Category: Lawal Ogienagbon

By Lawal Ogienagbon

For a region which produces the nation’s wealth, the Niger Delta should be an Eldorado, a place that people will yearn to see and visit.

But the region is an eyesore despite the vast wealth it holds in its bosom. Its environment is despoiled, its water polluted and its farms ravaged.

Its people can no longer farm or fish, the two occupations for which they are known. They cannot even enjoy the sweet bliss of nature in their beautiful environment.

Everywhere is virtually covered in soot because of the activities of oil companies which have turned the Niger Delta, where they make trillions in hard currency year in year out, into hell on earth for its people.

Niger Deltans are pained by what has become of their land. You can feel the pain in their hearts when they talk about the things going on in their region.

They point fingers at the oil firms and the government, which they accuse of deliberately neglecting the area in favour of other regions, especially the north, which has produced most of the nation’s leaders in its almost 60 years of independence.

Niger Deltans are eternally at war with the state. Can we really blame them? Which region will keep quiet when it produces the nation’s wealth, yet remains underdeveloped?

Why has the region remained in a state of flux despite being the nation’s goldmine? In 2016, the nation celebrated 60 years of the discovery of oil in Oloibiri in present day Bayelsa State.

But the state remains in a pitiable state today despite housing our first oil well.

Rather than be in a symbiotic relationship with the people of Oloibiri in particular and the state in general, Shell British Petroleum, which struck that oil gold in 1956, has remained in perpetual warfare with its host community, which is embittered that it has been badly treated by the multinational company over the years.

Shell has taken much out of the Niger Delta and by extension Nigeria, but the firm has not given much in return. While the region has given the nation and Shell much, it has virtually nothing to show for it except for its despolied flora and fauna.

To give the region a sense of belonging,  the Babangida junta created the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC) in 1992 for the growth and regeneration of the Niger Delta.

That was the first conscious effort ever made by any government to deliberately oversee the development of the region.

By 2000 when the Obasanjo administration established the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), OMPADEC had outlived its usefulness.

Before the coming of NDDC, the public hardly remembered OMPADEC again because it had gone into oblivion and  left the region high and dry.

NDDC was expected to be different, having seen how OMPADEC ended, without achieving much. As an intervention agency, it was empowered to do its job, with successive governments doing all they could to provide for it.

Oil firms, the major beneficiaries of the oil wealth, were brought on board under the agency’s establishment law, to be part of its funding.

Money was, therefore, not NDDC’s problem, its problem was how to use the funds. It is now 20 years that NDDC was established.

Unfortunately,  at a time it should be celebrating its 20th anniversary, it is embroiled in a financial sleaze.

The NDDC had been spending money as if it was going out of fashion. Money meant for the development of the region and its people ended up in private pockets.

The agency turned itself into a Father Christmas, the way it disbursed money meant for the region’s development to  its staff, friends,  fronts, firms and lawmakers.

No amount was too big to share under the claim of awarding one contract or the other. The forensic audit ordered by President Muhammadu Buhari should have come before now,  going by some of what is coming out of the National Assembly’s probe of NDDC.

Yet, the probe does not cover the two decades of the agency’s existence. It borders only on the N40 billion spending by the Prof Kemebradikumo Pondei-led NDDC Interim Management Committee (IMC) between last January and May. The IMC took over from the one led by Gbene Joi Nunieh in February.

Last Thursday, Chairman of the House of Representatives Investigation Committee Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo said documents at the panel’s disposal showed that the agency spent N81.5 billion and not N40 billion during the said period.

Whether N40 billion or N81.5 billion, can the NDDC management justify the spending? If it can, it will be money well spent, but if it cannot, the money should be refunded and all those found culpable prosecuted.

This is an interim committee, which is expected to oversee the forensic audit of the agency. If the IMC itself is not accountable, how well can it be expected to discharge the onerous task of looking at the books of NDDC?

By its action in five months, the IMC has shown the public the kind of forensic audit to expect.

Mercifully,  the IMC is being audited before it does its job. But the hitch is,  it seems to be a matter of six and half a dozen.

The IMC is insisting that it cannot be probed by the lawmakers, accusing Tunji-Ojo of being an interested party in the case. Tunji-Ojo has withdrawn as the panel chairman to ensure fairness and probity.

Still, the word out there is that many of our lawmakers are on the take at NDDC. Some lawmakers, an IMC member, Dr Cairo Ojougbo, said had been collecting contracts from NDDC on behalf of their colleagues.

These are weighty allegations, which would not have come to light if not for this probe. The IMC is thus unhappy that people who should defend it are on its trail.

It is too late in the day for either side to hide now. The matter is in public domain, with the President demanding “speedy and coordinated investigation”.

For the IMC and the lawmakers, the die is cast. The outcome of the probe at which Pondei fainted on Monday while being questioned by the lawmakers will determine what happens next at NDDC.

As things stand now, the IMC has no moral right to continue to run NDDC. Its integrity has been called to question and until it is cleared,  it should no longer be in charge of the agency.

What is going on at NDDC is beyond someone having “four husbands” or being “sexually harassed”.

The ongoing searchlight on the agency should not be reduced to  lewd matters. Niger Delta Minister Godswill Akpabio and Nunieh can sort that out at the appropriate forum.

What is at stake is more serious than that. If an interim management can squander billions of naira, including “N1.5 billion” or “N1.35 billion” on COVID-19 palliative for staff,  within five months, only God knows how much would have gone down the drain in the years of its substantive managers.

 By Lawal Ogienagbon

WHAT some, especially his colleagues in the security agencies saw long ago, many of us seemed not to see until the bubble burst last week. It was a matter of time before it happened and when it did, it was with a bang. Many of the stories we are being told today about him, we heard them then too. But, the tales were waved aside because many believed they were meant to stall his confirmation as chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The EFCC job comes with its own troubles. No matter what its head does, he is in the midst of enemies. It does not matter whether he has done anything wrong. The only wrong he might have done if one can call it that is accepting the EFCC job. Having seen what happened to all his predecessors, Ibrahim Mustapha Magu was expected to know better and so exercise utmost caution in the discharge of his duties. He came to the job highly recommended. He was said to have been the linchpin of the agency under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu and Ibrahim Lamorde.

When he was named acting chairman in November 2015, some who knew him lauded his appointment; while some cautioned against expecting too much from him. From afar, many Nigerians perceived him as doing a good job despite cries in political and business cycles that he was overreaching himself.  Besides, he, like his predecessors,  also had inter-agency rivalry to contend with. The EFCC was not seeing eye to eye with the Department of State Service (DSS), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), National Intelligence Agency (NIA) and other allied agencies. These are agencies that should work together for the betterment of the country and collaborate in the anti-graft war. But they were and are still working at cross purpose irrespective of what they want the public to believe.

So, the issue of Magu’s confirmation became a problem following a damning report on him by the DSS. Whether the report was informed by inter-agency rivalry or was a product of good intelligence work the public does not know up till today. The picture is becoming clearer by the day, though. The DSS and the Senate,  which rejected his nomination twice based on that report were called names. The senators, in particular, were attacked by those rooting for Magu. They said they never expected the senators to confirm Magu since many of them were being probed or tried by EFCC. The problem with us as a people is that we like to beg the issue rather than address it frontally when it is still hot. This instant case is a ready made example.

It took almost four years after the EFCC report for the government to come to terms with some of the things contained therein whether true or not, at least for now.  Basically, the report, which followed the Senate’s request for Magu’s security screening before his confirmation,  said he “lacks integrity” to lead EFCC. The report detailed some of the ‘sins’ of Magu, warning that he could only be made EFCC chair at the nation’s peril. Rather than take a critical look at that report, which the DSS reaffirmed on March 14, 2017, about six months after the  first one it issued on October 7, 2016, the government turned a blind eye to the document. The government insisted on Magu for the job. That is why Magu acted for almost five years as EFCC chair without confirmation.

Sadly,  many of those who believed that it was “corruption fighting back” so that Magu would not be confirmed are distancing themselves from him now. Magu has become an outcast who should face whatever has come his way alone.  This speaks volume about us as a people.  Why are those friends and institutions abandoning Magu today when he has not been found guilty of any offence? The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption ( PACAC) carried the Magu-must-be-confirmed mission virtually on its head.  The Senate, it said, was only afraid of its shadow, insisting that whether confirmed or not, Magu would continue to act as EFCC chair at the pleasure of the President who appointed him. Many renowned lawyers too spoke in the same vein and with their words encouraged Magu to ‘carry on the good job’ he is doing.

The President too left Magu to be as he is the ‘anti-graft czar in whom the administration is well pleased’. To the Presidency, PACAC, the rights community and civil society organisations, Magu could do no wrong. What happened between then and now that the Presidency is no longer for Magu? Is it that he stepped on powerful toes? Is it possible to fight corruption without stepping on toes? Why did the Presidency not consider the EFCC report which indicted Magu in 2016 and 2017? Where is that report? Is it not worth revisiting in light of what is happening to Magu today? What are the new things contained in the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami’s allegations against Magu that are not in that report? What are the findings of the committee said to have probed EFCC activities under Magu’s watch? Did he appear before the panel?

Those findings are now before the Justice Salami panel before which he was bundled on July 6. Since then Magu has been in detention. The Magu matter is becoming worrisome because of the way part of the report of the first panel is being leaked to the media. Does this not say something about his ongoing probe by the Salami panel which came into being like the first one unannounced?

That Magu is entangled in corruption allegations today is of his own making. He, of all people, should know that those who live in glass houses do not throw stones.  I pity him because he has become an orphan today. All those goading him on, making him believe that they are always there for him have thrown him out. Until he ran into trouble, PACAC and some lawyers  could swear by him. PACAC has since denied a “preliminary reaction” by a member, accusing “Malami’s power bloc” of being behind Magu’s travail.

If it were to be those days when Magu was the apple of their eyes, PACAC and those lawyers would be falling over themselves, defending him and threatening those against him with  fire and brimstone. Yet, these were the same people who said he could act in office for as long as the President wished despite the Senate’s rejection of his nomination. They refused to acknowledge that the Senate’s action was based on the report of DSS, an organ of the executive. Can it be said that the Senate and DSS have now been vindicated? The outcome of Magu’s ongoing probe will tell.

For now, Magu is on his own. But some believe he is lucky that he is appearing before a panel headed by former Court of Appeal President Justice Ayo Salami. They say the jurist, from his antecedents, is not someone that can be used to deal with others.  Magu is therefore expected to get justice before Salami, but the former EFCC chief would have disappointed his admirers,  if at the end of the day, the allegations against him are proven. With the way he was going, his admirers never expected him to be anything but above board. They will be heartbroken if the DSS’ prediction that “he will eventually constitute a liability to the anti-corruption war of the government” comes to pass.

• Magu was released from custody on Wednesday.

By Lawal Ogienagbon

Make no mistake, the impending Edo State governorship election will be tough and rough. The signs are already manifesting. It will be a poll like no other in the annals of the state known as the Heartbeat of the Nation.

The major gladiators are well known to each other. Governor Godwin Obaseki, who will eventually get over the mines laid for him in his new club, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu were in the trenches in 2016 on different platforms which they have now swapped for the September 19 battle.

Four years ago, Obaseki was the beloved of the All Progressives Congress (APC), while Ize-Iyamu, who along with others, built the party from scratch and was already  seeing himself as the next governor, became an outcast.

The man behind that was former Governor Adams Oshiomhole, who is now APC national chairman. He sang Obaseki’s praise to high heavens, waving the governor’s credentials, the same credentials that could not get him the party’s ticket for second term, as his strength.

Obaseki was a political nobody when Oshiomhole tapped him for governor. He came from the business world and he brought his expertise to bear on the Oshiomhole administration. The former labour leader was impressed.

From that point, he made up his mind on his successor – Obaseki, who close friends call Seki Gee – all the way. There was no either or in the matter. No ambivalence whatsoever. In his support for Obaseki, Oshiomhole threw caution to the wind. He was not ready to listen to others’ views.

He had made up his mind and that was it. His followers, not the least Ize-Iyamu, who had been made to believe that he was the governor in waiting, were shocked. Ize-Iyamu defected to the PDP, the same platform Seki Gee ran to last week,  to contest the election.

How could the leader just wake up one day and say Obaseki would succeed him? Oshiomhole’s men wondered.  What qualities does he have that we do not possess? they asked no one in particular, as they bemoaned their fate.

Yes, they agreed that he is an economic wizard, which informed why he headed the state’s economic management team then. But to them, economic wizardry is not the only quality required to be governor.

They were not in support of their leader’s choice and they made their feelings known to him.  Oshiomhole was unperturbed. As far as he was concerned, he had found his man and those not satisfied with that can go look for another party.

Ize-Iyamu returned to PDP from whence he joined APC and lost the election to Obaseki in that first round of their electoral battle four years ago.

What Oshiomhole’s loyalists held and still hold against Obaseki is that he is not a politician. They seem to have forgotten that man is a political animal. Many claim not to be a politician when they are still testing the waters.

Once, they get what they want they become the most power-hungry politician you can find anywhere. What Oshiomhole’s men were saying in effect is that Obaseki lacks the political sagacity to handle the high office of governor.

It takes a lot to be governor. There are so many tendencies a governor must pander to considering the huge number of people that would help him into office.

Apart from being a good administrator who must husband state resources well, he must also oil party machinery and cater to the interests of the political crowd around him. It will be politically suicidal for a governor to abandon his party men and women to patronise only his friends and associates after getting into office.

This is not to say that he must dip his hands in the till to satisfy them. Far from it. The fact is, a governor, no matter how good he may be, must remember where he is coming from.

In most cases, governors do not build the structures that bring them into office. Those structures are usually controlled by more entrenched interests who determine who gets what and how. It is not easy for political infants to take over or break those structures

So, a governor, on getting into office cannot do away with those structures because he may need them again and again to remain politically relevant. It is a well known fact that the Oshiomhole structure got Seki Gee into office in 2016.

Perhaps, Oshiomhole was not a godfather when he was propping up Obaseki for governor then, but today Seki Gee, who benefited most from that political patronage, has tagged him one.

Time and tide, they say, wait for no one. The man, who was given APC’s governorship ticket four years ago on a platter of gold, has today found it impossible to get that same ticket despite being a sitting governor.

He was said to have been unfaithful with little and so could not be trusted with much by giving him a second chance. I do not pretend not to know why Oshiomhole and Obaseki parted ways.

From what is in public domain,  it has to do with the usual problem between two political friends who feel that they can no longer work together.

Obaseki accuses Oshiomhole of playing the godfather in a state where he as governor fought people who styled themselves as such to a standstill.

Oshiomhole denies the claim, arguing that he only wanted Obaseki to take care of those who worked for his election as governor.

Obaseki has found a home in PDP, just as Ize-Iyamu did in 2016. To him, there is no ideological difference between APC and PDP as both parties are “all about sharing the money”. Meaning that he fell out with Oshiomhole because the APC wanted him to “share” public funds among party members.

Obaseki believes that he is now strong enough to stand on his own and become a political leader in his own right. This is why when he defected to PDP last weekend, he said he was now the party’s leader in Edo.

There is nothing bad in being ambitious. But he should remember that the control of state resources alone is not enough to make a president or governor a political powerhouse.

If in doubt, let him ask former President Goodluck Jonathan and immediate past Lagos State Governor Akinwumi Ambode.

Obaseki has chosen the path he wishes to take to return to power in September. If he overcomes the problem created by his defection to PDP, he and Ize-Iyamu will, again, be the leading contenders for the top job.

Ize-Iyamu picked APC’s ticket on Monday; Obaseki is expected to get that of PDP today at the party’s primary, if it holds.  As in 2016, the second round of their governorship battle remains a two-horse race.

The other contestants are not likely to spring any surprise at the poll. Will Obaseki be second time lucky or will the pendulum swing in Ize-Iyamu’s favour?

By Lawal Ogienagbon

Racism may not have a place here, but some of our leaders appear racist in their actions. They do not discriminate against their compatriots because of the colour of their skin since we all have the same complexion, but their political and social actions show where their sympathy lies.

We live on a continent where we believe in the brotherhood of man, no matter the colour of our skin as determined by the part of the region we are from.

It is unlike Europe and America where the Whites see themselves as superior to those referred to as people of colour. So, they relate with Blacks and Browns on the basis of this.

They believe that they are a superior race to which others must bow. They came to Africa to colonise us and left after plundering our commonwealth.

They never wanted to leave South Africa until they were literally forced out some years ago in the wake of Nelson Mandela’s release from 27 years unlawful imprisonment after a kangaroo trial.

Unfortunately, the dying embers of racism keeps burning in the United States (US) of all places. United? Is America truly a united nation, considering how it treats its Black populace? In the US, racism is a badge of honour worn by Whites.

Not even the emergence of an African-American, Barack Obama, as its 44th president between 2009 and 2017 changed anything. America has continued to treat its Blacks as unwanted second class citizens.

The killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, by a White policeman has again brought to the fore the painful reality about racism in the self-styled God’s own country. What a misnomer when God is not a racist.

In US, it is racism, in Nigeria, it is marginalisation. Many of those who should know better see nothing wrong in marginalisation.

They will support it as long as they benefit from it. They are ready to trade off their friend, sibling, associate and even the very high office of president for such gains as it happened in the case of June 12, which 27th anniversary comes up tomorrow.

The June 12 tale is a story of deceit, intrigues, envy, ambush, hatred and bitterness all rolled into one. It is a story of a politician who his associates did not see as  one of them.

To them, Moshood Abiola did not belong; he was a non-politician who came into their fold and dominated them as he did in eveything he was part of and they did not like it.

This was why his election was annulled and they abandoned him to his fate while paying lip service to his cause.

What happened on that auspicious election date in 1993 was, according to the late Gen Sani Abacha, a watershed. He so described June 12 when he inaugurated the Eso panel on reform of the judiciary.

What the politicians started crept into the courts in the desperation of some of them to ensure that the June 12 election final results were never announced,  but the world already knew the winner.

Rather than be an impartial arbiter, the judiciary played into the hands of these politicians, issuing one conflicting order after the other, leaving the public confused on what was going on.

The judiciary burnt its fingers over June 12 as it abandoned its duty to unabashedly join the fray. Today, the blame of that dark era in the nation’s history has been heaped on it. This informed Abacha’s decision to probe the institution.

Yet, it seems, the judiciary learnt nothing from the June 12 debacle, going by some of its actions in related election matters of recent.

The June 12, 1993 presidential election, which has been described as the freest and fairest in the nation’s history, was won by newspaper magnate, the late Chief M. K. O. Abiola. But before he could be declared winner, his bosom friend and then military leader, Gen Ibrahim Babangida, annulled the election.

Till today, the nation has not been told the truth behind the annulment. Why did Babangida annul the election? He has refused to unravel the puzzle behind his action. He was however reported as saying that he would be killed if he handed over to Abiola.

Uptil today, he has not revealed the identities of those people. There is still time for him to salve his conscience and put a close to his ignominious role in the June 12 saga by namimg them.

If he knew that some people in the military would not allow Abiola to become president, why then was the businessman cleared to contest the election? The annulment of that election was the most heartless and callous thing Babangida could have done to his nation.

The Babangida transition programme was long and torturous and yet it ended in a puff of smoke because he was not ready to go. If he had his way, he would have perpetuated himself in power after suffocating, as it were, life out of June 12.

The annulment was to render June 12 breathless, just exactly what Derek Chauvin did when he placed his knees on Floyd’s neck and refused to let go despite his victim’s cry of: “I can’t breath”.

Like Abiola, Floyd died. But June 12 did not die. Both men died fighting for their rights. Abiola died fighting for his mandate which was freely given to him by the Nigerian people.

They are dead, but the causes they died for live after them. Today, the US knows no rest in the aftermath of Floyd’s death.

Across the country, Blacks and their White sympathisers have intensified the fight for equality in a nation which prides itself as one in which “all men were born equal”. Do not snigger at that.

Abiola surprised many by putting up a fight for June 12. Not many believed that he would go out of his way to do what he did because he was seen as an establishment man.

Today, he is benefiting from that struggle, though in death. Two years ago, recognition finally came for June 12 as Democracy Day, shoving aside May 29, which had hitherto been so observed since the return to democracy in 1999.

Abiola may not have mounted the saddle as president, but he will be remembered for bequeathing to the nation June 12 as Democracy Day.

If Abiola had not fought for his mandate; if he had listened to those friends,  kinsmen and associates,  who sold out in private, rather than stand on June 12, as they said they would in public, he would have ended up in infamy.

It is to his eternal glory that June 12 is still alive today and the vilest of his critics will always stand up in honour of this rare being who defied all odds to fight for what he believed in.

Lawal Ogienagbon

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere – Martin Luther-King (jnr)

BY now, the Supreme Court should be used to such things. The ways and the wailing of losing appellant politicians and their lawyers. There is no adjective that they do not use to describe the court after losing a case. Before they leave the court precint, they are already talking and spewing fire over what they perceive as “kangaroo judgement”.

Mind you, the verdict is always described as such when they lose, but when they win, they dress the  court in superlative terms. “A fantastic judgement”; “their lordship did a yeoman’s job”; “aaah, that verdict will stand the test of time”, they go on and on. Since the court’s May 8 verdict in the Ude Jones Udeogu and Orji Uzor Kalu matter (better known as the Kalu case), there has been an unrelenting attack on the court.

Incredibly, those who are expected to exercise restraint and educate lay men like me, are leading others in pouring venom on the court. There is nothing bad in criticising the Supreme Court’s decisions, but such criticisms must be informed and based on the law relating to that case. No two cases are the same except if they are related as per the issues at stake, fact and law. The Kalu case is a straightforward matter of alleged corruption preferred against him as former governor of Abia State, Udeogu, who was director of finance at the Government House, Umuahia, and Slok, Kalu’s company.

They were convicted last December 5 by Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court (FHC), Lagos, after a 12-year trial. At the time of the verdict, Justice Idris had been elevated to the Court of Appeal. As a Justice of the Court of Appeal (JCA), Idris was no longer constitutionally empowered to handle the case which had gone round one or two other judges before him.

To ensure that the case did not suffer further delay because of Idris’ elevation, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, President of the Court of Appeal, PCA, as she then was, granted him fiat to conclude the case in line with Section 396 (7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Herein lies the problem that befell the case which Udeogu latched on to quash his trial and conviction at the Supreme Court.

Section 396 (7) allows an elevated judge to return to the high court to conclude a part-heard matter, if given fiat by the PCA to do so. Based on Kalu’s request, Bulkachuwa granted Idris such fiat, but Udeogu urged the judge to hands off the matter because of his new position. His Lordship refused and insisted on hearing the case to its logical conclusion. He also refused an oral application later brought by Kalu after the former governor  realised the futility of his request that the file be returned to the FHC Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge because he (Idris) no longer had jurisdiction to handle the case.

In law, jurisdiction is central to the hearing and determination of a case. If a court acts without jurisdiction, it acts in vain and whatever it does becomes a nullity. This is exactly what happened in this case for which the Supreme Court is now being  crucified. Should the Supreme Court keep quiet in the face of the breach of the Constitution because a case had spent donkey years in court? Will such action amount to doing justice to all the parties? Should cases be determined on the basis of law or sentiments? Where a law clashes with the Constitution, as does Section 396 (7) in this case, should the age-long interpretation of the supremacy of the Constitution be jettisoned because a matter has been in court for long?

The position is and will always be that where a law clashes with the  Constitution,  the Constitution prevails because it is the grund norm, that is the supreme law of the country. The Constitution puts it succinctly in Section 1 (3): if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution,  this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. Yes, a lot of resources,  time and energy was spent on the Kalu case, but that should not stop the courts from doing what is right in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Justice is at the bottomline of whatever the courts do and the Supreme Court, now led by Chief Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, must be seen leading the way in this regard. Where the lower courts get it wrong, as they sometimes do, the Supreme Court should and must step in to correct things. That is not to say the final court is infallible. Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalu’s case, quashing the trial and conviction of Udeogu is painful, it should not be upbraided for doing what is right in the circumstance because the outcome fell below some people’s expectations. It should also not be blamed for upholding the Constitution over ACJA. In Kalu’s case as in all cases, the rule of justice for all must prevail.

As Justice Oputa, then of the Supreme Court, observed in the 1985 case of Josiah v the state: “justice is a three-way traffic, justice for the appellant, justice for the victim and finally,  justice for the society… it is certainly in the interest of justice that the truth of this case should be known and that if the appellant is properly tried and found guilty (emphasis mine), that he should be punished…” The question then arises: were Kalu, Udeogu and Slok properly tried and found guilty in line with this principle?

The answer is obvious; they were not because they were tried by a judge who lacked the jurisdiction to do so. Bulkachuwa and Idris meant well in seeking to dispense with a case that had spent 12 years in the docket, but they should have done so within the ambit of the law. By not doing so, they acted ultra vires by relying solely on Section 396 (7) without recourse to Sections 1 (1), (3), 239, 240 and 253, among others, of the Constitution, which they, like other judicial officers, swore to uphold.

The Supreme Court did not err by ordering Udeogu’s retrial and expunging Section 396 (7) from the ACJA. That is the position of the law and as the maxim goes let justice be done, even if heavens will fall. For the Supreme Court, this is coming at a very high price. That is a burden and not a blunder, which the court must continue to live with as the final court in the land.