Latest News
OTHERS' VIEWS
[OPINION] Senator Nwaebonyi’s Bullying Behavior Amplifies Natasha Akpoti-Udughan’s Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Male Suppression – Akpabio, You’re Only Making It Worse - John Egbeazien Oshodi
Admin![[OPINION] Senator Nwaebonyi’s Bullying Behavior Amplifies Natasha Akpoti-Udughan’s Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Male Suppression – Akpabio, You’re Only Making It Worse - John Egbeazien Oshodi](/media/k2/items/cache/dfa1ce7ddf2630f2c7cf41d2ae4d2e1b_L.jpg)
The recent altercation between Senator Onyekachi Nwaebonyi, senator representing the state of Ebonyi North, and former Education Minister Oby Ezekwesili during a Senate committee hearing has drawn significant attention to broader concerns surrounding gender dynamics, emotional regulation, and professional conduct in Nigeria’s political sphere. The aggressive outburst by Nwaebonyi has further reinforced the perception that male-dominated political institutions continue to suppress and harass women, especially those like Ezekwesili and Akpoti-Udughan who challenge the status quo. This incident, coupled with the ongoing sexual harassment allegations against Senate President Godswill Akpabio by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Udughan, paints a disturbing picture of the power dynamics at play.
The Gendered Nature of Power Struggles in Politics
At the heart of the altercation is a familiar power dynamic in many political systems: the male-dominated nature of power and the corresponding tendency to suppress, belittle, or dismiss the voices of women, particularly those who challenge the status quo. Women in positions of power, like Ezekwesili and Akpoti-Udughan, often find themselves navigating a system that was historically designed to exclude them. The comments made by Senator Nwaebonyi during the exchange—calling Ezekwesili a “fool” and “an insult to womanhood”—seem to epitomize the unchecked aggression and misogyny that too often characterizes the treatment of women in Nigerian politics. This not only underscores the rampant gender inequality but also reinforces the culture of silence and submission that women in politics are often forced into.
From a therapeutic perspective, this aggression can be seen as a manifestation of toxic masculinity—an ingrained cultural belief that men should dominate political spaces and that women’s voices, regardless of their expertise or experience, should be silenced. When a male politician responds to a woman’s call for order with such hostility and verbal abuse, it reflects not only personal animosity but also a broader societal issue where the contributions of women are undervalued. This is compounded by a system where power, control, and dominance are prioritized over empathy, respect, and collaboration—values that are crucial for any functional democracy.
The Role of Emotional Regulation and Professionalism
The exchange between Nwaebonyi and Ezekwesili also sheds light on the lack of emotional regulation and professionalism in Nigeria’s political discourse. Nwaebonyi’s response, fueled by anger, aggression, and a complete disregard for the decorum expected of a public official, points to deeper issues within the political system that discourage self-reflection and emotional maturity. In therapeutic settings, individuals are encouraged to develop emotional regulation strategies that allow them to manage their responses to stress and conflict in a healthy and constructive manner. Public figures, especially politicians, have a responsibility to model emotional control, as their behavior sets the tone for public discourse.
During the confrontation, another female present urged Nwaebonyi to “take it easy” as he launched ugly and demeaning words at Ezekwesili. Nwaebonyi, however, flung her hand away twice when she attempted to intervene, a clear sign of his refusal to listen or engage in a more controlled manner. Meanwhile, another male, acting on the chairman’s instructions, tried to mute Nwaebonyi’s microphone due to the loudness of his outbursts. However, Nwaebonyi reactivated the microphone, continuing his verbal assault without pause. Even when the chairman was banging his gavel in an attempt to restore order, Nwaebonyi remained defiant. These actions not only underscored his complete lack of self-control but also revealed a blatant disregard for the rules of conduct expected in a professional environment. Nwaebonyi’s refusal to calm down, even when his microphone was muted by the committee chairman, further highlights a lack of respect for institutional authority and a disregard for the standards of conduct that should govern such proceedings. His refusal to back down, his refusal to take responsibility for his actions, and his continued verbal assault on Ezekwesili escalated the situation and diverted attention away from the serious matter at hand—the sexual harassment allegations involving Akpabio and Akpoti-Udughan. Instead of focusing on the pressing issues that the committee was convened to address, the proceedings became consumed by personal conflict and emotional volatility.
Even If Ezekwesili Provoked Him, Why Such Aggression?
Even if Ezekwesili’s comments had provoked or irritated Senator Nwaebonyi, many questioned why he resorted to such a full-blown aggression, hurling insult upon insult. The level of hostility displayed by the senator went far beyond what could be considered a reasonable response. While it’s understandable that comments can sometimes trigger strong emotional reactions, the magnitude of Nwaebonyi’s response raised serious concerns. Even if her words had annoyed him, his reaction was disproportionate and far from appropriate for a public official in such a formal setting.
The video captured Nwaebonyi’s inability to control his emotions, as his verbal aggression spiraled to the point of demeaning and disrespecting Ezekwesili in an entirely unprofessional manner. His insults, calling her a “big fool” and saying she was “an insult to womanhood,” were excessive and unwarranted. This response highlights the lack of emotional regulation and a disregard for the decorum expected in political settings, especially when addressing women in leadership roles. The aggression shown by Nwaebonyi was not simply a reaction to a comment—it was an escalation that disregarded all forms of professionalism, undermining the integrity of the committee hearing.
The Underlying Power Struggles and Male Privilege
The clash between Nwaebonyi and Ezekwesili is also indicative of the underlying power struggles that continue to play out in Nigerian politics. Nwaebonyi’s actions reflect a deep-seated belief in male privilege—a belief that men are entitled to dominate the political space and that women, even when they are experts in their field or hold public office, should not challenge male authority. This perception of male entitlement can be traced back to Nigeria’s patriarchal society, where men have historically occupied positions of power and women have had to fight for even a seat at the table.
Nwaebonyi’s behavior is all the more concerning given his position as a “star witness” for Senate President Akpabio in the ongoing sexual harassment case. Akpabio himself has come under scrutiny for his treatment of women in politics, and Nwaebonyi’s actions only add to the perception that the male-dominated Senate continues to operate with little regard for gender equity. As a key figure in the proceedings, Nwaebonyi’s behavior undermines the calls for greater fairness and transparency, casting a shadow over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims.
Furthermore, Nwaebonyi’s actions echo a broader issue within the Senate, where, out of 109 members, only four are women. This glaring underrepresentation speaks volumes about the systemic barriers women face in Nigerian politics. Even as Akpabio’s conduct is being challenged, Nwaebonyi’s actions reinforce the deeply entrenched gender biases within the Senate. In an environment where women are already vastly outnumbered, it becomes even more crucial for men in power to set an example of respect, professionalism, and emotional maturity.
The Impact on Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Case and the Need for Institutional Reform
For Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who has already faced significant challenges in her fight for justice, the altercation only serves to further validate her claims of harassment and the systemic barriers that women face in Nigerian politics. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition against Akpabio, alleging sexual harassment and abuse of power, highlights the entrenched gender inequalities that continue to pervade Nigerian political institutions. The verbal assault by Nwaebonyi against Ezekwesili only adds fuel to her complaints, further reinforcing the narrative of women being subjected to both overt and covert forms of harassment and discrimination.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case, now being followed globally through news coverage, has raised the volume of her calls for systemic reform. As she has described the Senate as a “cult” that is “anti-female” and “hostile to women,” the recent altercation further affirms her stance. The video of Nwaebonyi’s actions reinforces her claims, demonstrating how the very same toxic culture she’s been fighting against continues to thrive, unchecked and unchallenged. Natasha is now being seen all over the world on global television, highlighting these deep-seated problems. This reinforces the need for institutional reform to tackle the gender-based discrimination that has become so entrenched in Nigerian politics.
The global attention on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case has shone a light on these systemic issues, but real reform is needed. This reform must address the deep-rooted culture of misogyny within Nigerian political institutions and ensure that women are given equal opportunities to participate and thrive in politics. The Senate must prioritize creating an environment where women are not only heard but respected, and where their rights are protected from the pervasive culture of male privilege and power.
The Need for Emotional Regulation in Politics
From a therapeutic perspective, addressing the issues at hand requires not only holding individuals accountable for their actions but also fostering an environment where emotional regulation, respect, and empathy are prioritized. Therapy can play a significant role in helping individuals in power—such as senators and public officials—recognize and address their emotional responses, as well as the biases that influence their interactions with others. In order for true progress to be made, there must be a commitment to changing the entrenched systems of power that perpetuate gender inequality.
Therapy for All: Nwaebonyi, Akpabio, and the Senate
It is also evident that there needs to be a broader discussion on therapy and emotional regulation within Nigerian political institutions. Nwaebonyi, Akpabio, and the almost entirely male-dominated Senate of 109 members, with only four women, all require therapy in different areas. This therapy would address not just emotional regulation, but also the internalized biases that perpetuate male dominance, silencing women’s voices, and fostering an environment where power is wielded without empathy or respect.
Breaking the Cycle of Gender Inequality
The incident involving Senator Nwaebonyi and Ezekwesili is a stark reminder of how far Nigeria’s political system has to go in achieving gender equity. It also serves as a call to action for all Nigerians to advocate for a more inclusive, respectful, and just political environment, where the voices of women are not just heard but truly respected. Until these changes occur, the cycle of male suppression, harassment, and inequality will continue to undermine the progress that Nigeria so desperately needs.
Institutional Therapy: An Independent Investigation
One form of therapy for the institution is an independent investigation—not a biased, aggressive committee—focused on uncovering the truth, holding individuals accountable, and establishing fair processes that foster a culture of respect, transparency, and equality in Nigerian politics.
![[OPINION] Honour for Humphrey Nwosu - Kayode Komolafe](/media/k2/items/cache/07f93c7304d24c887517e85f41f37ebb_L.jpg)
It is beyond debate that Professor Humphrey Nwosu, whose remains will be buried on Friday, was an eminently unsung hero in the June 12 story.
Nwosu’s funeral will take place at his residence, Ogbili Otti Palace, Ajalli in the Orumba North Local Government Area of Anambra State.
Amidst the preparations for the funeral of the political scientist, there have been reasoned voices in favour of a national recognition of the historical role played by Nwosu in making the June 12, 1993 presidential election possible, in the first place.
The election was expected to be the culmination of the circuitous transition programme of the regime of President Ibrahim Babangida. It was an epic contest between Bashorun Moshood Abiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Alhaji Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention (NRC).
As President Ibrahim Babangida, the author of the elaborate transtion programe, now states unequivocally in his memoirs, Abiola resoundinly won the election.
As an accomplished theorist of politics, Nwosu found a veritable laboratory to test his hypothesis when Babangida appointed the scholar to the post of the chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), the body regulating elections in Nigeria in those days. Nwosu performed that national assignment creditably from 1989 to 1993, the year the debacle began.
Incidentally, Nwosu took over from his former teacher, another icon of the political science disciplne, Professor Eme Awa. Nwosu accepted to do the job with all his energy and commitment to a national purpose. Such was Nwosu’s enthusiasm as the umpire that his characteristic gesticulation on television while explaining the process were dismissed as a spectacle by skeptics of the transition programme. Indeed, with courage and clarity of purpose, the political scientist performed not a few experiments, the result of which might be of great interest to future historians and psephologists (experts in the study of elections).
It is hardly mentioned in many versions of the June 12 story that the electoral body headed by Nwosu had successfully conducted elections for councillors, local government chairmen, state governors and members of the National Assembly (NASS) as a substantial part of the transition programme.
So, local governments, state governments and the federal legislature were funtioning well as at the time the June 12 election took place. The elected men and women were looking forward to the election of the president for the Third Republic to be fully proclaimed.
But the annulment of the election on June 23, 1993 truncated the process.
The call for a posthumous honour of Nwosu’s memory is squarely predicated on the fact that he led the commission that managed what is now referred to as the freest and fairest election in history.
One conspicous voice in favour of honour for the memory of Nwosu came two days ago in a session of tributes at the headquarters of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) in Abuja. It was the voice of the INEC chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu. Yakubu’s important tribute encapsulates the case for a posthumous honour in memory of Nwosu. The INEC chairman made the point so persuasively that his statement is considered worthy of reproduction here for the record:
“Like all his six predecessors and seven successors to date, he (Nwosu) had the arduous task of managing elections in an extremely challenging context.
“He also introduced a number of reforms to election management. His tenure is synonymous with the Open Ballot System, popularly referred to as Option A4 in which voters queued up behind the symbol of the party of their choice to vote and to be physically counted.
“Professor Nwosu did his best, which was not always appreciated by many, including those who appointed him under an infinite transition from military rule to democracy, which ended in the annulment of the presidential election held in 1993, resulting in the dissolution of the electoral commission and the emergence of an interim government.
“However, with the passage of time, the outcome of his effort is now widely appreciated. The election is now celebrated as one of the best in Nigeria. Even those who annulled it have expressed regret.”
“A quarter of a century (25 years) later in June 2018, the presumed winner of the 1993 Presidential election, Chief M. K. O. Abiola, received the highest national honour, the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic, posthumously. His running mate, Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, was conferred with the second highest national honour, the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger. The date of the election (June 12th, 1993) has been gazetted as a national holiday and appropriately named Democracy Day.
“Sadly, the electoral commission that conducted the election which was personified by Professor Nwosu received only a muffled commendation as if no one conducted the election. Surely, the election did not conduct itself. It was organised by a Commission made up of Commissioners and a Chairman. If it was an oversight that Professor Nwosu was not honoured in his lifetime, it is never late for the appropriate authority to do so posthumously.
“For us in INEC, we will continue to appreciate Professor Nwosu and the dedicated service he rendered to the nation.”
Yakubu’s call is representative of those who like to take a wholistic view of the June 12 phenomenon with all its contradictions.
Nwosu’s name should not be missing in the June 12 roll of honour. That is the summary of the calls from diverse quarters.
After all, in several months preceeding the election there was hardly any day that the name Humphrey Nwosu would not be mentioned in the print and electronic media. There was no social media in that period! By the way, the professor was one of those public figures often identified with their two names pronounced together unlike others better known with their first or last name. Any reference to him must be pronounced as Humphrey Nwosu!
In the mixed responses to the recent launch of Bababngida’s memoirs entitled “Journey in Service: An Autobiography,” some readers of the book have said that the former president has only confirmed in his account the position stated by Nwosu in his own book, “Laying the Foundation for Democracy in Nigeria: My Account of the June 12, 1993 Presidential Election and its Annulment.”
In the book which should be read by those seeking a deeper understanding of the June 12 story, Nwosu puts the matter clearly as follows: “…the result of the June 12, 1993 presidential election would have conferred on President Babangida’s administration the greatest reservoir of legitimacy no regime had ever enjoyed in Nigeria. Undoubtedly, its annulment on June 23, 1993 created the greatest legitimacy problem toward the end of his admistration and the problem so created still lingers till date. The critical questios to answer include the following: why was the presidential election which Alhaji MKO Abiola won decisively and which the two political parties affirmed at each level of collation annulled? Was the election flawed in any way? Was it rigged in any manner? Was it free and fair? Were the peparations put in place by NEC for its condct shoddy?”
In telling his own June 12 story, Nwosu applies a lot of rigour as a scholar and provides immense insights.
Take a sample from the book: “… some civilian and senior military colleagues of the President that were present at the critical meeting of NDSC (National Defence and Security Council) on June 11, 1993 opposed the conduct of June 12 election. The President and Vice President and us were on one side of the divide. Some of his colleagues were on the other side of the divide. The most visible and outspoken military officer who was on the side of the President and actualisation of the June 12 election throughout was Col. Abubakar Umar, but unfortunately he was not a member of the NDSC.”
Now, compare Nwosu’s version with Babangida’s on the visible polarisation within the regime in those critical days. For instance, Nwosu confirms in his own book that both President Babangida and Vice President Augustus Aikhomu were on the opposite side of the forces of annulment. Ironically, some members of the military and civilian forces of annulment have been beneficiaries of conclusive executive and legislative elections in the 26 years of the Fourth Republic.
However, it will remain part of the history of June 12 that Nwosu struggled (albeit in vain) against the annulment.
Just imagine this: if Nwosu had succumbed to the bullying of the infamous anti-June 12 powerful men to say that Abiola didn’t win the election the story might have been different today. Such a moral collapse could have provided another justification for the grievous act of those who invariably put the Nigerian polity in a suspended animation for five years after the momentous election.
If for nothing else, Humphrey Nwosu’s memory deserves to be honoured because of the professor’s courage of conviction.
For instance, some advocates of honour for Nwosu have suggested for the consideration of the federal government naming the headquarters of INEC as Humphrey Nwosu House (HNH).
![[OPINION] Telecommunications: more promises, less services - Okoh Aihe](/media/k2/items/cache/f400105a0ea90d4b52af0a1033f6848c_M.jpg)
Once upon a time, there was an Access Gap Map prepared by the Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF). The map showed details of remote sites in the country or locations in not too distant environments where Telecommunications services were not available.
The Nigerian Communications Act (NCA) 2003 recognises these areas or groups in Section 113 as unserved, underserved areas or even underserved groups within a community. So, the Access Gap Map is not a psychedelic creation to demonstrate a pseudo readiness for action, but an ingenious interpretation of telecoms lack in order to simplify the resolution of what may seem an intractable problem.
Lack is the imaginary bridge between the rich and the poor, between the politicians with fat stomachs and their constituents with pencil figures, between the blessed and the accursed, between the high flyer and the ordinary fella struggling for the crumbs from the master’s table, and, in fact, between the pseudo elite who steals everything from the system by the wave of a biro, and the decent technocrat who watches in amazing horror the craftiness of the sons of men. Lack is not a bridge too far but a grotesque monster in our midst. A troubling reality!
Telecoms lack, which is what the Universal Service Provision Fund is designed to cure, is not just a Nigerian problem or a problem of developing countries alone. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) says telecoms lack is a global problem and takes USPF as a crucial tool, alongside other mechanisms, to achieve universal access to telecommunications.
In America, it is called Universal Service Fund (USF) which has been described as a system of subsidies and fees designed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure access to telecommunications for all Americans. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are still places in America where the government is working hard to provide quality telecoms services or even make services available!
From an early fervent operation at the time of birth, USPF has gone through the mire to seek a reincarnation at the present state of being. Which is why the story of the Access Gap Map became necessary at the beginning of this writeup, to show what was inherited and the intentionality of patriarchs of the system.
A source at USPF told this writer that the Access Gap Map still remains the major planning tool, giving direction to all their activities. While in 2019, 207 clusters of telecom needs existed, by 2022, the figure has come down to 97, meaning that quite some work is being done. The source informed that the plan of the Fund is to do a study every year to show how gaps are being closed or to even just expose areas where new gaps are being created as a result of telecoms facilities being decommissioned, for whatever reasons.
It was therefore reassuring when Mr. Yomi Arowosafe, USPF Secretary, said at an even in Lagos last week, that the Fund by 2030, will rollout an additional 1000 base transceiver stations. Expectedly, the stations will be sited in unreached and underserved areas where the people denied telecom services can have access to them. However, his optimism has little accommodation for the series of challenges the Fund has been through recently. It is expected that the intervention agency will have the needed funds to execute its plans and make some people happy by connecting them to the telecommunications national grid.
The unfortunate reality is that more telecom gaps are popping up everywhere. Even within cities, it is very common to experience very flaky services. The rural areas are worse off. It is more like a return to the days of yore when telecoms services were a rarity and reserved only for the big boys. Nobody prays for a return to that nightmare, not even this government which is showing some level of concerted efforts to deal with the situation.
Several industry sources confirmed that as of today, there are about 40,000 telecommunication towers carrying about 144,000 transceiver stations across the country. This is a far cry from the 80,000 towers which a former EVC once said were needed to power the telecommunications industry. For a government that has promised to create a digital economy with the concomitant digital job opportunities, this doesn’t look good at all.
I am inclined to reason that this government is desirous of making noticeable interventions, just like the guy fighting a roaring fire and is ready to throw anything at it. The efforts by the USPF is one such intervention. I was also reliably informed that the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) is prospecting a rollout of 2000 base stations in conjunction with some industry stakeholders which include operators. More will be said about this development.
However, speaking at the USPF programme in Lagos, Dr Bosun Tijani, Minister for Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, informed of the government’s audacious plan to build 7,000 telecommunications towers across the country in order to extend services to more of the country’s population.
There is so much that this connotes. The development means more money in the environment, more opportunities for connectivity and digital job opportunities that will be unleashed. Before anybody could talk about the government returning to telecom business, Tijani said the project would be done with private participation.
The minister explained that the project was approved at the Federal Executive Council of February 27, 2025, as part of a broader strategy to bridge the digital divide and enhance connectivity in rural and underserved areas.
“The government has decided that if private capital cannot reach these areas, then we must step in and invest public funds in these towers to ensure our people have access,” Tijani said.
Another leg of Tijani’s plan is a $2bn fibre optics cable aimed at boosting broadband penetration in Nigeria. The minister is a tech geek who has a mind for very big ideas. At some point he had released a blueprint which, he envisaged, could mop up about 3m youth from different parts of the country for tech training.
While I will want to accept that the present government is doing things to deepen and grow the tech ecosystem, one will want to observe that some of these initiatives should have been undertaken by a well structured USPF except it is considered that the scale of implementation is beyond the intervention agency. So, we start from the scratch, tossing legitimate reason in the air, to build afresh as we always do. But bear in mind that the Ministry of Communications which is pursuing all these big ideas, is not a project implementer but a policy maker.
The other small matter, and this is from whispers in the industry. Quite a few people are of the opinion, that Minister Tijani is building castles in the air, requesting that time has come for him to climb down to reality and begin a proper implementation of some of his ideas that look quite grandiose.
![[OPINION] War Against Corruption Requires Tact, Wisdom — EFCC Boss - Bola Bolawole](/media/k2/items/cache/b6226b86c7c2340f9aa89918b71be547_M.jpg)
God, grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference’
— Reinhold Niebuhr.
“The Serenity Prayer” is what the above quotation is generally called. The wisdom of my own elders that equates it says, “M’oja m’osa la n mo akikanju”. The valiant on the battlefield is one who knows the right time to advance and the right time to beat a retreat.
The English saying that approximates it is, “He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day”. An event happened during my days at the PUNCH newspapers that made the then General Manager of the newspaper, Mr. Osuolale Mustapha, to recall another Yoruba proverb which says, “Balogun ojo ni n se irohin iku ti o pa Balogun akikanju”, meaning, it is the cowardly general that returns from the battle field to relate the story of how the valiant general fell on the battlefield!
The import of the above quotations is that every fight or war requires tact and wisdom. Lest I forget, let me add another proverb: “Alagbara ma m’ero baba ole”, which means the strongman that lacks tact is not only a weakling but the chief of weaklings.
Scripture is then correct when it says in Proverbs 4: 7 that “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” Understanding in this wise means having profound insight and a good sense of judgement.
Not only the fight against corruption demands all of that, rubbing minds with top media editors like the EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, did in Lagos last week Friday demands no less!
Usually, the question-and-answer session is the most testy aspect of such engagement, after the reading of a prepared speech. Trust the Nigerian media, the kind words for the media that Olukoyede started his speech with did not prevent the editors from firing on all cylinders when it was time for comments and questions, holding the EFCC boss feet to the fire, as it were.
Beyond that, however, conscionable Nigerians must wonder whether the war against corruption can be left to the EFCC alone, judging by some of the revelations made by Olukoyede.
We are all aware of the over 790 persons arrested in one fell swoop for financial crimes in the heart of Victoria Island, Lagos; close to 200 of whom were foreigners. Some of the foreigners had no travelling documents – no visa, no passport – yet they were allowed into the country!
Our borders are porous on account of the corruption of those charged with the responsibility of manning them. The traffic of foreigners and Nigerians alike in the vicinity where these hundreds of criminals were bursted should have attracted the attention of neighbours: why did everyone keep mute over it?
During COVID-19, a similar incident that embarrassed the country happened. Some foreigners travelling in Ghana without vaccination papers were stopped at the airport.
The Ghanaian airport officials demanded a bribe, which was paid, and the foreigners were led to a COVID-19 centre where they were properly vaccinated and documented before they were allowed in.
The same foreigners came to Nigeria, were stopped at the airport where a bribe was demanded and they paid. When they asked to be taken to a COVID-19 centre for vaccination and proper documentation, they were told it was not necessary.
They told the officials of the dangers of unvaccinated people entering the country but the officials told them not to worry; God would protect all of us from COVID-19! Some of the Chinese fraudsters bursted by the EFCC said they were told to pull their ears and run into the country after they had settled the officials at the point of entry!
These were foreigners who left their country to perpetrate in Nigeria fraudulent acts that attract capital punishment in their own country! Over 500 SIM cards fully activated using Nigerians were recovered from them.
They use Nigeria and Nigerian names and addresses to make it look like the criminals were Nigerians, thus giving the country and its citizens a bad image worldwide! Elements of terrorism were also said to have been unearthed in their operations.
Now, tell me, how can the anti-corruption war succeed without the buy-in of Nigerians? How can the war be won with the active connivance of Nigerians themselves with the criminally-minded?
Questions were asked about the 700 plus Abuja duplexes said to be worth billions of dollars that the EFCC burst but without mentioning who owned the property, which non-disclosure caused an uproar.
After Olukoyede explained how they came about the information, the intricate network of subterfuge to hide the identities of those concerned, and how the law had been exploited in the past to frustrate EFCC’s efforts to recover looted funds and assets, even the editors who asked the question agreed that the EFCC’s approach was the best in the circumstance.
Sometimes, attending such sessions can hike anyone’s BP! Imagine these: The cost of recovering looted funds is very expensive as a result of the time and resources involved in the recovery effort. The criminals engage in all manner of delaying tactics to frustrate prosecution.
Recovered funds are also relooted, which is why foreign countries returning Abacha loot, for example, always added conditions and asked for assurances! One of the major problems encountered fighting corruption, according to Olukoyede, is insider abuse.
Some of those engaged to fight corruption are themselves corrupt and are in cahoot with the corrupt. Hence, the EFCC boss recently fired 27 of his staff to sound a note of warning that it would no longer be business as usual. He maintained that he will not waver on his zero-level tolerance for corruption.
“Whatever it will cost, we will instill discipline in the system,” he vowed. With the JAPA syndrome, it will not surprise anyone to hear that visa fraud is one of the major headaches of the EFCC as we speak and the commission has had to set up a desk to address it.
Answering a question, Olukoyede said he could not agree less that civil servants are bigger thieves than the politicians that Nigerians usually fix their gaze on! “There are civil servants who steal more than politically-exposed persons,” he said.
Answering another question, he swore that he had no party or political affiliation and, as such, would go after corruption wherever it rears its ugly head. The argument here was heated.
The EFCC, however, cannot be everywhere at the same time. It has offices in only 17 of the country’s 36 states. Therefore, he said, in response to another question, that he had no objection to states truly and sincerely complementing the EFCC’s efforts.
This, also, is where wisdom, tact, and understanding comes in: How to proceed, where to proceed, and when to proceed. He must pick his fights and be certain he is not on slippery grounds when he makes his moves.
Answering another question, he agreed that no major fraud takes place in the system without the connivance of some of the banks. “It is mind-boggling, he moaned.
“They return trillions of naira every year but the economy is what it is. You wonder what economy they are funding”. Are some banks fully involved in money laundering? Yes, they are! “Some of them ride private jets. They live large”.
The EFCC is filing charges against some of them, he said. He mentioned names. “We used to use them as witnesses but now we will be charging them as accessories after the fact… But we have to be careful with that because of the sensitivity of the banks”.
This page is not enough to cover all that was revealed at the event which Olukoyede said was to “further deepen the relationship between the EFCC and the media because the war against corruption cannot be won without the support of the media and the citizenry”.
He described 2024 as a most challenging year for the commission due to attacks on it from many angles and quarters. Ironically, the same year was when EFCC made its most astounding achievements.
As he reeled them out and the hall was silent, Olukoyede behaved like the proverbial lizard that fell from the top of the iroko tree and nodded its head three times, saying, if no one salutes me, I will salute myself! “EFCC deserves commendation”, he said!
Twice he said that and his audience did not disappoint! A few weeks ago, I was at another media parley by the EFCC’s sister-organisation, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) whose chairman canvassed the National Assembly to enact a whistleblower law to help the fight against corruption.
Olukoyede made a similar plea last Friday. He, however, went a step further to advocate for an unexplained wealth law. “Strict liability offence”, he called it, whereby “we hold you accountable for any wealth you cannot explain how you got it!”
The day the whistleblowers and the strict liability offence laws are passed is the day the fight against corruption will assume a new dimension in the country!
![[OPINION] Oba Onisile, read how power kills - Funke Egbemode](/media/k2/items/cache/929b3f853fdd53573682a99c4c9eb75e_M.jpg)
Oba Amuniwaye was an Alaafin who died between the legs of a woman. But that is a matter for another day. Today is about his successor, Oba Onisile, the powerful leader who didn't know that power has limits.
Many years ago, in the old Oyo Kingdom, there once reigned an Alaafin called Onisile. He was a respected warrior whose many successful exploits earned him many nicknames of admiration. He was fearless and focused. For his fearless and indomitable spirit, he was called the warrior whose horse could leap over the wall. ‘Gbagida, Wowo l’ewon abesin fo odi’
In addition to being a king and leader who took his warring serious, Onisile also loved the good things of life. For instance, he was reported to have installed seven silver doors at the entrances to his quarters in the palace. It was also recorded that it was during his reign that Sekere (the beaded calabash drum) moved from just wearing cowries to costly beads, such as iyun (corals), segi (blue pipe beads), erinla (yellow pipe beads) and even okun (the Benin stone beads).
According to Reverend Samuel Johnson’s The History of the Yorubas, in spite of Onisile’s prowess and popularity, his rashness and fearlessness was the ultimate cause of his death. At some point, the point that signposted the end of reign and life, Alaafin Onisile was warned against experimenting with the ‘sun leaf’, a plant belief to possess electrical properties that can attract lightening. Did Onisile listen? He didn’t. A warrior who held down many prisoners with his clanging chains after leaping over many walls with his uncommonly powerful horse was a man whose power had gone to his head and blinded his eyes. Onisile said he would do whatever he wanted to do. The king was unquestionable. He was father of all and ‘husband of the town’. He was ruler over everybody and everything. He forgot that if the Yoruba call you ‘Aleeba’ - the runner that you cannot catch up with, it is because the other runners are deliberately giving you a respectable head start and distance to lead. When they decide it’s time to cut you to size, they will not only catch up with you, they will overtake you, hiss and spit in your face as they speed pass. The Sango worshippers, let us not forget, were in ‘charge’ of lightning and they brooked no competition. Imagine if an Alaafin had succeeded in taking away their powers and clout, broken their monopoly, everything bestowed on them by Sango Olukoso, the one whose eyes were permanently red whether he was spitting fire from his mouth or not. It was unimaginable. So, the Sango worshippers managed to attract lightning on the palace while Onisile was trying to use the sun leaf to do the same. The king was struck and from the shock, he became paralyzed. Thus, he was incapacitated from performing the duties of his office. The chiefs of Oyo, seeing the Oba was now depending on servants to carry him, swooped on the palace and accused him of challenging the one and only god of thunder to a duel, and losing. They told Onisile, he had to ‘behave like a man’, a flowery choice of words to instruct him to commit suicide by opening the calabash.
I like the way Reverend Johnson concluded the story. “Unchecked despotism, unrestrained license, insatiable greed and wanton voluptuousness should not be allowed to flourish throughout the full term of a natural life time”. That summed the guiding principles of checks and balances to the throne in the old Oyo. No king ruled without the kingmakers who watched the Alaafin closely under bushy hooded lashes and knew when to, on behalf of the people, present him with a calabash of parrot-eggs, three powerful lines and end an era and reign.
Things are different now. The ‘kingmakers’ are too full and fat to talk or even consider that every good thing comes to an end, eventually. And it is time to remind them. Our men of power and caliber must self-censor, lest the power they are named and hailed for nail them. They must learn to read the times, know when to war, when to negotiate and when to wisely nicely do nothing.
Hailing and hyping is part of our culture. It is even more pronounced in our political culture. An aspirant picks a form to contest the gubernatorial seat (that may not be vacant, really) and his hangers-on start calling him ‘Your Excellency’. They cook up ‘polls and statistics’ while drinking beer and sumptuous pepper soup.
My dear brother in power or politics, never forget yourself on the stage of the hailers because when you fall, they are not like likely to help you up. They will take their drums to the next arena. Do not lose yourself in the pool of those who see you as nothing more than a meal ticket. Hangers-on and ‘Area boys’ are not always in tattered jeans and head-warmers. They do not always speak in weed-laden voices. They also wear expensive perfume and designer suits. They shake with soft palms and speak in even softer voice. They nicely convincingly tell their ‘meal ticket’ that he’s on the right path, even when he’s at the edge of a precipice. Power ruins. Power kills. It does not just corrupt absolutely
However, the good news is, power does not kill suddenly. It kills slowly. It kills the unsuspecting, the undiscerning, the careless. It kills the foolhardy cripple who sees the gathering storm and cloudy sky but refuses to start making his way slowly but steadily home to shelter. Is this the same thing as ‘power is transient’ No. There were wise men who remained powerful till the end, and even in death their memories are still of their clout. This is about knowing how to hold and wield power, knowing when to soft-pedal or back-track, knowing that constant consistent aggression leads to destruction
The elephant is big, feared and respected but the day it succumbs to the drumbeats of the hypers and hailers is the day his reign ends. The day he actually starts believing, that he is too big to just be king of animals is the day he signs its death warrant. The days he agrees to follow the hailers to the grave dressed like the throne room is the day he becomes food for the gods. Those who read the ‘A o m’erin joba’ story in the Yoruba primary school text called Alawiye by JF Odunjo know the sweet lyrics of that deadly song. The song once played in Abuja and a big man kissed the canvas spectacularly. It is playing now again, less loudly in Rivers. The orchestra convinced a certain Governor that ‘Nothing do am’. Now that ‘something don do am’, only he knows the pain and loneliness of one governor living in one boy’s quarters of another, the grayness of the governor going to Sunday service without an advance party or a loud long convoy. But this is not about any suspended music. It is about all of them in power, the suspender and the suspended.
Alaafin Onisile was ‘convinced’ to bite the cyanide by the same people who called him fearless warrior. Those who tell our leaders whatever they tell them that make them misbehave do so because they profit from it. They hail because it works for them, their businesses. They urge the elephant on but leave him in the hole alone when he falls. An elephant is an ‘Ajanaku’ until he falls. The drums won’t always beat. The demons will soon move on to their next prey, their next source of income. Powerful men who are swayed by nicknames and hyped trumpets don’t last. There is a limit to what you can do on that throne, especially because it is a four-year rush. If the world is hailing you today, be careful how far you go, how many enemies you acquire because the last drumbeat you’ll hear may be:
Iwo nikan ni o ku
B’oba buru tan
Iwo nikan ni o ku
No matter how powerful people tell you or you think you are, you owe yourself a duty to caution yourself, know when to pull the brakes because when things go bad, you’ll be left all alone
![[OPINION] State of emergency in Rivers: Tinubu goofed! - Jide Ojo](/media/k2/items/cache/3122f6514102e307c4b886b85ae594cc_M.jpg)
“In the circumstance, having soberly reflected on and evaluated the political situation in Rivers State and the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State having failed to make a request to me as President to issue this proclamation as required by Section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, it has become inevitably compelling for me to invoke the provision of Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from today, 18th March 2025 and I so do.” –President Bola Tinubu on Tuesday, March 18, 2025.
If there is anybody I do not expect to commit constitutional infractions, it is our dear President Bola Tinubu. From 1990 or thereabout, he bestrode Nigeria’s political scene like a colossus. He was elected to the Nigerian Senate under the Babangida endless transition programme, which terminated on August 28, 1993. After Gen. Sani Abacha took over the reins of government sequel to the palace coup that led to the ouster of Chief Ernest Shonekan as head of the Interim National Government on November 17, 1993, Tinubu and likeminded democrats teamed up to form the National Democratic Coalition, better known as NADECO. They demanded immediate de-annulment of the June 12 presidential election and a return to civil rule. Tinubu had to flee abroad after Abacha’s goons were all out for the NADECO members and he only returned in 1998, after Abacha died, to participate in the birth of this Fourth Republic.
Though he started as a federal lawmaker, Bola Tinnubu was in 1999 elected as governor of Lagos and re-elected in 2003, the only Alliance for Democracy governor to survive Obasanjo’s People’s Democratic Party onslaught to take over the six states in South-West Nigeria. He became the last man standing among the six Alliance for Democracy governors elected in 1999. Since he left the office of governor in 2007, he has birthed many political godchildren. All his successors in Lagos State were his anointed candidates. Tinubu was so influential in South-West politics to the extent that he was said to be instrumental to the emergence of Governors Rauf Aregebesola and Gboyega Oyetola in Osun State, Governor Kayode Fayemi in Ekiti State, Governor Abiola Ajimobi in Oyo State, Governor Dapo Abiodun in Ogun State and even the immediate past Vice President of Nigeria, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, to mention a few.
Someone with that kind of democratic credential is expected to hold the Constitution in high esteem and maintain fidelity to the rule of law. It is on record that he fought for local government autonomy way back in 2002 when he engaged in a titanic legal battle against former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who seized the federal allocation meant for the 20 Lagos State Local Government Councils after his (Tinubu’s) government created additional 37 local council development areas. Tinubu won at the Supreme Court and the seized funds were eventually released by Obasanjo’s government.
Given his sound political sagacity and pedigree, I did not expect President Tinubu to commit the gaffe he did when he declared a state of emergency in Rivers State last week, Tuesday, March 18, 2025. Yes, the political crisis in Rivers State indeed started in September 2023 after the Rivers State House of Assembly mooted the impeachment of Governor Siminalaye Fubara. The governor’s camp fought back by allegedly committing arson on the State Assembly, leading to the eventual demolition of the Assembly complex, thereby frustrating the impeachment move. The President indeed mediated in the political crisis in December 2023, which led to an eight-point resolution. While the governor largely fulfilled his side of the agreement by reabsorbing the nine commissioners who resigned from his cabinet and withdrew the cases filled in court, the camp of the lawmakers, under the guidance of their godfather, the Minister of FCT, Nyesom Wike, continually made things difficult for the governor.
Fubara is not blameless in the political crisis, as his failure to represent the 2024 budget as well as withholding the salaries and allowances of the 27 lawmakers of Rivers State is provocative. His conduct in the October 5, 2024, local government election and encouragement of the defection of his loyalists to participate in that election under another political party, the Action People’s Party, smacks of anti-party since he belongs to the Peoples Democratic Party. Perhaps the Rivers State political crisis would not have festered if the 27 state lawmakers who openly claimed to have defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress had been manly enough to consummate their defection by registering at their various wards. Yes, they were alleged to have sworn to affidavits at an Abuja Federal High Court, but in the eye of the law, a membership registration card is the sole proof that matters most.
In any event, the Rivers political crisis is a godfather versus godson clash and unless former Governor Wike and the incumbent Fubara are brought to the negotiation table by an impartial panel of arbitrators and mediators, the crisis will linger despite the state of emergency. Wike has consistently maintained that Fubara wanted to wrestle his political structure from him and that is the remote cause of the roforofo fight.
Not a few political pundits have referred to Fubara as a betrayal and traitor. However, it is in the nature and character of politics for the godfather to be betrayed by the godson. It happened in Anambra between Chief Chris Uba and Dr Chris Ngige; it happened in Oyo State between Chief Lamidi Adedibu and Governor Rashidi Ladoja. It is currently happening between former Governor Nasir El-Rufai and the incumbent Governor of Kaduna State, Senator Uba Sani, while not forgetting the ongoing political imbroglio between the Secretary to the Federal Government, Senator George Akume and the current Governor of Benue State, Hyacinth Alia. Former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo was alleged to have backstabbed Tinubu by contesting against him for the All Progressives Congress presidential ticket in 2022.
President Tinubu goofed by blaming Fubara solely for the Rivers State political crisis and by declaring a state of emergency whereby he suspended the elected governor, deputy governor and lawmakers. Section 305 of the Constitution did not give the President such powers. The grounds for the removal of a governor have been explicitly stated in Section 188 of the Nigerian Constitution.
The President was one-sided when he failed to openly or privately reprimand or caution the FCT minister for his unguarded incendiary rhetoric on Governor Fubara and his Ijaw ethnic group. While it is true that Section 305 vested the President the power to declare a state of emergency, it is contemplated that extra measures will be deployed to maintain law and order. This is why since October 1962, when the first state of emergency was declared in the Western Region, down to 2002, when another SoE was declared in Ekiti State and Plateau in 2004, it is only the one former President Goodluck Jonathan declared in 2013 in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe that cannot be faulted, as democratic institutions were not affected.
How different is what President Tinubu did from what the Supreme Court frowned at in its February 28, 2025, judgement on Rivers State when it said, “A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state under the 1999 Constitution as amended.” Can a government be said to exist when two out of the three arms of government have been suspended?
Sole administratorship is unknown to democracy. Rather than hastily declaring a state of emergency, President Tinubu should have adopted the method he used to resolve the Lagos State House of Assembly leadership crisis when he sent an emissary made up of Chief Bisi Akande and Aremo Olusegun Osoba, both former governors, to mediate in the crisis. Thereafter, he invited the 40 lawmakers to his office in Abuja and had another round of dialogue with them. The President should have likewise raised a panel of impartial mediators to weigh in and resolve the political crisis in Rivers and thereafter have tête-à-tête with the FCT minister and his estranged godson, Fubara. I do hope proper mediation will happen before the expiration of the six months, as any further elongation of the SoE will be deemed an attempt at state capture ahead of the 2027 general elections.
![[OPINION] Political expediency in Rivers - Lekan Sote](/media/k2/items/cache/6693d1eeebcec9881c805bf707189ed6_S.jpg)
No doubt, the political crisis that President Bola Tinubu caused by proclaiming a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspending Governor Siminalaye Fubara, his Deputy, Ngozi Odu, and members of the belligerent pro-Wike Rivers State House of Assembly has come to a head.
The state of emergency was preceded by the mind-game between Governor Fubara and the 27 legislators, who were reinstated into the State House of Assembly by a Supreme Court judgement and the Trans-Niger Pipeline that was blown up in Gokana, Rivers State.
Maybe Governor Fubara should not have demolished the State House of Assembly complex at a time that he was still finding his feet. If those elder statesmen who were goading him on indeed had any clout, they should have asked President Tinubu to rein in Nyesom Wike, his Minister of Federal Capital Territory.
Maybe he could have made haste more slowly and not presented his budget proposal to a four-man House of Assembly that lacked the mandatory one-third quorum. The reinstatement of Speaker Martins Amaewhule-led 27 legislators, whom everyone thought had decamped to All Progressives Congress, upset his applecart.
However, signs that things could get worse, as the President sided with his newfound political ally, the garrulous Wike, are in the report of a fire at the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited’s flow station at Cawthorne Channel.
This economic sabotage may have been carried out by individuals who may not be too happy with the seeming victory of garrulous Wike in the impasse that has become the lot of the beleaguered people of Rivers State.
The Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, did not help matters by speculating that Governor Fubara probably instigated those attacks. That speculation is probably now resting after the governor publicly distanced himself from the violent act.
Governor Fubara, who had resolved to work with the reinstated legislators, invited them to a peace meeting. They rejected his overture but required him to present the 2025 budget bill to them within 48 hours. Twice, he wrote them, stating his intention to present the budget bill.
Twice, he reportedly received an embarrassing rebuff. Once, he was even locked out and prevented from entering the premises of the Assembly, which thereafter adjourned sine die without warning. Things got to stalemate proportions when the House invoked Section 48 of the Nigerian Constitution to impeach the governor.
Unconfirmed sources claim that he reached out to Wike, who was rumoured to have demanded that he hand over the local government structure and forgo a 2027 reelection bid. Maybe the quest to gain Rivers State, the ultimate political pawn, in 2027, possibly informed President Tinubu’s choice of the state of emergency.
Of course, the President can argue that his past interventions did not yield the desired outcome and that the state of emergency was a timely device that prevented the impeachment. If President Tinubu had asked Wike to rein in his men in the House of Assembly, maybe there would not be a state of emergency.
Astute statesmanship would have gotten a better result, and thus make the arrogant insinuation by Fagbemi that Governor Fubara was probably saved from the impeachment Sword of Damocles absolutely unnecessary.
It is not enough to say that the President consulted (some faceless stakeholders) before taking the state of emergency option. It would not have been necessary if he had leaned enough on Wike and his collaborators in the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Those who argue that the President cannot proclaim a state of emergency are not aware of Section 305 of the Constitution, which merely requires the affirmation of a two-thirds majority of members of the two chambers of the National Assembly after they have received the gazetted proclamation, as prescribed by the Constitution.
But the Constitution is silent on the fate of the governor, his deputy and state legislators during a state of emergency, which Section 305(3) of the Constitution prescribes when the “Federation is at war; in danger of invasion…; there is a breakdown of public order and public safety…; clear and present danger…; any other public danger…; (and if) the President receives a request from… the governor of a state.”
Did Fagbemi recommend Section 45 that appropriates citizens’ fundamental human rights “in the interest of national defence, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health”, during a “period of emergency”, enabled by “proclamation of emergency declared by the President… under Section 305 of the Constitution”, to the President?
Or, Section 11(1), which says, “The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof, with respect to maintenance and securing of public safety and public order and providing, maintaining and securing of (assets)… as may be designated by the National Assembly as essential supplies (like crude and refined petroleum) and services.”
This is reflected in what appears to be the riot act read by the administrator, Vice Marshal Ibok-Ete Ibas, to anyone who may be minded to cause any form of economic, political or violent sabotage in Rivers State.
Or, Section 11(4,5), which says, “At any time when any House of Assembly of a State is unable to perform its functions… the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of that State with respect to matters on which a House of Assembly may make laws as may appear to the National Assembly to be necessary or expedient until… the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions;…
“Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the governor or the deputy governor of the state from office. (And)… a House of Assembly shall not be deemed to be unable to perform its functions so long as (it) can hold a meeting and transact business.”
Or Emergency Powers in Section 65 of Nigeria’s rested 1960 Constitution, which says, “Parliament may… make such laws for Nigeria or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative Lists as may appear to Parliament to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining or securing peace, order and good government during any period of emergency…
“(Where) ‘period of emergency’ means any period during which- (a) the Federation is at war; (b) there is… a resolution passed by (the)… Parliament declaring that a state of public emergency exists; or (c) there is… a resolution… supported by… not less than two-thirds of all the members of the House declaring that democratic institutions in Nigeria are threatened by subversion…”
Except for a “doctrine of necessity”, to secure Rivers State’s hydrocarbon resources, these do not enable the President to remove elected officials, though a state of emergency without control will be meaningless.
But the President should not have returned Nigeria to the military “Egypt” by appointing a military administrator, even if he is retired. That is untidy semiotics for a democracy wrested from the claws of the military.
President Tinubu, who swatted a gnat with a sledgehammer, must find a way to quickly return River State to the status quo. Meanwhile, Nigeria’s constitutional lawyers must lead the way to test this strange development in court.
As for winning Rivers State in 2027, “The people will decide,” to quote retired Commodore Olabode George, former governor of Ondo State.
[OPINION] Umahi Commends Soludo’s Excellent Performance as Tinubu Flags Off Phase 2B Construction of Access Road to Second Niger Bridge - Christian Aburime
Admin![[OPINION] Umahi Commends Soludo’s Excellent Performance as Tinubu Flags Off Phase 2B Construction of Access Road to Second Niger Bridge - Christian Aburime](/media/k2/items/cache/6a66c2d49c33edaeeb35efd1c90d285b_S.jpg)
The construction of Phase 2B of the access road to the Second Niger Bridge has officially commenced, marking a significant step in enhancing transportation infrastructure and regional connectivity in the Southeast. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, was represented at the groundbreaking ceremony by Anambra State Governor, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, while the Minister of Works, Engr. Dave Umahi, personally attended the event at Ogbunike (33 Nkwelle Junction) along the Enugu-Onitsha Expressway.
The Second Niger Bridge, inaugurated in 2023, has greatly improved travel between the Southeast and other parts of the country, but its full benefits have been hindered by incomplete access roads. The newly launched Phase 2B construction aims to address this by delivering a 17.5km dual carriageway with seven bridges and modern infrastructure, including security cameras. The road will stretch from the Umunya/Ogbunike axis of the Enugu-Onitsha Expressway, passing through the Old Enugu Road Interchange, Ogidi, Nkpor-Umuoji Road Interchange, to the Asaba-Igbuzor Road Interchange and Valley Bridge.
The ceremony began with Igwe Awkuzu, the closest traditional ruler to the venue, offering prayers over the kola nut, invoking blessings for the successful execution of the project.
Speaking at the event, Minister of Works, Engr. Dave Umahi commended Governor Soludo for his exceptional leadership and transformative achievements in multiple sectors. He praised Soludo’s commitment to road infrastructure, pointing out that Anambra currently has 18 ongoing federal road projects, including the Enugu-Onitsha Expressway, which has been split between MTN and another company for effective execution.
Beyond road projects, Umahi acknowledged Soludo’s accomplishments in security, education, healthcare, and fiscal management, emphasizing his role in constructing a befitting Anambra Government House. He described Soludo as a strong ally of President Tinubu, stating that their partnership has been instrumental in advancing development in Anambra and the Southeast.
Umahi assured that payments for the project would be tied to work progress, with 30 percent of the contract sum already disbursed. He urged local communities along the route to support the project and avoid disruptions. He also reiterated President Tinubu’s commitment to the Southeast, citing key appointments such as the Chief of Naval Staff and the Minister of Works as proof of the administration’s dedication to the region.
Governor Soludo, in his address, said the Second Niger Bridge would remain incomplete until the entire 35km access road was fully constructed. While acknowledging previous setbacks, he thanked President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and expressed optimism that, with Umahi as Minister of Works, the project would be completed as planned. He urged community leaders, PGs, and traditional rulers to ensure that local youths do not obstruct construction activities, emphasizing that cooperation is essential for a smooth execution process.
Governor Soludo further highlighted the importance of sustained federal-state collaboration in infrastructure development, revealing that Anambra had already invested over N150 billion in federal roads. He stressed that the dualization of key roads was critical to preventing future congestion and ensuring long-term economic growth in the region.
The event also carried political undertones, as Hon. Chinwe Gwacgam, representing Oyi and Ayamelum Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, called on the federal government to support Soludo’s re-election in 2025, arguing that his continued leadership would guarantee sustained development in Anambra. He further suggested that in 2027, Soludo would reciprocate the gesture, hinting at broader political realignments.
The contractor, CGC Nigeria Limited, represented by General Manager Gius Cheng, pledged to complete the project on schedule and in line with the highest quality standards.
With construction now officially underway, the initiative is set to transform interstate transportation, ease traffic congestion, and boost economic activities across Anambra and Delta states. The project reinforces the federal government’s commitment to infrastructure development and the economic integration of the Southeast with the rest of Nigeria.
![[OPINION] Bayero, Agim, Wike and that convocation event at the UNICAL - Chidi Anselm Odinkalu](/media/k2/items/cache/ccfc353c6e37977594c0aca7ba6d76f7_S.jpg)
As part of its golden jubilee, the University of Calabar is said to have held a special convocation ceremony on Saturday, 22 March, 2025 where it handed out honours to all manner of persons. The Chancellor of the University is Aminu Ado Bayero, the deposed Emir of Kano. Present at that event also were Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Nigeria’s most prolific political litigant; as well as Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, a senior Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the leading decision in the recent judgment of that court concerning the withholding of the federal allocations of the Rivers State Government.
Images of the events in Calabar putting these major actors in contemporary politics of the Nigerian judiciary in close propinquity with one another have gone viral. In response, Festus Akande, Director of Information and Public Relations at the Supreme Court issued a public statement on Monday, 24 March, 2025, in which he felt compelled to claim that Emmanuel Agim attended the convocation “as an esteemed honouree and an alumnus of the institution, whom the Governing Council had found worthy to be conferred with an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Law (Doctor Honoris Causa). He was recognized for his significant contributions to the legal profession; which is a reflection of his commitment to justice, integrity, and the rule of law, serving as a model for aspiring legal professionals and students alike.”
Mr. Akande’s statement further claimed that “Emmanuel Agim’s participation at the ceremony was independent and not as an official representative of any government ministry or department, let alone accompanying any serving or retired government official”, before asserting that “any insinuation to the contrary is not only inaccurate but undermines the judicial independence that is crucial to our democracy.”
These claims are made in the name of the Supreme Court and in pursuit of high sounding goals of judicial independence and democracy.
The Supreme Court is a public institution embodying the highest judicial authority in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Judicial independence is a high constitutional principle ordained for the protection of judicial authority as a public trust. It is not a self-serving shibboleth.
In terms of Nigeria’s constitution, the source of democratic legitimacy resides in the people alone.
To leave Festus Akande’s claims uncontested or without a response, therefore, is to diminish the high authority of the Supreme Court, the service of the distinguished men and women who have laboured to give it its historically high standing in the public imagination until recently, and the high principles of judicial independence and democracy instituted for the protection of the peoples of Nigeria.
This statement is issued out of concern to stem the heedless hemorrhaging of the rarefied authority of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In this spirit, it is essential to set the records straight, even if ever so briefly.
The Applicable Standards
The fact that Festus Akande considered it essential to issue the statement itself shows what something was wrong with that event in Calabar. In case he needs reminding, Lord Chief Justice Hewart laid down the applicable standard for judging judicial impartiality and independence in 1923 in R. v Sussex Justices, Ex Parte McCarthy, (1923) All ER 233, to the effect that: “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”
That event in Calabar was rich with pictures to support suspicions of improper interference with the cause of justice.
Rule 2.8 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria (2016) is very clear: “A Judge shall avoid developing excessively close relationship with frequent litigants – such as government ministers or their officials, municipal officials, police prosecutors in any Court where the Judge often sits, if such relationship could reasonably create an appearance of partiality.”
In Buhari vs. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2008) LPELR-814(SC) at PP.145-146, Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court admonished judges to “maintain a very big distance from politics and politicians” warning that:
“….the two professions do not meet and will never meet at all in our democracy in the discharge of their functions…. Their waters never meet in the same way Rivers Niger and Benue meet at the confluence near Lokoja. If they meet, the victim will be democracy most of the time, and that will be bad for sovereign Nigeria.”
In his memoirs, Faces, Cases and Places, published in 1983,(p.78), former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Atanda Fatayi Williams, said:
“In Nigeria, familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds obligation. As a result, people with whom you are friendly expect you to bend the rules to suit their requirements. It pays in the end for a judge, even at the risk of being accused of being a snob or of haughtiness, to be somewhat aloof, not only from members of the Executive, but also from political powerbrokers.”
Neither Festus Akande not, indeed, Justice Emmanuel Agim as a Justice of the Supreme Court can pretend to be unaware that Nyesom Wike is the most prolific current political litigator in Nigeria. To justify public fraternizing with him by a Supreme Court Justice is to licensing the accessorizing of judicial officers for political purposes.
The Context: Nyesom Wike & Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
On the last day of February 2025, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the consolidated appeals in SC/CV/1174A/2024 et al, Rivers State House of Assembly & Anor vs. The Government of Rivers State & 9 Ors. The case sought orders of the court to, among other things, require the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold the federal allocations of the Government of Rivers State until the passage of a budget by a faction of the State House of Assembly. At the time, the question of the right of that faction of the State House of Assembly to function as such was the subject of litigation before lowers courts in FHC/PHC/CS/2024 Oko-Jumbo & 2 Ors vs. Martin Amaewhule & Ors (pending in the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt since April 2024).
The case seeking to withhold the federal allocations of Rivers State was un-related to this appeal. Delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court on 28 February, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim framed two issues for determination neither of which had anything to do with then issues pending before the Federal High Court. Yet, without an appeal from that case before it, the court purported to determine the issues then pending before the Federal High Court on the question of the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from the platform on which they were elected (the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC). Even though the issue of the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not arise in the appeal, the Supreme Court raised it by itself and shockingly decided a case that was still pending at the High Court.
This course of action has no precedent in Nigeria’s judicial history. It is the first in the history of Nigeria that the Supreme Court will take over a case that is pending in the Federal High Court. Unsurprisingly, counsel to the 27 legislators promptly applied to the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt asking it to dismiss the case on the ground that it has become academic on the basis that the Supreme Court has decided the matter while it was still at the Federal High Court. The Port Harcourt judicial division of the Federal High Court will render its judgment on this application on 20 April, 2025.
The Context: Nyesom Wike and Aminu Ado Bayero
On 14 March, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja in Appeal No., CA/KN/27/M/2025, Alhaji Aliyu Babba Dan Sarki Dawaki Babba vs. Kano State House of Assembly & 7 Ors, granted a “Mandatory Injunction” (not a stay of execution) arresting the enforcement of the judgment of the same Court of Appeal on 10 January 2025 in Appeal No. CA/KN/126/2024, Kano State House of Assembly & Anor vs. Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan Agundi & Ors. The earlier judgment of the Court was delivered by a panel led by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, a Justice of Appeal since 22 June, 2018. The latter decision arresting that judgment was given by a panel led by Justice Okon Abang, a Justice of the Court of Appeal since 20 September 2023. Other members of the latter panel were Justice Eberechi Suzette Nyesom-Wike (Justice of the Court of Appeal since 10 July 2024) and Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi (Justice of the Court of Appeal since 10 July 2024). This panel of the Court of Appeal included the wife of the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike.
In terms of seniority in the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, Justice Okon Abang is no. 6 out of 10; Justice Nyesom-Wike is No. 9; and Justice Oyewumi is the last. It is unprecedented for a panel this junior to be constituted to sit upon a decision of a much more senior panel of the Court of Appeal. It is equally notable that the President of the Court of Appeal has unilaterally moved this case to Abuja from Kano.
The subject matter of this appeal is a fundamental rights claim by a disaffected king-maker in respect of the stool of the Kano Emirate from which Aminu Ado Bayero was deposed. The Court of Appeal in Kano had denied that claim, holding that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction over essentially chieftaincy matters.
Following this decision, Aminu Ado Bayero, who is not a named party in the case, notified the security services in Kano of his intention to hold an Eid-El-Fitr Durbar at the end of the holy month of Ramadhan. I am reliably informed by sources within the Court of Appeal of plans by some people to procure an order of the same Court of Appeal on Tuesday, 25 March 2025 to enjoin the security authorities in Kano to ensure co-operation with and protection for the Durbar proposed by Aminu Ado Bayero.
Meanwhile, on Monday, 24 March 2025, the Supreme Court entered an appeal against the ruling of the Okon Abang-led Court of Appeal panel as Appeal No SC/CV/279/2025. This should ordinarily preclude the Court of Appeal from further engagement with the subject matter but these are no ordinary times and no one can say what could happen
The Optics
Aminu Ado Bayero, the Chancellor who conferred the honorary degree on the Minister of the FCT, is seeking to claim benefit of a curious, incongruous and improbable order of the Court of Appeal panel which included the wife of the Minister. As I write, the panel has yet to release the text of the reasoning on which it issued its orders.
Justice Emmanuel Agim is the author of a curious, incongruous, and inexplicably unprecedented decision of the Supreme Court in favour of satraps of the same Minister in the political contest in Rivers State.
This context makes the optics of that particular occasion in Calabar an awful advertisement for high subversion of the values of judicial independence and democracy, around whose flags Festus Akande sought to wrap his defense of the indefensible. Even worse, these facts create a credible perception of network transaction in judicial orders.
The 50th anniversary convocation of a university is not an emergency event. The parties who met in Calabar had to have had notice of that event long before the dates of the judgments or rulings in the cases in which their interests interlocked. There was ample time, if they desired, to make alternative arrangements. Their decision to proceed in the manner they did without any regard to the optics or possible damage to the standing of the judicial institutions serves neither judicial independence nor democracy. Instead, it showcases a peculiar brand of hubris and impunity at the desecration of those high constitutional values.
Odinkalu is a lawyer and a teacher. He can be reached at odinkalu@tufts.edu
[OPINION] State of Emergency in Rivers State: Collateral Damage and Remediation - Magnus Onyibe
Admin![[OPINION] State of Emergency in Rivers State: Collateral Damage and Remediation - Magnus Onyibe](/media/k2/items/cache/051e3b64da8b7a7e3561fa8d5cd6ded8_S.jpg)
While some Rivers State indigenes were agonizing over the Supreme Court’s decision barring the federal government from releasing the state’s monthly financial allocation—following the imposition of emergency rule by President Tinubu on March 18—the funds have now been released, ensuring that workers’ salaries will be paid at the end of the month. However, not all Nigerians are pleased.
Among the most aggrieved are members of the political class, who view the emergency rule in Rivers State as a suspension of democracy. This move disrupts the established democratic process and the principles of due process that govern public administration.
Following the swearing-in of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd) as the sole administrator of Rivers State—replacing Governor Siminalayi Fubara—public administration in the state has effectively been relocated to Aso Rock, the presidential seat of government in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Governance is now dictated by directives from Abuja rather than by an elected governor who should be accountable to the people of Rivers State.
The National Assembly (NASS), in its endorsement of the emergency proclamation, has also assumed oversight of the Rivers State House of Assembly. This means that the sole administrator operates under directives from Abuja, in contrast to an elected governor who is expected to report to his constituents—the people of Rivers State—who had chosen their political leaders through democratic means. But with state assembly suspended how is the NASS going to have oversight function over it while on suspension?
By democratic principles, elected representatives of the people of Rivers State should only be removed under three conditions:
1. A recall process initiated by the electorate.
2.Impeachment through constitutional means.
3. Non-re-election at the expiration of their tenure.
By bypassing these democratic processes and instead using political crises as justification for suspending democracy, the people of Rivers State have been effectively disenfranchised, stripped of their civic rights for the six-month duration of the emergency rule.
Political and Socioeconomic Consequences
The removal of the governor, deputy governor, and elected state assembly members has inflicted significant damage, not just on the political landscape but also on the socioeconomic stability of Rivers State.
Beyond this direct impact, the decision to impose emergency rule has tarnished Nigeria’s reputation as a democracy. President Tinubu, known for his advocacy of democratic governance, now faces criticism that this action contradicts his democratic credentials.
This decision also threatens to erase the democratic progress Nigeria has made since 1999. The country has maintained an unbroken democratic governance structure for nearly 25 years, marking a significant milestone in its post-independence political development. However, the handling of Rivers State’s political crisis risks undermining these gains.
Elder statesmen and political leaders—both within and beyond Rivers State—have raised concerns about the dangerous precedent being set. Since the 1966 and 1967 military coups, Nigeria has experienced intermittent periods of military and civilian rule. However, since the return to democracy in 1999, governance has been based on the rule of law and due process.
With Nigeria set to mark 25 years of uninterrupted democracy on May 29, the imposition of emergency rule in Rivers State, coupled with the opaque manner in which the National Assembly ratified it, has diminished the country’s democratic standing.
The Justification and Its Pitfalls
President Tinubu has justified the move by citing the need to prevent potential violence and safeguard vital oil and gas installations in Rivers State and the Niger Delta. However, as the saying goes, “The road to disaster is paved with good intentions.”
Ironically, following the installation of a retired military officer as Rivers State’s sole administrator, reports emerged that the Boki gas facility was set ablaze by militants last Sunday. This incident raises questions about whether the emergency rule has actually enhanced security or exacerbated tensions.
Despite the President’s defense of his actions, opposition leaders argue that the move was hasty and extreme. Attorney General and Minister of Justice Lateef Fagbemi has attempted to justify the decision by referencing Section 305(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which grants the president authority to declare a state of emergency. However, this constitutional provision does not explicitly authorize the suspension of elected officials, as has been done in Rivers State.
Fagbemi’s legal interpretation, which seemingly guided the President’s decision, is now being challenged as a potential Achilles’ heel for the administration. Critics argue that while concerns about security threats are valid, suspending a democratically elected government is a disproportionate and legally questionable response.
Furthermore, the Attorney General’s statement that similar measures could be applied to other states facing political crises has raised alarm. This stance risks encouraging political actors to deliberately incite crises in their states, knowing that it could justify federal intervention and the suspension of democratic governance.
Would this policy not lead to a proliferation of political violence across Nigeria, driven by opposition figures who see it as a means to destabilize elected governments? If a breakdown of law and order becomes a pretext for suspending democracy, then the nation’s democratic future is at stake.
The imposition of emergency rule in Rivers State has set off a chain of political, legal, and economic consequences that could have long-term ramifications for Nigeria’s democracy. If left unaddressed, this decision may not only damage the country’s democratic reputation but also embolden political actors to exploit crisis situations for their own advantage.
To restore confidence in the democratic process, President Tinubu may need to reconsider the duration and scope of the emergency rule, ensuring that Rivers State’s governance is returned to its elected representatives as soon as possible to douse the rising tension even as the emergency remains in effect as former president Goodluck Jonathan did in three northern states. Failure to do so could make this episode a defining crisis of his administration, overshadowing his broader governance agenda.
If causing mayhem in a state can be legitimately cited as justification for a state of emergency proclamation by President Tinubu in Rivers State, and if this becomes the valid condition and gold standard for suspending democratically elected state government officials, as Attorney General Fagbemi alluded to in his press briefing, would it not become a preferred strategy for politicians to destabilize their opponents by fomenting or triggering violence to create an opportunity for the suspension of democracy in a state?
The parable of the jealous mother of a dead baby in the holy bible (1 Kings 3:16-28) who switched her lifeless child for a living one and accepted the arbiter’s solution to divide the baby, knowing that the child was not hers, is instructive. The point here is that electoral losers, particularly in gubernatorial contests, may be incentivized to incite trouble that triggers violence, leading to a declaration of a state of emergency and effectively denying the rightful winner the benefits of their victory.
If violence becomes a precondition for declaring a state of emergency, politicians may find it easier and cheaper to hire thugs to cause unrest and threaten national assets rather than pursuing legal battles, which involve hiring expensive legal teams, often composed of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), to defend or challenge mandates in court.
Even the legal recourse of challenging election outcomes in court has become a major flaw in Nigeria’s democracy, as the phrase “you can go to court” has become a mocking refrain used by some politicians who rely on pliable judicial officers to secure favorable rulings.
It may be recalled that the uncontrollable violence in the Western Region during the First Republic—infamously known as Wetie, when supporters of Ladoke Akintola and Obafemi Awolowo engaged in violent clashes—was the justification for the state of emergency declared by then-Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. It is because of this troubling historical precedent that the current declaration of emergency in Rivers State is causing unease, not just among politicians in the state but nationwide.
Given this context, there is an urgent need to address concerns and provide legally and constitutionally sound justifications for the seemingly extreme action. There must also be transparency in explaining how and why the legislative branch so swiftly ratified the executive’s decision, as the process has been shrouded in speculation and accusations of financial inducements—allegations that have been denied.
In the United States, from where Nigeria adopted the presidential system, government shutdowns due to budget disagreements often drag on until the last minute, with intense negotiations before lawmakers approve a resolution. Unfortunately, such extensive deliberation and scrutiny were absent when Nigerian lawmakers were expected to exercise their oversight function by ratifying the president’s decision within two (2) days if in session or ten (10) days if on recess. Critics have alleged that senators and House members betrayed their constituents for pecuniary benefits. If true, this is how democracies die—a point highlighted by Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their book How Democracies Die, which chronicles how seemingly minor democratic violations, when accumulated, can erode democracy itself.
In the U.S. Senate, figures like Joe Manchin of West Virginia have been known for filibustering. In the 1950s, Oregon Senator Wayne Morse used the filibuster to educate the public on critical national issues. Why did we not witness similar democratic engagement in this case—where lawmakers could have used the opportunity to enlighten Nigerians on Section 305, Subsection 1 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the president to declare a state of emergency? Furthermore, why did this provision seemingly allow for the suspension of elected executive and legislative officials while sparing the judiciary?
When Senator Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State and House of Representatives member Obi Aguocha from Ikwuano/Umuahia, Abia State, demanded more transparency from both legislative chambers, they were overruled. Instead of validating the president’s decision in an open and convincing manner, the opaque process used to ratify the action has reinforced public suspicion that the emergency rule in Rivers State was a calculated move to destabilize the state and make it vulnerable for takeover by the ruling party at the center, which is in opposition in the state. Whether this is true or false, the ruling party missed an opportunity to correct public perception by ensuring transparency in the validation process.
Without a doubt, this negative perception has become an unnecessary burden for the ruling party and may turn into a political liability in the 2027 elections. To remedy the situation a number of steps need to be taken to ensure that the angst do not translate into resentment towards the ruling party such that she may be imperiled during elections in a zone that it needs to win to guarrantee re-election. Even President Tinubu’s allies, notably Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka, have raised concerns.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has also expressed his disapproval of the emergency rule. Likewise, governors from the South-South zone and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) as well as various civil society organizations that have issued statements condemning the decision.
As this controversy unfolds, it is not just Nigerians who are watching but also the international community, with foreign envoys reporting back to their respective governments.
In a previous article published on the day the emergency rule was to be ratified, I proposed a way for the government to navigate this contentious issue. While some of my recommendations such as the setting up of emminent persons group comprising of members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government were adopted, my suggestion to limit the emergency rule to one month was not implemented. But it is not too late to review the proclamation since it is barely two (2)weeks in implementation.
One good thing about the proclamation is that it has enabled the federal government to continue funding Rivers state government without breaching the Supreme Court judgement barring the FGN from releasing the monthly financial allocation from the federation account to Rivers state.
But the appointment of a retired military officer as sole administrator in place of elected representatives in Rivers State is as disappointing to Nigerians as the controversial conduct of the 2023 general elections, where the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) failed to process and announce results using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV), thereby failing the integrity test. Additionally, the announcement of presidential election results at odd hours further tainted the credibility of the process.
In the past 22 months, the Tinubu administration has worked to move past these controversies by implementing significant socioeconomic reforms. Though initially painful, as they worsened the cost-of-living crisis and plunged many Nigerians into hardship, these reforms—including the Nigeria Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) to democratize university education, improvements in energy security through the operationalization of Dangote Refinery, and the proposed establishment of CreditCorp to expand consumer credit—have begun to yield positive economic signs.
For example, the price of petrol has dropped from ₦1,300 per liter to ₦880, and the naira, which had depreciated to ₦1,900 per dollar, is now trading between ₦1,500 and ₦1,600. Surveys by major media organizations also indicate a gradual decline in food prices.
Although the prices of goods have not dropped to the level where a critical mass of Nigerians will be eased of the hardship currently crushing them, sooner than later, with consistency in lossening the tight grip on money by the Central Bank of Nigeria, (CBN), the cost of living crisis will ebb to the relief of government and citizens alike.
However, as the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Would President Tinubu allow the mistake of declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State to be the blight that overshadows his administration’s accomplishments—especially considering his reputation as a staunch advocate of democracy?
The late American comedian Richard Pryor once said:
“I believe in the spirit of living. It’s just good to be alive. If you’re alive, then you always have the potential to change things.”
President Tinubu is both politically and physically alive, meaning he has the power to change course if it becomes clear that his earlier decision was flawed.
He has demonstrated this ability before—such as when he increased the direct cash transfer funds for the poor after complaints that the initial amount was insufficient. There have been several other instances where he reversed decisions, a trait that, in leadership, is often seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
If he amends his stance by reducing the suspension period to, at most, three (3) months, he may find a more acceptable balance between maintaining security and upholding democratic principles.
One is optimistic that this crisis would soon pass away as president Tinubu is known not to shy away from doing the right thing.
Most importantly the omnibus nature of article 305 in the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria, FGN which empowers the president to proclaim a state of emergency in Nigeria is too unwieldy to lend itself to being defined as an effective tool for good governance in an ideal democratic setting. Hence prime minister Tafawa Balewa and president Olusegun Obasanjo, during their tenure read, interpreted and implemented it differently from the manner that president Goodluck Jonathan did during his watch.
It is because it is nebulous that President Tinubu has currently been advised to emulate the former heads of state Balewa and Obasanjo in his recent proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers state than the latter, President Jonathan’s approach which aligns more with democratic norms.
Thus, owing to its bogus nature section 305 of the constitution of the FGN has by ommission or commission become a lightening rod and possibly a hammer for nailing the coffin of democracy in Nigeria.
Put succinctly, the ability and flexibilty to make article 305 of the 1999 constitution of the FGN too amenable to multiple interpretations is responsible for the constitutional crisis that has enveloped the political atmosphere in Nigeria. As such, to avoid a similar complexity of multiple interpretations which is the drawback in relying on the judiciary to resolve issues, it is the gordian knot that has to be untied by our law makers during the next review of the constitution of the FGN by being very specific about the begining and end of that law.
Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government.
More...
![[OPINION] Tinubu’s occupational hazards - Jide Oluwajuyitan](/media/k2/items/cache/7e86a41fb318cbc51ca1b280fd361d58_XS.jpg)
Being a politician in itself is a major nightmare. But perhaps one of the major occupational hazards of a politician is taking hard decisions on behalf of the people even when he is misunderstood by the very society he serves. This is why politics is not for the faint-hearted but for risk takers who promise miracles without knowing how the miracle will come about. This is why governance which includes defending fortune-seekers who do not know what is in their best interest can be very challenging.
What is not always apparent to the governed however is that government is not an independent arbiter but a tool in the hands of those who with their control of a disproportionate share of the national resources, are out to preside over an empire of slaves? It is ironic that it is this same people that often mobilise those bent on pulling down government.
I sympathise with President Tinubu who before last week anti-government conspiracy he survived had been going through stress and strain over his government’s harsh economic policies. Last week’s mass mobilisation of critical segment of Nigerians including those whose battle he was fighting against by his many political foes must have been very distressing.
For taking a bold decision to confront those who have for two years held people of Rivers hostage, his government was painted a Leviathan, a huge fearful sea monster that must be brought down. And leading the war with a battle cry of “the democracy we fought for” are fake democrats without democratic ethos. We have PDP sore losers like Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi who, two years after losing an election won round and square by their opponents, are yet to congratulate the victor.
Others include Pat Utomi who has professed that the president’s interference to end the siege on Rivers by those benefiting from their misery sounded the death knell of democracy in Nigeria. There is Rotimi Amaechi, Nasir El-Rufai, former APC insiders who have decided to start urinating inside from outside. We have the Nigerian Bar Association that one had thought would be more introspective but has chosen to declare the president a ‘totalitarian’ based on its jaundiced judgment.
And finally anchoring the activities of the president’s political foes was Fubara’s media meddlers who swear in the name of patriotism which as has been shown can be “the last refuge of the scoundrels”. (Samuel Johnson 1775).
Even with his celebrated versatility and political brinkmanship, President Tinubu must have felt lonely last week with all round denunciation and condemnation of his bold move to stop the drift in Rivers. Not even from Rivers came any form of relief as a segment of the elders, first identified by Saro Wiwa, an Ogoni hero as ‘vultures’ who feed on the blood of their people, Rivers women for Fubara, restive jobless Rivers youths forgotten as successive governors became obsessed with infrastructural development since 1999, threatening Ijaw youths, meddling politicians from outside Rivers, all taking up arms against the government and insisting Rivers has been short-changed by the president’s action. Of course, except for the president who is always one step ahead of his political opponents, no one knew what was going to happen in view of tension that took over the country until relief came from the National Assembly after two days that was like an eternity.
And how did it start?
For close to two years, Fubara the democratically elected governor of Rivers was at war with his state lawmakers said to be loyal to his godfather Nyesom Wike, the FCT minister. Unable to understand that compromise is the highest badge of honour in a democracy where the ruler rules while others dictate the tune, he reneged on the truce he reached with his other arm of his government in a meeting presided over by the president. He opted to rule with an assembly of three people. And of the other 27 elected lawmakers, he had said:
“They are not existing; these are people eating in my house, I helped to pay their children school fees when I was not even a governor, I accepted the accord to give them a floating, their existence is me allowing them to exist”.
The February 28, Supreme Court judgment indicted the governor for demolishing the state House of Assembly to prevent his impeachment, for disobeying Abuja High Court judgment, Abuja appeal court judgment that declared presentation of budget to three people unconstitutional and mandated him to present the budget to the 27 member House of Assembly recognized by the Supreme Court after being made redundant for close to two years. While the governor embarked on what most people saw as his game of ostrich playing, the House slammed him with notice of impeachment.
The president after lamenting that he “made personal interventions between the contending parties for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, but my efforts have been largely ignored by the parties to the crisis, the president echoing aspects of the Supreme Court’s decisions, accusing the governor of frantically working to collapse the state’s legislature said,
“In the circumstance, having soberly reflected on and evaluated the political situation in Rivers State and the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State having failed to make a request to me as President to issue this proclamation as required by section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, it has become inevitably compelling for me to invoke the provision of section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from today, 18th March, 2025 and I so do.”
Then the war mongers went to town. PDP that watched the Rivers crisis drift for two years claimed the president action was “an attempt to suspend the 1999 Constitution and overturn a democratic government”. Pat Utomi, a chieftain of Labour Party said “the act signals the end of democracy in Nigeria; Rotimi Amaechi alleged it “points to a brazen attempt at power grab in the state by force”. The respected human rights lawyer Clement Nwankwo blamed the National Assembly.
Joining the hordes of partisans was the chairman of Nigerian Bar Association who should know better but was more reckless. He claimed the situation in Rivers “has not called for state of emergency”. Since he is not the president or member of the National Assembly, he was not in the position to make such assertion.
But without restraint, the NBA chairman declared “At this inauspicious moment in our nation’s trajectory, all people of goodwill and conscience should rise to oppose this audacious violation of our constitution and rape of our democracy.
“Mr. President must be made to know and understand in unmistakable terms that this illegality cannot stand”. He concluded by “asking politicians across Nigeria to speak up and rise against the country’s descent into totalitarianism.”
Section 305 of the Constitution which vests the president with the power to declare a state of emergency, also gives him power of discretion. He could adopt any strategy he deems fit to bring sanity to a troubled area. The NBA chairman deliberately ignored that fact.
In any case, if the NBA chairman believes the president has committed an infraction, the best place to go is the court where we have competent and discerning judges who can make a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law; i.e. the underlying aim purpose and intended ethical considerations behind legal statutes as opposed to its literal wordings”.
Then there are the Fubara media meddlers. They hailed him the morning after masterminding the bombing of Rivers state House of Assembly as he matched with thugs on the street of Port Harcourt.
They lionized him and encouraged him to abandon a truce he reached with the warring members of his state assembly supervised by the president.
When the Abuja High Court and Abuja Appeal court ruled it was an aberration to present the state budget before three people, they asked tongue in cheek, ‘why should his opponents approach the Abuja Court?’
And when on February 28, the Supreme Court ruled there has been no government in Rivers since he removed one leg of a tripod that sustains democratic government, the Supreme Court was disparaged.
When the president finally declared state of emergency, Fubara media meddlers who angrily said anyone who disagrees with their views must be ‘stupid’ said the president committed impeachable offence and must be impeached. They tried to blackmail the National Assembly not to endorse the president’s action while they arrogantly advised the administrator nominee to reject the president’s appointment.
Senator Magnus Abe, a stakeholder in Rivers who appeared on their platform and pleaded they tone down the rhetoric and lower the temperature in the interest of Rivers State people who just want to reconcile their difference and live in peace was bullied.
Fubara’s media meddlers want to continue the war. They claim they are more patriotic than Nigeria’s elected president, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, all of which they freely bullied in the last two years.
What the Leviathan Nigeria should worry about is not Tinubu’s government but Fubara’s media meddlers.
![[OPINION] Affirmative Action and Namibia’s Example - Paul Ejime](/media/k2/items/cache/108fd8b9d1f2e33c333f370914818fcd_XS.jpg)
Affirmative Action refers to proactive measures taken by organisations or governments to ensure equal opportunity for historically marginalised groups. It aims to address past and present discrimination by implementing policies that promote diversity and inclusion… - The Oxford Review
The saying: “What a man can do, a woman can do better,” may be considered a cliché. But Namibia is set to prove doubters wrong, at least as far as gender mainstreaming is concerned.
Namibia’s newly elected President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah was sworn in as the country’s first female president on Friday 22nd March 2025, with fellow women Lucia Witbooi as Vice President and Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila as Speaker of the National Assembly - to complete the female triumvirate that will pilot the affairs of state in a largely patriarchal African continent.
Kuugongelwa-Amadhila is the first woman to hold the position of the third most powerful citizen in Namibia, next to President Nandi-Ndaitwah and her deputy, Witbooi, the second woman to serve as the country’s vice President.
As if this were not enough, Nandi-Ndaitwah’s 14-member cabinet has eight women.
The unprecedented gender shift followed the death of President Hage Geingob, whom Nandi-Ndaitwah succeeded on 24th February 2025.
A popular gender activist herself, Nandi-Ndaitwah, 72, however, believes that ability is critical to effective performance in leadership positions.
“As women, we should not ask to be elected to positions of responsibility because we are women, but because we are capable members of our societies to hold those positions,” she affirmed.
Addressing parliament after her inauguration, she reminded the MPs that while they might have been “elected on the tickets of our respective political parties, we have assumed the responsibility to represent all Namibian people without any discrimination.”
“The task facing me as the fifth president of the Republic of Namibia is to preserve the gains of our independence on all fronts and to ensure that the unfinished agenda of economic and social advancement of our people is carried forward with vigour and determination to bring about shared, balanced prosperity for all,” the new president pledged.
President Nandi-Ndaitwah's major decisions since her inauguration include reducing the Cabinet size from 21 to 14 and restructuring government ministries and agencies.
Erica Shafudah is named Minister of Finance, Lucia Iipumbu, Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety, and Security, and Selma Ashipala-Musavyi, International Relations. The three are women.
Elijah Ngurare is the new Prime Minister, while Natangwe Ithete, also a man, will serve as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Mines and Energy.
Under the new government structure, the oil and gas sectors are now under the Office of the President, and the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation will handle the trade portfolio, to strengthen economic diplomacy.
Describing poverty eradication as cross-cutting, President Nandi-Ndaitwah, daughter of a clergyman, directed all government ministries to implement programmes to support socio-economic development.
Responsibilities for disabled persons and marginalised groups now fall under the Office of the vice-President and Labour Relations are to be handled by the Justice Ministry and a yet-to-be-named public entity will manage government properties and assets.
Social Grants will move to the Ministry of Finance and Public Enterprises, while the Fisheries and Marine Resources Ministry is to merge with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Land Reform.
The Education Ministry will also oversee Arts, Sport, and Culture, and the Ministry of Industrialisation is combined with the Ministry of Mines and Energy to boost industrial growth, especially in mining.
President Nandi-Ndaitwah, nicknamed “NNN,” an MP since Namibia’s independence in 1990, became politically active at age 14. She became the leader of the Youth Wing of the Southwest Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO), which led the struggle for the country's liberation from apartheid South Africa.
Nandi-Ndaitwal was Namibia’s National Women's Organisation (NANAWO) president from 1991 to 1994 and became SWAPO President in 2024.
In 1973, she was forced into political exile in neighbouring Zambia and proceeded to then-Soviet Union and later the United Kingdom, to continue her education in public administration and management.
In 1988, Nandi-Ndaitwah obtained a post-graduate diploma in International Relations from Keele University, UK, and a master's degree in diplomatic studies from the same University.
She became Namibia’s third vice-President under President Nangolo Mbumba from 2024 to 2025 after serving as Deputy Prime Minister from 2015 to 2024 and Minister of Foreign Affairs, later renamed International Relations and Cooperation Ministry from 2012 to 2015, and Minister of Environment and Tourism from 2010 to 2012.
Nandi-Ndaitwah served as Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation from 1990 to 1996, later Director-General of Women's Affairs in the Office of the President, until 2000 when she was promoted to Minister of Women’s Affairs and Child Welfare.
She was SWAPO’s Deputy Representative in Zambia, from 1976 to 1978, Chief Representative in Zambia from 1978 to 1980, and from 1980 to 1986, the SWAPO Chief Representative in East Africa, based in the Zambian capital, Dar es Salaam.
In 2017, Nandi-Ndaitwah was elected SWAPO’s vice-president, the first woman in that capacity.
Under President Geingob, Nandi-Ndaitwah was Deputy Prime Minister from March 2015, and she combined that role with that of the International Relations and Cooperation portfolio and SWAPO’s Secretary for Information and Mobilisation, making her the party’s main spokesperson.
In March 2023, President Geingob named her, SWAPO's presidential candidate in the 2024 Namibian general elections.
On 3 December 2024, Nandi-Ndaitwah was officially declared the President-elect with 58.7% of the vote, defeating two political rivals Panduleni Itula and McHenry Venaani.
She is Africa’s fourth female President following in the footsteps of Liberia’s Nobel Laureate Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Joyce Banda of Malawi and Samia Suluhu Hassan of Tanzania.
Her victory extends SWAPO’s 35-year hold on power in Namibia, whose founding/liberation President Sam Nujoma died earlier this year at age 95.
Nandi-Ndaitwah succeeded Nangolo Mbumba, who stood in as president from February 2024 following the death of President Geingob, which led to her promotion to vice-President.
Married to Namibia’s former Chief of Defence Force, retired Lt.-Gen. Epaphras Denga Ndaitwah, the new president and her women-dominated administration face the challenge of proving that beyond their exemplary roles as home builders and resource managers, women can also out-perform their male counterparts in political governance.
Namibia's 1325 National Action Plans (NAP), builds on the country’s National Gender Policy, developed as complementary to other mechanisms and frameworks to advance women’s rights. The overarching goal of the NAP is to create “a safe and peaceful Namibia where all women, men, girls and boys have equal rights and live without fear or want and in dignity”
Namibia is expected to address other aspects of inclusiveness in governance to involve Persons with Disability (PWDs) and other marginalised groups.
But from the composition of Nandi-Ndaitwah’s cabinet, the Southern African nation with a relatively small population estimated at three million is making a strong statement to bigger countries in the advanced and developing World about the values and merits of diversity and Affirmative action.
Equal treatment of, and opportunities to persons irrespective of gender, race, religion, tribe/ethnic considerations, appearance or social standing will not only engender peaceful co-existence but also promote human development and progress.
Paul Ejime is a Media and Communications Specialist and Global Affairs Analyst
![[OPINION] Imagine Rivers State without a State of Emergency - Bayo Onanuga](/media/k2/items/cache/12487c2274be751c467f72e602f62417_XS.jpg)
Imagine a Rivers State where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu hesitated to declare a state of emergency. The political standoff between the State Assembly and Governor Siminalayi Fubara could have continued and degenerated into violence. Impeachment threats might have spurred attacks on lawmakers by the Governor’s supporters, while militants in the creeks—primed to sabotage critical oil infrastructure—could have plunged Nigeria’s oil production back to pre-2023 lows. Sensational reporting of the crisis by journalists and opportunistic litigation would have inflamed tensions further, paralysing governance and risking lives. Schools and hospitals would shutter; investors would flee. We can only imagine the human and economic toll.
Thanks to the President’s intervention, Rivers State can breathe again today. Political tensions have eased, banal headlines have quietened, and stakeholders—encouraged by the newly appointed administrator—are charting a path to lasting peace. Critics who argue the crisis “did not yet warrant” an emergency rule ignore a stark truth: waiting for the breakdown of law and order to escalate into anarchy before acting is like withholding firefighters until a house burns to ashes.
A responsible leader like President Tinubu, who swore an oath to protect the constitution and corporate existence of the country, can not fail to act when a constituent part of the Federation is careering towards the precipice. The political crisis in Rivers State between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and members of the State House of Assembly who owe allegiance to the Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, that blew open barely six months into the administration of the Governor has degenerated by 18 March. A chain of events since the war of attrition started 14 months ago among the combatants had indeed paralysed the government of Rivers State to the point where Fubara, copying from the bad book of former Governor Obaseki in Edo, emasculated an arm of government entirely. This reality informed the Supreme Court’s damning verdict about the absence of government in the State as enshrined in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, as amended. The court also excoriated Fubara for acting like a despot.
Rivers was in a grave situation, as the combatants refused to allow reason to prevail, even after the Supreme Court judgment, before President Tinubu declared a state of emergency on 18 March. The President took action in the best interest of the people of the State, who had become victims of the warring politicians, the people they elected to serve them. President Tinubu needed to act. He chose prevention over cure.
Section 305 of Nigeria’s Constitution empowers the President to act when the nation faces a breakdown of law, order, and economic security —precisely the case in Rivers, a bastion of Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. Intelligence confirmed militants, told by Fubara to await signals, were already targeting pipelines, risking a collapse in output and a Niger-Delta domino effect. Historical precedents, such as the past emergencies in Plateau and Borno and the doctrine of necessity, support the President’s proactive measures to avert disaster. The President’s oath demands he must not fail in his sacred duty to safeguard national stability, not watch idly as partisan strife strangles our democracy and the material well-being of Nigerians, whose prosperity depends on the social and economic interdependence of every part of the country. Rivers State is a significant hydrocarbon economic artery in Nigeria, and any dislocation and politically motivated disruption of the State’s oil industry have ripple effects on the national economy.
Answering the Critics:
Critics claim the emergency rule in Rivers undermines democracy. Their position misrepresents reality. The intervention is temporary, surgical, and aimed at restoring—not replacing—democratic institutions. The suspension of political actors for six months is no power grab; it is not a permanent removal but a reset to disarm warring factions. Notably, the same critics who assailed the President’s action for suspending the political actors remain silent on Governor Fubara’s refusal to collaborate with the legislature, exposing their partisan bias. Democracy can not thrive amid lawlessness—anarchy is its antithesis.
The appointed administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok Ibas (Rtd.), has already convened a meeting with traditional leaders, one of his first steps to forge lasting solutions. This intervention ensures Rivers’ people retain their democratic rights while shielding the Nigerian and Rivers State economies from collapse. It is worth repeating that President Tinubu acted within the law and his executive powers under the constitution until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
President Tinubu and the National Assembly remain committed to lifting the emergency once stability returns and ensuring elected officials resume their duties.
The 18th-century English philosopher Edmund Burke once warned, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” President Tinubu chose courage over complacency. His action prioritised Nigeria’s interest over political expediency, averting a more profound crisis. To those who brand him a democrat turned “tyrant,” my response to them is simple: Which democracy prospers in chaos? Rivers’ newfound calm vindicates President Tinubu’s resolve. He deserves commendation, not condemnation, not calumny for his statesmanship. Rivers and Nigeria are safer for it.
-Onanuga is the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy
![[OPINION] Nigeria’s triangle of incest - Lasisi Olagunju](/media/k2/items/cache/031c330581cdf91ab101fddc99f79265_XS.jpg)
“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
– Gideon J. Tucker
A Governor Bola Tinubu of Lagos would not vacate his seat for anyone appointed illegally from Abuja – or from anywhere. If the heavens wanted to fall, he would ask them to fall. He would not go hide somewhere in his wife’s handbag, and from the safety of his ghetto be issuing gutless press releases. If Abuja insisted on his suspension, he would mobilise the law and lawyers for eruptions of seismic proportions. He would ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the president could sack or suspend elected governors, appoint caretaker governors and take over the role of state Houses of Assembly. He would ask the apex court to reconcile this case with its earlier verdict which outlawed caretaker governments for one of our tiers of government. He would put everything he had into the mix; he would count the teeth of the tiger in Abuja. But Rivers is not Lagos, and Siminalayi Fubara is not Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The difference between both is the difference between courage and cowardice.
Until Saturday when he spoke on the Rivers State problem, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan walked the terrace of power with utmost carefulness. He avoided speaking truth to power the way the barefooted avoids walking a floor of broken glass. But on Saturday, he came out of his zone of reticence, and dared the dark, dangerous sherds of impunity. Jonathan spoke following President Bola Tinubu’s deployment of a Supreme Court judgment to meddle with and seize control of the nuts and bolts of our federation. In a fit of daring, calculative move for political advantage, Tinubu suspended democracy on a floor of the structure. And days after the act, without a whim of resistance, he got legislative approval for the mess. He left no one in doubt that all the powers and principalities of this realm are with him and that they work for him.
The three arms of government in Nigeria have become a triangular cult of iniquity. If the executive is after you, the other two quickly join in the clobbering. Jonathan identified the spring head of the problem. He saw: “a clear abuse of office, clear abuse of power, clear abuse of privileges, cutting across the three arms of government — from the executive through the parliament and to the judiciary.” Now, when those three institutions of democracy become citadels of abuse, what remains and what is next for us?
Nigerian food
Yesterday, 23 March, 2025, was the 92nd anniversary of the enactment of Germany’s Enabling Act which gave Adolf Hitler the power to make laws without parliamentary approval.
Nazi Germany had a parliament known as the Reichstag. The decay and destruction of that institution started in very innocuous bits, very small. It took off by saying yes to everything the leader did or took before it. The parliament members, incrementally, thought the leader deserved not their check, but their cheeks. Reichstag began its descent and quickened its suicide by enacting laws without any real debate or opposition. Then it took many other self-destruct steps; the climax came on 23 March, 1933, when Reichstag passed the historic Enabling Act transferring its powers and functions to the head of the executive.
In this Rivers matter, the Supreme Court cast the foundation, the president laid the blocks, the legislature roofed the edifice of an emerging autocracy. Jonathan spoke on the executive dictating judgments to judges. He described Nigeria as a country where “government functionaries can dictate to judges what judgment they will give.” That was a huge one. We expect a reaction or denial from the judiciary now or never. The ex-president also spoke on the operatives of the three branches of government not giving a damn as the country burned. He said they were feigning sleep while a flood of badness swept through the land. What he spoke on was the treachery of the judiciary and the perfidy of the legislature, both of which act as palace courtiers, and as whores of benefit who have surrendered their functions, power and glory to the president.
Nigerian food
Checks and balances. How often do we ask what they are and why they are at the core of this democracy? Destruction of checks and balances creates excesses that take rest of mind away from the society. Absolute power creates all the antonyms of peace and stability. It makes the nation the ultimate sick man on a roller coaster. It was exactly so for Hitler and his Germany. The Nazi leader, on 23 March, 1933, got the powers to make laws. The ease with which he got it made him think it was time for further consolidation. Thus, on 7 April, 1933, the leader put officials of his political party in charge of all local governments. On 14 July, 1933, Reichstag became a one-party parliament. January 1934, the ruling party took over all state governments. On 19 August, 1934, the leader announced himself president, chancellor and head of the army. The Fuhrer was born!
Our National Assembly would act Reichstag if it had not done so already. It spent the whole of last weekend denying taking bribes to approve the president’s illegal suspension of democracy in Rivers State. Our multi party Senate has 109 members; the House of Representatives has 360, elected from various parties. Yet, on a very critical day last week, members of the parliament collapsed their structures into a single party; they endorsed illegality with a single voice. The president suspended democracy, appointed and swore in a viceroy to serve as governor. He declared a state of emergency without parliament’s prior approval. He usurped the powers of the legislators and the legislators endorsed the usurpation without following the law. They used voice votes to announce that he was right!
Treachery has no other definition. What does it cost a leader to be told the truth? President Bola Tinubu himself called for truth two weeks ago. He told Catholic Bishops who paid him a visit that they should tell him the truth whenever he was missing the way: “I’m here open to you, ready to listen…I won’t shut my door,” he said. But he made that request to the wrong audience. The right audience for that demand is the National Assembly, a conglomerate of dank agents. They are his enemy. He also acts his own enemy, redacting his own records of resistance and activism.
Abuse of any power will happen where there are no checks. With the help of the legislature and the judiciary, Prime Minister Balewa abused the emergency law of his time. Olusegun Obasanjo did same. And, despite all the political and legal repercussions of what Balewa and Obasanjo did, Tinubu learnt nothing and has also done it. He now sits back, watches and smiles as we fret.
The president and all who cheer him would remember that this presidential democracy is not our creation. We copied it from America. And if they agree that we copied this system from the US, have they ever found out why an American president has never tried to suspend or remove a state governor under any pretext, including under emergencies which are provided for under their own laws? It is because US governors are not boys of the president, and both sides know this to be legally and historically correct.
Where the law is allowed to work, there are always consequences for aberrant behaviour. Whatever is happening in Donald Trump’s America today, the fact is that the US Congress had historically managed to contain the excesses of presidents who thought they were king. I cite an example:
President Andrew Johnson took over as US president following the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But Johnson does not enjoy as much favours of history as Lincoln does. Why?
President Johnson ran into problems because of his Kabiyesi stance on procedural and constitutional issues. On August 5, 1867, Johnson asked Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton to resign because the secretary disagreed with him over Reconstruction plans. The man refused to resign. The president gave him a week of grace, the man remained recalcitrant; then the president suspended him on August 12 without the approval of the Congress.
Four months after that act (December 12), the president submitted his reasons for suspending Secretary Stanton to the Senate. On January 13, 1868, Senate refused to approve Johnson’s suspension of Stanton. The following day, the man who had been acting as Interim Secretary of War, Ulysses S. Grant, informed President Johnson that in view of Senate’s decision, he was vacating his post for the rightful owner, Stanton. He left.
Stubborn President Johnson, on February 21, 1868 in gross violation of the Tenure of Office Act, formally removed Stanton and gave the control of the War Department to General Lorenzo Thomas. With the law behind him, sacked Stanton glared down President Johnson’s decision. For the next two months, he stayed put, he slept and woke up (holed up) in his cabinet office, barricading himself in there.
The US Congress watched with consternation as the president usurped its powers. It saw what the president did as a blatant violation of the Tenure of Office Act. It proceeded to commence an impeachment process against the Commander-in-Chief. On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives voted 126-47 to impeach Johnson.
On March 5, 1868, the Senate began its impeachment trial with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted 35-19 to convict President Johnson. The figure was, however, one vote short of the necessary two-third majority to get the man sacked. On May 26, 1868, the Senate gave the president a reprieve, it voted to acquit the president on two of the charges. It then adjourned and never voted on the remaining eight articles of impeachment.
Johnson escaped sack but the damage had been done. It was effectively the ‘end’ of Johnson as president. He never recovered.
On 11 July, 2024, Nigeria’s Supreme Court declared that state governors had no power to sack elected local government chairmen and councilors and constitute caretaker committees to run the local governments. The court further declared that a local government council was only recognisable with a democratically elected government.
“A democratically elected local government is sacrosanct and non-negotiable,’’ the apex court declared.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who was the plaintiff in that case saluted the Supreme Court for delivering justice. He said the judgment had effectively ended the practice of governors replacing democracy with autocracy by wantonly sacking elected council bosses and replacing them with unelected caretaker committees.
On Wednesday, 19 March, 2025, the same Fagbemi addressed a press conference in Abuja endorsing President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of a caretaker governor for Rivers State and the suspension of democratic structures there. “A lawyer’s truth is not the truth” (David Henry Thoreau).
Fagbemi is supposed to know (and he knows) that there is nothing like ‘suspension’ of governor or ‘suspension’ of the legislature in our constitution which governs all other laws and everything about our democracy. But he went further to threaten other governors with the fate of Fubara. He hinted them not to dare dare his boss: “It is Rivers State’s turn today, it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow, let the signal be clearly sent to those who want to foment trouble, who want to make the practice of democracy and the enjoyment of dividends of democracy a mirage to think twice.” In other words, when you slaughter a goat in the presence of another goat, the living will be sober; it will behave well.
But wait. If the emergency rule is declared by the president over the whole country, will he appoint himself sole administrator and suspend the National Assembly? Or who rules?
To Nigeria’s chief law officer, under an emergency rule, the president can become the electorate deciding who governs and who ceases to govern. He can also be the people of any or all the states; voters in INEC registers would become Shakespeare’s “blocks, stones …worse than senseless things.”
From the courts to the president’s office to the office of the Attorney-General, to the parliament, we could see the futility in hoping for acting right and talking straight. An incestuous triangle of the three arms or what David Wyatt called a “tyrannizing unity” of the powers, reigns.
Their ways remind us of a favourite passage in Jonathan Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’: “You have clearly proved that ignorance, idleness, and vice are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislator. That laws are best explained, interpreted, and applied by those whose interest and abilities lie in perverting, confounding, and eluding them.”
Emergency rule started in Rome around the 3rd century BC. The Romans used the law to create what they called ‘office of the dictator’ to solve specific public (safety) problems. They had two main categories of such. The first they named the dictatura rei gerundae causa (dictatorship for getting things done). The second was dictatura seditionis sedandae causa (dictatorship for suppressing civil insurrection). The Romans did not, however, create the emergency rules and laws for free roamers to exploit. They limited the dictators’ term to six months. They also struggled to contain abuse of their powers. But, apparently because of abuses such as we saw last week in Nigeria, the Roman senate took direct control of resolving crises. It replaced the office of dictator with what was called ‘Ultimate Decree of the Senate’ (senatus consultum ultimum). The present controversy presents us an opportunity to also rethink our emergency law and everything connected with it.
Strong, uncontrollable leaders always put their nations in trouble. Keeping quiet, excusing their excesses or enabling their illegality put everyone in danger. Where big men reign above the law and below decency, people pay for what they did not buy. Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini was created and nurtured by a culture of acquisence. His appointment as Prime Minister in 1922 was approved despite his party holding only 35 seats out of 535 in the parliament. With intimidation and harassment of voters, his party pushed up its figure to 374 seats in the April 1924 election. In January 1925, Mussolini, right inside the parliament, declared himself dictator. The legislators heard him and applauded him. They proceeded to grant him more powers. They passed laws that dissolved opposition parties and shut down free press. Mussolini dismantled democratic institutions that won’t let him breathe and emit fire. He got the constitutionally recognised Chamber of Deputies, Italy’s equivalent of our House of Representatives, replaced by something called the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations, a body controlled by his Fascist Party. He made the parliament in his image transforming it for his use in outlawing the opposition and the law.
The National Assembly that sat last week in Abuja may go that way unless Kabiyesi, our president, does not want it to.