power.    

In fact, the establishment of 12 new federal universities remains one of Jonathan’s lasting legacies. By increasing access to higher education, he expanded opportunities for young Nigerians and reduced the pressure on existing institutions.  

In a similar vein, under Jonathan’s leadership, Nigeria witnessed significant improvements in agriculture through the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA). The initiative reduced the country’s reliance on food imports and empowered farmers with better resources.  

His administration made notable investments in power generation and infrastructure. Projects like the reconstruction of major roads and airports symbolized progress in addressing Nigeria’s infrastructure deficit.  

Besides, Jonathan’s tolerance for dissent was remarkable. Despite criticisms from opposition parties, media outlets, and even ordinary Nigerians, he upheld democratic principles, allowing freedom of speech to thrive.  

Without a doubt, his legacy that deeply resonated in this writer’s subconscious is that of his concession of power particularly as it engendered a smooth and peaceful transition of government. In fact, the hallmark of Jonathan’s leadership was his decision to concede defeat in the 2015 presidential election. This singular act not only averted potential chaos but also cemented Nigeria’s democracy in the eyes of the global community. His words, “My ambition is not worth the blood of any Nigerian, “remain etched in the country’s political history.  

The nostalgia for Jonathan’s presidency grows stronger against the backdrop of Nigeria’s current economic and political challenges. Spiraling inflation, insecurity, and a general sense of disillusionment have left many Nigerians yearning for the leadership style of the man they once took for granted.  

His ability to unify the country, even during trying times, stands in stark contrast to the divisions and tensions that characterize contemporary politics. As Nigerians reflect on the state of the nation today, many cannot help but compare it to the relative stability of Jonathan’s era.  

Beyond politics, Jonathan has continued to embody the qualities of a statesman. As an envoy and mediator for the African Union and ECOWAS, he has worked tirelessly to promote peace and democracy across the continent. His interventions in crises in Mali, Gambia, and other countries underscore his commitment to fostering harmony in Africa.  

Jonathan’s quiet but impactful post-presidency life serves as an example to current and aspiring leaders. He demonstrates that leadership does not end with the expiration of a term in office, it is a lifelong commitment to service and nation-building.  

On this occasion of your 66th birthday, I say: Happy Birthday, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan! Nigerians remember you fondly, not only for what you accomplished but for the grace and humility with which you led. Your tenure taught us the importance of dialogue over division, compassion over conflict, and nationhood over narrow interests.  

As you celebrate another year of life, we want you to know that your legacy endures. Many Nigerians now see the wisdom in your words: “You will miss me when I leave office.” Today, more than ever, we understand the weight of that statement and the truth it carries.  

For this writer, and not a few Nigerians, Jonathan’s birthday is not just a time to celebrate; it is also a moment for introspection. It is an opportunity to ask critical questions about the kind of leadership we need to navigate our current challenges and build a better future.  

Goodluck Jonathan may no longer be in office, but his legacy reminds us that leadership is ultimately about service, sacrifice, and an unwavering commitment to the people.  

Once again, I say: Happy Birthday, Dr. Jonathan. You are missed, appreciated, and celebrated. May your new year be filled with good health, joy, and continued impact as a global Statesman.

A few weeks ago, President Bola Tinubu ordered the immediate termination of the treason charge against 119 protesters standing trial for treason arising from the August 1-8, 2024 protests against bad governance and hardship in the country. Consequently, the Attorney-general of the Federation, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi SAN applied for the withdrawal of the charges. Since there was no objection from the defence counsel, the case was struck out by Justice Obioma Egwatu. It is pertinent to review the attempted criminalization of peaceful protests in Nigeria by a governments that is completely intolerant of criticism in a democratic society.

Right of citizens to protest

The fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens to assemble and protest against unpopular policies of governments are guaranteed by Section 39 and 40 of the Constitution as well as Articles 9 and 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, 2004. In the case of the Inspector General of Police v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2008) 22 WRN 65, the Court of Appeal declared police permit for rallies illegal and unconstitutional and directed the National Assembly to amend the Public Order Act to facilitate the enjoyment of the fundamental right to peaceful protests by aggrieved citizens.

While the National Assembly ignored the directive of the Court of Appeal, the police and other security forces intensified the infringement of the right of Nigerians to protest against governments and other public authorities. However, the right to protest by Nigerians was statutorily protected in the 2015 Amendment of the Electoral Act 2010. Furthermore, section 83(4) of the Police Establishment Act 2020 has imposed a duty on the Nigeria Police Force to provide adequate security for protesters during rallies, meetings and protests.

Breach of the right to protest against bad governance

In a brazen violation of the right of Nigerians to assemble and freely voice out their views on bad governance and rising cost of living in the country, the Federal Government and several state governments embarked on a campaign of calumny against the organisers of the August 2024 protests. When the vicious campaign did not achieve its dubious objective, the Federal Government threatened to deal ruthlessly with the organisers of the protest. Out of sheer desperation, the Lagos and Ogun states governments as well as the federal capital territory administration surreptitiously secured ex parte orders to stop the protest.

For having the temerity to participate in the protest, the police and the armed forces shot at many unarmed protesters. At the end of the protest, not less than 22 protesters were killed. Thus, the deliberate refusal of the police to provide adequate security for the protesters and the unwarranted killing of some of the protesters led to the violence that marred the peaceful protests in some states.

However, before the protest was called off, President Bola Tinubu said that the Federal Government had heard the protesters loud and clear and would enter into dialogue with the leaders. Notwithstanding the presidential declaration, the police turned round to commence the prosecution of the over 2,000 protesters that were arrested in several states.

Criminalization of protest

Even though charges were filed against a number of protesters in some state capitals, the Nigeria Police Force decided to arraign 130 protesters including 29 minors on 10 counts, including treason, incitement to mutiny by urging the military to remove President Bola Tinubu and other related charges before the Abuja judicial division of the Federal High Court. Notwithstanding that section 2(4) of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2022 states that a protest, demonstration or stoppage of work is not a terrorist act, the police sought and obtained an ex parte order to detain the suspects for 60 days for the purpose of investigating them for alleged involvement in terrorism.

Alhough the police had secured an order to detain the suspects for 60 days, they were held for 92 days before they were arraigned in the Federal High Court. Among the suspects were 29 children who were malnourished and dehydrated during their arraignment. Owing to hunger and exhaustion in the congested court room, four minor defendants collapsed and they were rushed to a hospital.  

Illegal arraignment of children in the Federal High Court

In 2001, Nigeria ratified the United Nations Child’s Rights Convention and enacted the Child’s Rights Act in 2003. We have confirmed that the 36 states of the federation have adopted and enacted the legislation. Thus, under the Child’s Rights Law applicable in each State, child offenders under the age of 18 years cannot be charged in the Federal High Court or State High Court but in the Family Court.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi SAN, was reported to have said that the minors were properly charged before the Federal High Court because the Constitution makes it clear that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction in matters related to treason and related offenses. With respect,  the Federal High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to try  treason and related offences.

Even if there was a reasonable suspicion that the minors committed treason they ought to have been  arraigned  in a Family Court pursuant to section 149 of the Child’s Rights Act. But contrary to the Child’s Rights Act applicable in the Federal Capital Territory, the minors were charged with treason at the Federal High Court after they had been detained in the midst of hardened criminal suspects in the anti robbery detention facility in Abuja. Even though they pleaded not guilty to the charge, the arraignment of the minors is illegal in every material particular.

Phoney evidence to prove treason charge

It is trite that under the Penal Code and Criminal Code, treason is committed by anyone who levies war against the state to intimidate the President or a State Governor or who conspires to levy war against the state. The charge of treason filed by the police did not allege that the suspects raised any war or conspired to levy war against the President and State Governors.  The main offence allegedly committed by the suspects arrested is that they displayed the Russian flag during the protest. A tailor who was sewing the flag was arrested by the police.

The police Prosecutor ought to have known that it is not a criminal offence to waive a foreign flag in Nigeria. Hence, the flags of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany and other European countries are hoisted by the majority of hotels in Nigeria while churches hoist the flag of Israel based on the erroneous belief that it is a Christian country.

Seven Polish students were arrested for taking photographs during the protest. They were going to be charged with espionage to give the impression that the protests were instigated by foreign interest groups. The students have since been released when it was confirmed that they are taking part in an exchange programme at the Bayero University, Kano.  

As if such embarrassment was not enough, Comrade Michael Adaramoye was charged with treason because he answers to the sobriquet “Lenin”. Comrades Elejo Opaluwa and Mosiu Abolaji were equally charged with treason for belonging to a socialist organisation that supported the protest. Povey was charged with treason because he sells socialist books in a bookshop at the Secretariat of the Nigerian Labour Congress.

In a total abuse of prosecutorial powers the police had wanted to prove the grave charge of treason evidence with two fire extinguishers, two prepaid meters, 76 Russian flags and the statements of the defendants. During the investigation the police claimed that it had evidence of

the billions of Naira with which a  British national, Andrew Wynne (a.k.a. Andrew Povich) had funded the protest. Even though Mr. Whyne was declared wanted and charged for treason in absentia, the proof of evidence does not refer to the billions of Naira allegedly spent by him on the protest.

Trivialisation of treason in Nigeria

It is often forgotten that after the military conquest of Nigeria, the British colonial regime imposed the Criminal Code and Penal Code on the southern and northern protectorates respectively.  The offences of treason and treasonable felony were set out in both Codes. But the imperial regime never charged any of the “natives” with treason or treasonable felony for calling for an end to colonialism. Even when  the Zikists called for a revolution in the course of a 1948 lecture they were only charged with sedition, tried, convicted and sentenced to three  years imprisonment.

But the first civilian regime charged J.S. Tarka and his political lieutenants with treason.  They were discharged and acquited. Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his political associates were charged with treasonable felony, convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Since then, the country has witnessed a complete trivialisation of treason in the hands of civilian and military wings of the Nigerian ruling class.

The Ibrahim Babangida military junta went to the ridiculous extent of charging five of us with treasonable felony for calling for an end to military rule. Of course, the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN and I, turned the case into the trial of General Babangida and his armed colleagues who had sacked the elected Shehu Shagari administration on  December 31,  1983. The junta had no choice but to abandon the frivolous charge.

Babangida’s comrade-in-arms, General Sani Abacha, made a complete mockery of the law by charging every imaginary enemy with treason. For declaring himself President on the basis of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by him, Bashorun M.K.O Abiola was charged with treasonable felony. Shortly thereafter, General Abacha authorised that Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu (now President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) and 5 other Senators be charged with treasonable felony for demanding  the validation of the results of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election. 4 journalists who exposed the 1995 phantom coup were charged with being “accessories after the fact of treason.”

Ironically, President Bola Tinubu who had fled the country to escape the death penalty under a murderous dictator has allowed the police to charge protesters including minors with treason for challenging the untold economic hardship arising from the religious implementation of neoliberal economic policies dictated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But for the abrupt termination of the treason charge because of the global condemnation of the trial of child protesters for treason, the regime would have prayed the Federal High Court to convict and sentence 130 Nigerians for exercising their fundamental rights to assemble peacefully and express themselves via the August 2024 protest.

Conclusion

From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that the Federal Government set out to use the case of the 130 protesters to discourage Nigerian people from protesting against the harsh living conditions. Since the plan has since boomeranged the Federal Government should be advised to appreciate that charging protesters with terrorism, treason, treasonable felony and allied offences will not cow Nigerians to submission.  

Instead of exposing the country to avoidable shame by charging protesters with a crime punishable by death, the police should  be directed to comply with the law by providing adequate security for protesters. That is the only means of ensuring that protests are conducted in a peaceful and civilised manner within the ambit of the law.

In a democracy, trust in the electoral process is the bedrock upon which all other elements of governance rest. Without a credible, independent, and transparent electoral system, the foundation of democracy crumbles, leaving citizens disillusioned and governance compromised. This is precisely the context in which Nigeria finds itself today, as calls for electoral reforms and leadership changes at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) intensify. At the forefront of these calls is former President Olusegun Obasanjo, whose recent recommendations for a leadership overhaul of INEC have sparked widespread discussion.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, it is expedient to recall that former President Olusegun Obasanjo, during the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University, called for urgent reforms in Nigeria’s electoral system. He emphasized the need to appoint new, credible leaders for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with shorter tenures to reduce corruption and rebuild public trust.

In his keynote address titled “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria,” Obasanjo criticized the 2023 general elections, labeling them a “travesty.” He advocated for rigorous vetting of INEC officials to ensure non-partisan appointments and stressed that the INEC chairperson must be independent, transparent, and above reproach.

Obasanjo also recommended implementing strict financial regulations for political campaigns to enhance transparency. He emphasized protecting the electoral process from both local and foreign interference and called for securing the technology infrastructure used in elections to prevent manipulation.

The former president accused INEC of intentionally failing to utilize the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) and election viewing portal (IReV) during the 2023 elections, which he argued contributed to widespread irregularities. Obasanjo suggested that these technologies, which had previously been lauded for their potential to ensure transparency, were deliberately sidelined, undermining the credibility of the election.

Given the state of Nigeria’s current political landscape, it is essential to examine why Obasanjo’s call deserves serious consideration and how a change in the leadership of INEC could potentially re-establish public trust in the electoral system.

Former President Obasanjo, known for his outspokenness on matters of national interest, has consistently advocated for credible elections as the only route to sustainable democracy in Nigeria. In his recent remarks, he expressed deep concern over the performance of INEC under its current leadership, pointing to a series of lapses in the 2023 general elections. The discrepancies, delays, and widespread allegations of electoral malpractice have left many Nigerians questioning the integrity of the electoral body. Obasanjo’s call for a change in INEC’s leadership is not just a critique but a plea for urgent reforms to safeguard Nigeria’s fragile democracy.

Nigeria’s electoral body, like any institution, thrives on trust and competence. Unfortunately, recent elections have shown that INEC is struggling to maintain these virtues. The 2023 elections, which were supposed to be a showcase of improved technology and efficiency, were instead marred by controversies surrounding the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the electronic transmission of results. Reports of technical glitches, coupled with allegations of voter suppression and ballot box snatching, further eroded confidence in the process.

In a country where elections have historically been contentious, the failure of INEC to ensure transparency and fairness only deepens the already pervasive distrust among citizens. When an institution as critical as INEC appears compromised or incompetent, it undermines the very essence of democracy, leaving citizens with little faith in the electoral outcomes.

A leadership change at INEC could serve as the first step toward rebuilding public trust. Obasanjo’s call for new leadership is not merely a demand for change for the sake of change but rather a call for a fresh approach to election management. The current leadership, under Professor Mahmood Yakubu, has faced numerous criticisms over its inability to deliver on its promises of free, fair, and credible elections. While there may have been significant improvements in voter registration and the deployment of technology, these efforts are meaningless if they do not translate into credible electoral outcomes.

Replacing the leadership with individuals who have proven integrity and competence could breathe new life into INEC, restoring public confidence and ensuring that future elections are not just a formality but a genuine expression of the people’s will.

In established democracies, the integrity of electoral bodies is non-negotiable. Nations like Ghana, South Africa, and India have managed to build electoral systems that inspire confidence by prioritizing competence and transparency. Leadership in these countries’ electoral commissions is not only about technical expertise but also about a commitment to fairness and accountability.

Nigeria can draw lessons from these examples. A change in INEC’s leadership, coupled with reforms to strengthen the institution’s independence and transparency, could set the stage for a more credible electoral process. The goal should be to establish an INEC that is insulated from political pressures, one that upholds the sanctity of the ballot box as sacrosanct.

While Obasanjo’s call is significant, it should not be seen as a partisan move but rather as a call to action for all stakeholders. The Nigerian government, civil society organizations, and international partners must work together to address the structural weaknesses within INEC. This should include a thorough review of the 2023 elections, with a focus on identifying what went wrong and implementing recommendations to prevent future failures.

Furthermore, Nigeria’s political class must recognize that democracy is not merely about winning elections but about ensuring that the process is free, fair, and credible. Until the leadership of INEC is strengthened, the country risks descending further into electoral chaos, with the potential for violence and civil unrest.

Obasanjo’s call for a leadership change at INEC is not a witch hunt but a necessary step toward restoring trust in Nigeria’s electoral process. The expediency of such a change cannot be overstated, as it is crucial for the survival of democracy in the country. Without an electoral system that citizens believe in, the legitimacy of any government that emerges will always be in question.

The time for rhetoric is over; what Nigeria needs now are decisive actions to strengthen its democracy. A change in INEC’s leadership, along with comprehensive reforms, is a step in the right direction. Only then can Nigeria hope to restore faith in its democratic institutions and ensure that the will of the people is genuinely reflected in the outcomes of its elections.