The Nation Newspaper

Category: Lawal Ogienagbon

  • Nigeria and the China wall

    Nigeria and the China wall

    The trade dispute between the Ogun State Government and a Chinese firm is not that complex. The only complexity in it is the vicarious damage suffered by the Federal Government. The principles of international law make it so. The Federal Government is the principal which must suffer for the sins of its sub nationals, which could be likened to its agents, whether or not it is aware of their misdemeanours.

    But they are not so treated in national laws, under which each tier of government bears its own responsibilities. This preamble is necessary in order to clear some misconceptions about the matter. It is the convention of international law and diplomacy that has caught the Federal Government in the web of this dispute.

    Its assets have been seized in the Chinese firm, Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Company Ltd’s bid to recover a $70 million arbitral award from the Ogun State Government. Therefore, making sense out of this brouhaha should not be a problem. It is a simple, easy and straightforward case. The facts speak for themselves. Nigeria and China have a long history of collaboration in trade, commerce and other bilateral issues. It is not for nothing that Chinese businesses dot our landscape. In near and far parts of the country, the Chinese are doing their thing. Name any big city in Nigeria, you will find a Chinese firm there.

    For instance, among many Nigerians, the well known business of the Chincos, are the many Chinese restaurants found all over the place. The marriage between Nigeria and China did not start today. It began long before the signing of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between both countries in 2001. The treaty is being threatened by the enforcement of the arbitral award for the misdeed of Ogun State but for which the Federal Government will pay under international law.

    Read Also: Nigeria and the China-Africa September summit

    The award was for the Ogun State Government’s breach of its  contract with Zhongfu International Investment, a subsidiary of Zhongshan, to develop the Ogun Guangdong Free Trade Zone at Igbesa. From what is in public domain, for now, things may not have tipped over if the usual Nigerian factor had not crept into  the handling of the matter. From all indications, Zhongshan and Zhongfu are one and not separate entities. If this is the case, can they be in dispute with each other?

    We were indolent at every stage that we could have made a good case for ourselves. Arbitration is unlike the conventional court. It is not litigation per se. It is a clause for amicable dispute resolution adopted by contracting parties while signing an agreement. The purpose is to protect the sanctity of the contract and where a party defaults, the issue naturally goes to arbitration, a dispute mechanism resolution, which is embraced worldwide because of its effectiveness. There is no delay in the handling of disputes. Any party that tries it or is found to be tardy pays dearly for its action. This is the fate that has befallen Nigeria. The case was being handled quietly until the seizure of three Presidential Jets in France by the judgment creditor, Zhongshan.

    The firm had been waiting all along for an opportunity to pounce on assets that would hurt the nation most and that presented itself in France on August 12. Without hesitation, it went to court and obtained an order to attach the jets for the recovery of the arbitral award. Left to hold the short end of the stick over a matter it knew nothing about, the Federal Government spoke about the issue on August 14, while unveiling its plans for getting the planes back. This is no time for blame games. Former Governor Gbenga Daniel and his successor, former Governor Ibikunle Amosun have also spoken. The joint venture agreement (JVA) was signed in 2013 during Daniel’s tenure and the dispute over it arose in 2016 when Amosun was in office.

    Both men owe it a duty to avail Governor Dapo Abiodun and the Federal Government with facts and figures to ensure a peaceful resolution of this dispute. Arbitration is all about amicable settlement of disputes, but painfully in many cases, it is not so. Some parties damage the peaceful essence of arbitration by dragging issues. At the end of the day, after wasting a lot of time and money, they still pay the arbitral awards with interest. Pennywise and pound foolish, you will say. Sadly, Ogun State is making Nigeria to head that way, with this case.

  • Kekere-Ekun, CJN

    Kekere-Ekun, CJN

    Today, another woman, the second in 12 years will mount the saddle as Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun is stepping into office as her predecessor, Chief Justice Kayode Ariwoola bows out. Kekere-Ekun is taking office 10 years after the first woman CJN Aloma Mariam Muktar retired in 2014. She is coming in at a time the judiciary is vilified. The most difficult period to be a judge in Nigeria is during an election year.

     Kekere-Ekun is a witness to the events of 2023. As CJN, she has a lot of work to do, especially in the areas of reform and in respect of the 2027 elections, the highlight of which will be the presidential poll. As sure as night follows the day, the outcome of that election will end up at the Supreme Court. I do not need to be a soothsayer to know this. The signs are already manifesting.

    With those who lost the 2023 election yet to accept the fact, more than one year after the poll, it is certain that in 2027 they will go all out to make things more difficult for the judiciary and the country. I am serving the judiciary, especially CJ Kekere-Ekun, notice to be ready for a rough time in 2027.

    Read Also: Lawyers: what we expect from Kekere-Ekun

    CJ Kekere-Ekun has a huge task ahead of her. She is equal to the task having gone through the mills. From chief magistrate to chief justice, Milord has come a long way. She is assuming office at 66, meaning that she will hold office for about four years. Her tenure elapses on May 7, 2028, when she turns 70.

    Before then, she would have had the honour of swearing in the winner of the 2027 presidential election on May 29 of the same year. Not many CJs are lucky to swear in a new president during their tenures. Who knows, it could be an Eko show, if the incumbent is returned in 2027 and he is sworn in by Kekere-Ekun. Milord, as you well know, there is plenty of work to be done, and all her eyes are on you (I don’t mean that in a negative sense) to discharge your duty without fear or favour, affection or illwill, and to do justice to all, no matter their status. May God guide and guard you. Congratulations, Milord.

  • Ajaero and the law

    Ajaero and the law

    Ever since he became Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) president, Joe Ajaero has enjoyed tremendous visibility. He is  virtually everywhere. He is in the news again. On Monday, the police invited him for questioning over alleged terrorism. He was asked to report yesterday. He wrote back through his lawyers that he would not honour the invitation because of its clash with a ‘prior appointment’. I do not know the nature of this ‘prior appointment’. But can it be more important than answering a call to clear himself of an allegation as weighty as terrorism?

    Read Also: Alleged terrorism financing, others: Ajaero reschedules appointment with police

    Ajaero, his lawyers and NLC should know that nobody is above the law. The police extended courtesy to him by inviting him. Not many Nigerians enjoy that kind of privilege. If the police arrest him today for not honouring their invitation, heavens will not fall. NLC should stop threatening to call for a nationwide strike anytime Ajaero has a spat with the police or the government. The threat will not stop the police from doing their work.

  • Not too big to fail

    Not too big to fail

    The failure of businesses start in a small way. The little things that are ignored over time eventually come to haunt and hurt the business empire fatally. I have seen such happen in my little time on earth. I have also seen a business completely written off arise and shine. These things are inexplicable but they do happen.

    So, it is for businesses to know how to manage their succeses in a way to secure their future as ongoing concerns. The best of plans may not be adequate, at times as unforeseen forces may combine to smother any well-laid plans. But plan, a business must. Reason: if you fail to plan, you have planned to fail.

    No business or individual plans to fail. Everybody desires success. As we all know, success does not come cheap. It comes with a lot of industry, enterprise, diligence, hard work and most importantly, divine grace. Little wonder, the Christian faithful will tell you: “seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and every other thing shall be added unto you”.

    You cannot challenge the word of God. Those who did had a bitter story to tell. It is not always though that businesses crumble because of their owners lack of faith. Other factors may be infighting, mismanagement, lack of trust and feud over equity stakeholding. In its hey day, The Daily Times of Nigeria (DTN) Plc was a household name. It was a generic name for newspapers in this land. It circulated far and wide, reaching the inner recesses of Nigeria as early as 5 a.m., with vendors hooting their horns to attract buyers.

    It was already comatose before it was sold in 2004. Its privatisation sounded its death knell. It still publishes in fits and starts today, but the truth is the old Daily Times is gone. If it were to be in its vibrant days, the Daily Times would have been preparing to celebrate its centenary (100 years) in 2026. It first hit the newsstand on June 1, 1926, though it was incorporated in 1925. Wikipedia succinctly captures the fate of the paper:

    Daily Times Nigeria (DTN)

    “The Daily Times was a Nigerian newspaper with headquarters in Lagos. At its peak in the 1970s, it was one of the most successful locally-owned businesses in Africa”. Yes, the paper’s fame grew beyond the shores of Nigeria. Yet, the paper and its many subsidiaries which sustained the publication for over 70 years are gone. In contrast, a private newspaper which was given up for death following the founder’s demise has virtually taken the place of Daily Times in the industry.

    Read Also: Military requires 200 million ammunition yearly, says Matawalle

    Today, what is happening within the oldest financial institution in the country calls for concerns. We have seen equally big banks like it either failed or acquired by small banks. First Bank may be in a class of its own, but it must take things easy so that boardroom politics does not lead to the singing of its nunc dimittis. In 2008, we saw how the financial meltdown dealt with the world. America was in panic. So also was Wall Street, as detailed in the book: “Too big to fail”. So, Wall Street and Washington rallied to save themselves and the globe from disaster.

    For years, a shareholding feud has tugged at the heart of First Bank. Who holds the largest shares is at the root of the rift. This is a matter that can be resolved amicably. In this regard, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) should stay above the fray in order to settle the dispute before it tears the bank apart, bringing down hundreds of years of toil and billions of investments.

    It is not in anybody’s interest that the 130-year-old bank should die because of the dire consequences. The fates of many are tied to the bank, which has over 1.3 million shareholders; depositors (big and small), investors (large, medium and small), workers of various categories and numerous borrowers with outstanding loans to repay. If the bank dies, it will take down many with it.

    There should be a way out of the rift, without causing the bank’s fall. The interests of its many publics should be paramount in how the court and CBN eventually resolve this raging dispute in order to save this behemoth from itself. It is crystal clear that no venture is too big to fail. But nobody, not even the feuding money men, will wish that for the bank.

  • ‘Soul-winning’

    ‘Soul-winning’

    This 11-letter word got one of the anchors of a programme on ARISE NEWS unduly excited penultimate Monday. He had seen the word in the headline of a story on page 26 of this paper that day. The headline was:

    •President gets kudos for ‘soul-winning’ national broadcast

    Interviewing a guest on the August 4 broadcast by the President, with the two other anchors, Rufai Oseni gushed: “how do you assess the speech? The Nation described it as ‘soul-winning’. It is ‘soul-winning’, according to The Nation. Was that speech ‘soul-winning’?” He asked, bellowing repeatedly: ‘The Nation’, ‘The Nation’, with a sheepish smile on his lips.

    Read Also: LASG warns against attack on passengers, BRT buses

    Of course, the guest saw through Oseni’s rants and answered the question as best as he could. It is elementary journalism that the headline must mirror the story. Which was the case in this instance. The word was not The Nation’s but that of someone, who reacted to the President’s broadcast. Oseni should have known that as the word was quoted in the headline.

    But he was blinded by the urge to get one up on this paper. He misfired. Two days later, he made another gaffe, by swearing that Deji Adeyanju was one of the organisers of the August 1-10 Protests. That same Wednesday night Adeyanju was on Newsnight, ARISE’s flagship bulletin of the day, to puncture Oseni’s ‘empirical’ lie. Adeyanju said he was not one of the protests’ organisers, but a lawyer to a group within the coalition of planners. When you believe that you know everything, you commit monumental blunders. And no empirical data can save you!

  • Season of ferment

    Season of ferment

    Many parts of the country are astir. Aroused by violence, looting and death. It is the worst of times. Though that was not the intention, the fear had been there that these things might happen. No, nothing of the sort would happen, the public was told. The promise givers could not keep their word. Now they are pointing fingers, pinning it all on infiltrators. Welcome to the world of the August Protests!

    The 10 days they fixed for the protests lapse on Saturday. Many cannot wait for that day to come. The planners insisted on going ahead with the protests, rebuffing all entreaties to shelve the action. It was either their way or no other way. The support of some prominent politicians, lawyers, civil society organisations, and the backing of the law, which says they needed no permit for the protests, strengthened their resolve.

    From being faceless planners as individuals, they have collectively become popular protesters in a negative way. Their popularity stems from the death and destruction left in the wake of the protests. What have they achieved? Their demands, many of which are political and impractical, are still begging for attention. They remain on the paper they are written and on the flyers they are printed – long, windy, and largely unrealistic. The only good thing in the charter is their grievance about the prevailing economic hardship.

    Every Nigerian acknowledges that fact. Things are tough and rough. The administration also admits that its policies have not had the desired effect, so far. They are still in their gestation period, it says, and begs for time for the policies to mature for the people to benefit from them. The admimistration made this point in the run-up to the protests. It did all it could to stop them, but to no avail. The protesters were adamant.

    It was not all about the rising cost of living; it was more about the person of the President. It was like: “we will show that we can protest against him”. “Didn’t he lead or fund protests against others?” “So, why can’t we protest against him?” There is no leader that cannot be protested against. They have no immunity against protest. Protests happen everywhere even in advanced countries. The reasons for them may differ, but they still happen. We have seen them happen in the US (the widespread protests against Israel’s pounding of Gaza) and in the UK (the killing of three children in Southport). The world also saw how both countries handled the protesters.

    Read Also: FERMA begins CNG conversion of operational vehicles

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not hide his disgust over the protesters resort to violence. He vowed to bring them to book. The opposition rallied round him in UK’s interest. In America, the police used force where necessary to disperse the protesters in different parts of the country. Their people supported them. But in Nigeria, some people would prefer that the police go out with biscuits in their pockets to confront the protesters even when they are violent. It is only in our country that protesters who tagged their show: “Days of rage” will seize a police armoured personnel carrier (APC) and still be treated nicely. The public expects the police to be civil, and the protesters, uncivil. Haba!

    The story now is that the protests turned violent because they were hijacked by hoodlums hired by the state. The truth is that the planners did not have what it takes to pull off a peaceful protest, despite all their assurances. Protests, like elections, are not about going on social media to make the loudest noise. Results are never achieved that way. It takes painstaking planning to hold a peaceful protest anywhere in the world. Why? Crowd control is not easy, and it is crucial to having such a protest.

    The protesters had an opportunity to close shop four days ago but they allowed it to slip through their fingers. By now, the protests should have long been suspended, if the protesters were tactful. The President’s decision to meet them half way on the fourth day of the protests when he broadcast to the nation came at the nick of time. There was no better time than that for them to sheathe their swords and let reason prevail. But what do you get when you have a loose and amorphous group leading a protest of that magnitude? Everything will break down. This is precisely what happened.

    Even before the President’s broadcast, the lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN), who wrote to the Inspector-General of Police Kayode Egbetokun on their behalf, had advised them after the first day of the protests to suspend the action. One of their leaders Omoyele Sowore, who is ensconced with his family in America, countered Adegboruwa. He said the protests would go on. Another of its leaders, Damilare Adenola, said on national television that Adegboruwa was not their lawyer. For effect, he said, the lawyer was not a poor person but a man of means who could afford the good things of life. At what point did he realise that?

    The President was conciliatory in his broadcast. He spoke openly, truthfully and directly to the youths. He said he had heard them “loud and clear”. But they ignored his plea. All they wanted from him was an immediate end to the prevailing economic hardship. They wanted him to reduce the prices of foods, goods and services by fiat. Is that possible? No leader in the world can do that. The most the President could do and which he did was to give them hope of a better future in no distant time.

    To them, he was dishing out the same, old story. What they did not realise is that there are no quick fixes anywhere in the world. What next after the protests? The President’s offer of dialogue is still on the table. It is up to the protesters to take it up so that their grievances can be addressed at the right forum.

  • ANALYSIS: Protest and Public Order Act 1979

    ANALYSIS: Protest and Public Order Act 1979

    Enacted 45 years ago, the Public Order Act 1979 regulates assemblies, processions and meetings in public places. The essence of the law is to ensure peaceful conduct on such occasions. The Supreme Court has since settled the matter on the propriety or otherwise of  such gatherings. Potential protesters are always quick to point at the apex court’s decision which outlawed the practice of obtaining police permit before holding any gathering.

    Organisers of the August Protests too fell back on the judgment to justify their plan for the nationwide action. The court’s verdict was simply an interpretation of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which states:

    “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests”

    There is a caveat to this provision, which is titled: “Right to peaceful assembly and association”. It says:

    “Provided that the provisions of this section shall not derogate from the powers conferred by this Constitution on the Independent National Electoral Commission with respect to political parties to which that Commission does  not accord recognition”.

    The emphasis on “peaceful” gatherings by the law may be deliberate, apparently because of human nature. The right to protest, like every other right granted by the Constitution,  is not absolute. It must be exercised in a manner not to breach the public peace. This was why the public order laws of the respective states were repealed and replaced with the 1979  Federal Act  “for the purpose of maintaining public order…”

    Read Also: Fed Govt cautions Nigerians travelling to UK over risk of violence

    Section 1 (1) of the law empowers the governor of a state to direct the conduct of any gathering,  prescribe the route and time for it. It reads:

    “For the purpose of the proper and peaceful conduct of public assemblies, meetings and processions and subject to Section 11 of this Act, the governor of each state is hereby empowered to direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings and processions on the public roads or places of public resort in the state and prescribe the routes which and the times at which any procession may pass”.

    Perhaps, it was in exercise of this power that Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Lawal Pedro (SAN), acting for the governor, went to court on July 30 and obtained a preemptive interim injuncton restricting the protests in the state to Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ojota, and the Ketu Peace Park.

    The Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) also obtained an order restricting the protest in Abuja to the Moshood Abiola National Stadium.

    But in recognising the right to peaceful gatherings, the law warned of the consequences of breaching it in Section 5.

    The provisions stipulate:

    (1)  Any person who at a public assembly, meeting or procession acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the assembly, meeting or procession was called or formed shall be guilty of an offence.

    (2) Any person who incites others to commit an offence under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

    (3): Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on a first offence to a fine… or imprisonment; and for a second or any subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for 12 months without an option of a fine.

    It also warned in Section 8 against carrying “offensive weapons” during such gatherings to avoid the wrath of the law. The provisions state:

    (1) Any person who, while present at any public assembly or meeting, or on the occasion of any public procession, has with him any offensive weapons or missiles, otherwise than in pursuance of lawful authority, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for 12 months without the option of a fine

    (3) In this section, “offensive weapons or missiles” include any cannon, gun, rifle, carbine, machine gun, cap gun, revolver, pistol, air gun, air pistol or other firearms (whether whole or in detached pieces), bow and arrow, spear, cutlass, machete, knife, dagger, axe, cudgel, horsewhip or any piece of wood, metal or other material, or stone capable of being used as an offensive weapon or missile and includes tear gas, corrosive, inflammable substances or any other thing that is capable of being used to inflict or cause injury.

    It speaks volumes of the patience of the government that the law was not thrown at the protesters even before the protests started on August 1. They started on a wrong premise by tagging the action: “Days of rage”. By giving it such a tag, they, ab initio, breached the Constitution which mainly grants every citizen the “right to peaceful assembly and association”. Rage is not by any means peaceful. It is a call to arms and violence.

  • August One

    August One

    At Last, the day is here. Today is August 1. The day set aside by some groups for protest. Protest is a good thing.  It is healthy and allowed in any human community. People use it as a tool to make their demands known. To call attention to their needs and grievances. Every human-driven and well-organised society approves of a goal-oriented and peaceful protest. How can anybody even think of circumscribing a right that is inborn?

    As a right derived from birth, countries too are careful not to tamper with it. They do everything to protect it because willynilly, the people must gather. The gathering may not necessarily be to protest. It may be for a meeting or for any other private matter. It is only in closed societies that this right is circumscribed. The societies are the worse for it because they unwittingly allowed the blossoming of the underground movement.

    Nothing can be dangerous as having an underground movement in a society. As the name implies, its members do things covertly; they operate from hiding, moving from place to place stealthily to evade being caught. But protest on the other hand is about openness. Nobody protests in secret. It must be done in the open. It is no longer a protest when it happens in a coven. Initially, all the noise about the August 1 protest billed for today was done in darkness, that is to say those planning it refused (and many of them still do) to come out and show their faces.

      Despite being faceless at the outset, their message caught on. It resonated with many in the society, especially those who have kept the present administration at arm’s length since it came to powrr last year. Why will anyone or group be planning a protest and be doing so from the four corners of their room? Their action raised eyebrows. Something must be wrong somewhere, some watchers thought. Protest is not a crime, so why will the planners not come out confidently and let the world know them? They wondered.

    Read Also: Ondo protest organisers pull out

    This, in a nutshell, is the genesis of the unnecessary brouhaha over the planned protest. Now, the nation has gone past that stage. At least, some groups and people behind the planned protest have been coming out in the past few days to say why they want to protest. They are not saying anything new. Most of what they are saying is already in the public domain. They are outlined in flyers flying all over the place and in social media, which is their main turf. The news about the planned protest was broken about one month ago in social media, under the battle cry: #endbadgovernance.

    In effect, they are saying that the government is not doing enough for the people. How they arrived at this conclusion is shocking. Despite acknowledging their right to protest, their reason(s) for it leave(s) much to be desired. They are issues that cannot be resolved through mere protest. Even if they protest from now till eternity there is nothing anybody can do about such demands. Consequently, the government and its sympathisers have concluded that ejo low’onu (the snake has hidden hands). That is there is much more behind the protest clamour.

    Whether it is politically-motivated or not depends on which side the analyst stands. But what is the relationship between #endbadgovernance and the planners’ charter of demands which is made up of political expletives. What has the ‘return of fuel subsidy’, which they are calling for, got to do with ‘bad governance’ that they want to protest against? Or is it the ‘release of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu from DSS custody’ that is a ‘bad governance’ issue?

    What do we say of the other demands, such as: ‘abolition of the Senate and introduction of part-time lawmaking’; ‘investment in education and grants for students’? Have they heard of the loan just given to some students under a scheme introduced by the administration? Their request for students’ grant is a misnomer. Are they talking of grant or bursary? Bursary is more like it.

    There is mo doubt that things are tough. People can hardly feed because of the rising food prices. The cost of living keeps soaring in the midst of other existential challenges. We do not need a seer to tell us all these. They are things we see daily. If there is anything the planned protest has done, it is drawing the government’s attention anew to these problems. It is to their credit that the government has stepped up its plans for tackling the hunger in the land. To this extent, they have made their point. Going into a ‘rage’ over it as the organisers plan will only exacerbate things.

    This is no time for a ‘Day of rage’; it is time for a peaceful resolution of  the issues at stake. This planned  ‘Day of rage’ may be a recipe for tragedy because anything can go wrong during its execution. Who goes on protest and tags it ‘Day of rage’? Only a troublemaker! They have already told the world what to expect. Should they be allowed to throw the nation into turmoil?

  • The LG autonomy buzz

    The LG autonomy buzz

    The Supreme Court has given Nigerians something to chew. Since its July 11 verdict, which  granted autonomy to local governments, the nation has known no rest. Political and legal pundits, and other members of the society have said one or two things about the judgment. The debate is raging. Nothing unsettles the minds of politicians, in psrticular, more than a troubling issue.

    The verdict has caused disquiet in their camps. Many of the states with hidden agenda for their local governments are dazed by the decision. The states had it coming. They had been warned by the same court in several past decisions to let the local governments be. In those judgments, the apex court categorically declared that local governments were not appendages of the states.

    In four cases, which it cited in its July 11 landmark verdict, the court recalled saying in Ajuwon v Gov. of Oyo State (2021) LPELR-5 339 (SC), Gov. of Ekiti State v Olubunmo (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt.1551) 7, Eze v Gov. of Abia State & others (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt.1426) 192, Friday v Gov. of Ondo State (2022) 16 NWLR (Pt.1857) 585 at 648 SC that “it is unconstitutional, illegal and of no effect for a local government to be run by a caretaker committee, interim council, administrator, head of local government administration, or by other name called, agency or body”.

     It added: “This court in Ajuwon v Gov. of Oyo State (supra) held that a democratically elected local government council does not exist at the pleasure, whims and caprice of either the governor or the House of Assembly. The misconception by the state authorities that the Constitution does not intend to grant and guarantee autonomy to the local government is only a brainwave nurtured by sheer aggrandisement and megalomamiac instinct to conquer and make the local government mere parastatals of the state.

    “That is the very mischief Section 7 (1) of the Constitution has set out to address and it must be so read and construed purposefully… It is unthinkable that a democratically elected governor would embark on unwholesome undemocratic tendencies which no doubt endanger democracy and the rule of law. It is almost becoming a universal phenomenon that democratically elected governors have constituted themselves as a specie most dangerous to democracy in this country. They disdainfully disregard and disrupt democratically elected local government councils and appoint their lackeys as caretaker committees to run the affairs of the councils…”

    Read Also: Tinubu not taking peace in Niger Delta for granted, says PAP boss

     You can now know why Governor Seyi Makinde has been finding faults with the verdict. Those strong words were expressed in 2021, but nothing changed in the way governors treat their local governments in the three years interval between then and now that it took the apex court to use its power to grant the councils their constitutionally guaranteed autonomy, on the strength of a suit filed by Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi (SAN). The nation owes its AG a debt of gratitude for taking this matter up. The only new thing that the apex court did, which it did not do in the previous cases, was to make a formal declaration on how local governments funds should be remitted.

    It never made that order then because it was not sought. As we all know the court is not Father Christmas. Contrary to the thinking in many quarters, the local government autonomy is all-encompassing. It is not only financial, it is also political and administrative. The local governments have for long suffered in the hands of governors who treat the council chairmen as serfs. The chairmen must kowtow to them or be removed from office with ignominy. Yes, local governments may not be known in a federal system like ours, in the same way that the Federal Government and states are recognised, but they have a constitutional role to play in governance.

     The states should allow them to play this role. This is what the Supreme Court has been saying in a plethora of cases, but the message did not sink home, until its July 11 well considered decision. The clincher was its barring of the states from no longer taking custody of local governments’ funds. By that singular action of striking down Section 162 (6) of the Constitution, the apex court pulled the rug from under the states’ feet. Till now, they do not know what hit them. The court’s previous orders on local government autonomy which seemed to allow states to retain the control of the purse are child’s play compared to its July 11 master stroke of  a judgment.

    The judgment was unambiguous: local governments’ funds should no longer be sent to the councils through the states, using the States Joint Local Government Account vehicle which was created with good intentions in Section 162 (6). Rather than uphold the provision’s noble intentions by ensuring that the councils got their funds intact, the states abused it. They were meant to be couriers of the funds, but they became converters. They converted the money to their own use, deciding what the councils got, thereby making the chairmen beholden to them.

    All this has now stopped. The councils have been set free. All eyes are on the chairmen. A lot depends on them for the local government autonomy to be meaningful. They have a chance of a lifetime to live their dreams and make a difference in the lives of the people in their council areas. If the chairmen mess up, the governors will turn up their noses at them, with a wry look. They would not like that. I appeal to the governors too not to lay mines on the chairmen’s way.

  • Dare’s Day

    Dare’s Day

    Professor Olatunji Dare, the ace columnist, who was 80 yesterday, needs no further introduction. He joined the Octogenarian Club in a blaze of honour and glory. Some members of his constituency gathered in Lagos to mark the day, even though he is in faraway Chicago, United States, where family and friends also converged to celebrate him. So, Dare, the writer par excellence, is 80 plus one day today.

    On Tuesday in his backpage column in this paper, he wrote about his turning 80 yesterday, recalling that longevity runs in his family as his parents lived up to over 70 and 80, respectively. At yesterday’s colloquium organised by The Nation and the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), a rare collaboration in the media world, to mark Dare’s birthday, speakers spoke glowingly about the erudite journalism teacher and practitioner, who caught all unawares with his Tuesday’s submission that he was an article away from taking a valedictory bow from column writing.

    My MD Victor Ifijeh was shocked by the surprise announcement as he drew my attention to the article titled: A preface to a valedictory. On entering my office on his way to his, which is just two doors away, the MD asked: S’o tika Dare? (Have you read Dare’s column?). Before I could answer him, he reached for the day’s paper on my table, went straight to Dare’s column, placed a finger on the last paragraph and said: ka (read).

    I read the paragraph which ran thus: ‘The column will take a valedictory bow next Tuesday’. I looked up and my eyes locked with the MD’s. We were both speechless, momentarily. When I found my voice, I asked: ‘Did he discuss this with you before writing?’ The MD shook his head sideways. Prof, as we call him around here, gave reasons for his actions, which we will come to later.

    The birthday colloquium, with the theme: Dare at 80: Same craft, changing times – The columnist as societal conscience was besides celebrating the eminent essayist, a forum for the media to reexamine itself in the wake of the prevailing political and socio-economic situation in the country. Dare is a known critic of the media and its offerings. To him, the duty of the media is to help in shaping the society to make it just and egalitarian for all.

    Though his absence was felt, it did not affect the quality of discourse on the occasion. Dare remained the focal point though, as the speakers noted how he has used his column over the years to contribute to national growth and development. He was described as a frank columnist who wrote without being beholden to the powers-that-be. Dare has always been more concerned about journalism of public service than self interest.

    The speakers were effusive in their praises. From the lead to the least speaker, everyone had good things to say about Dare. It was a superb outing to which his presence would have added more colour. In the gathering were some of his contemporaries, but many others were his students and those he mentored when he went into full-time journalism practice after leaving the University of Lagos (UNILAG) in 1988. Dare has seen it all as a teacher and practitioner. His teaching rubbed off on his practice.

    Read Also: Tinubu appoints Walson-Jack as new Head of the Civil Service

    The practice of the theoretical aspect of what he taught others for many years became a rich blend which he utilised to the highest advantage. He could teach journalism and also practice it, unlike many other scholars who are only grounded in mass comm theory. It is to Dare’s credit that he is at home in the classroom and newsroom. Not many of his colleagues can make that smooth transition. They will feel like fish out of water.

    Since 1988 till now, he has been writing a weekly column, with focus on the collective good. His People First kind of journalism earned him his name. He could have written and made tons of money from those in power, who wanted to be friends with him, but he chose to be the conscience of the nation than the mouthpiece of those in power. He was in the vanguard of a public-oriented media too.

    Dare detests anything that makes the media to look cheap before others. He wants a media with its head high, not bowed on the altar of filthy lucre. His 36-year crusade as a regular columnist cutting across The Nation and The Guardian, and discounting those years that he contributed articles to the Daily Times and other papers, cannot be said to be wasted. Dare has played his part. He has run the race.

    It is not often that an academic leaves the gown for the town and returns to the ivory tower as Dare did. Today, he is Professor of Journalism, Emeritus at America’s Bradley University from where he retired in 2015. But is it time for him to retire from column writing? I understand the wear and tear that come with aging as he wrote in his column on Tuesday, being not a spring chicken myself.

    I also understand that he needs to attend to other pressing issues, especially family matters, in the twilight of life. I bet that if he listens to the keyboard sound again, he will hear it ‘whispering’: tarry, Prof; your proteges still want you around. Perhaps, for a year or two more to enable us to prepare for what we know is inevitable.