The Nation Newspaper

Category: Lawal Ogienagbon

  • Much ado about Section 305

    Much ado about Section 305

    IT IS A section of the Constitution not frequently used, except the need arises. Whenever it is used, it causes a quake in the land. The country has been quaking since President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18 after invoking the almighty Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The imposition of emergency rule is not the problem, the din is over his suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the deputy, Prof Ngozi Odu, and the House of Assembly.

    To critics, the President has no powers under the Constitution to suspend a governor or any elected person for that matter. According to them, Section 305 only confers him with power to declare a state of emergency in the federation or any part thereof, if need be; no more, no less. Citing the legal maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning the express inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another, they have been using this Latin phrase to buttress their argument that the President is precluded from suspending those democratic institutions.

    Interestingly in this instance, the principle can be applied both ways. Why? Section 305 says nothing about the retention, suspension or removal of democratic institutions during an emergency. So, the President can do whatever he likes with democratic institutions during an emergency. Call it omnibus power, if you like; for that is what it is. A look at the section shows that these discretionary powers allow the President to do and undo, though critics will not agree. The section reads:

    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof 

     Subsection 3 states the conditions under which the President can declare a state of emergency, viz:

    (a) when the Federation is at war;

    Read Also: Revisiting polytechnic education in Nigeria (2)

    (b) when the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war;

    (c) when there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security

    (d)  When there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger

    Section 305 has six subsections, with (1) and (3) standing out because of their key provisions which touch on what the President has done in Rivers. Subsection three has seven elements (a-g), with c and d stating unequivocally in their texts that the President can take extraordinary measures to ensure peace and order and good governance at all times. The Constitution vests the President with enormous powers as the custodian, so to say, of the Federation, who though not an autocrat, can unilaterally exercise certain powers for the smooth running of the country and public safety.

    In one word, a state of emergency is a necessity, though it is perceived as an aberration by some people because it deviates from the norm of doing things. Under a state of emergency, things are not normal. It is because of this abnormality that the President is granted the power to take extraordinary measures to set things right until they become normal again. Those against his suspension of Fubara and others cannot say that things are normal in Rivers. Abnormal times demand abnormal remedy and this is what the President has done in Rivers.

    For the avoidance of doubt, Section 305 did not say that the President can suspend democratic institutions in times of emergency; neither did it say that the President cannot suspend those institutions during emergency. To go on a voyage of discovery in search of constitutional provisions on how a governor can be removed from office is what it is: a Mungo Park journey. Those provisions now being bandied by lawyers and laymen to suit their positions can only hold sway when things are normal. The provisions do not address an emergency situation as we have it in Rivers today.

    From my own understanding of Section 305, the President can suspend democratic institutions as the provision vide subsection 3 (c) and (d) allows him to take extraordinary measures to restore peace and order as well as avert an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof. Did he suspend the democratic institutions in Rivers to avert a clear and present danger to peace and security?

    The answer is YES. Did he act unconstitutionally by so doing? The answer is NO. I may be wrong, but I am ready to take a bet on my position until the Supreme Court which I pray will, one day, have an opportunity to address this issue frontally, speaks. Until then, all opinions by lawyers and others, including yours sincerely, remain just that: personal viewpoints

    Come to think of it, how can a governor keep his seat when he is part of the problem in a state where there is a state of emergency? Framers of the Constitution never envisaged that the chief executive officer of a state who is expected to promote public peace and good will become the chief troublemaker someday. Hence, 305 is not specific on how to deal with such unfathomable case.

    This lack of specificity should, however, not be misconstrued as tying the President’s hands to take necessary remedial actions. Otherwise, the section would not have spoken of extraordinary measures which give the President wide powers to do and undo during an emergency.

  • Rivers: Beyond the emergency

    Rivers: Beyond the emergency

    Things would not have come to a head, if the gladiators had listened to the voice of reason. Both sides are to blame, though one of them will take a large chunk of it. In the past 15 months, Rivers State have been enmeshed in a crisis of immense magnitude. The President moved in early to resolve the problem, but those benefiting from the crisis did not want it settled.

    Now, with Tuesday’s declaration of a state of emergency in the state, these same people, some activists and civil society groups are questioning the rationale for the President’s action. Their argument is that he should not have suspended the democratic institutions in the state after invoking Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution on the state of emergency. If I may ask: what democratic institutions? The same ones that the Supreme Court blasted the now suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara for “collapsing”.

    As the Supreme Court held in its February 28 judgment: the state no longer had a government in place after Fubara demolished the House of Assembly complex on December 14, 2023, and rendered the Martin Amaewhule-led 27 lawmakers ineffective and ineffectual because of his fear of being impeached. Fubara then resorted to dealing with the minority five members then led by Edison Ehie, who resigned to become his chief of staff.

    He subsequently became chummy with the rump of three or four lawmakers led by Victor Oko-Jumbo, which the three layers of the High, Appeal and Supreme Courts declared as illegally constituted since it meant only 12.5% of the people had a voice in a house of 32 members. The apex court was unequivocal in condemning the governor who it described as a despot.

    President Tinubu alluded to the apex court’s position while imposing emergency rule on the state. He said he could not in good conscience as President watch and allow things to degenerate. Since the apex court’s verdict, various Ijaw groups have been threatening ‘fire and brimstone’ if the assembly, which on Monday, served Fubara and his deputy Ngozi Odu a notice of gross misconduct impeaches him.

    Read Also: Senate probes alleged annexation of Nigerian territories by Cameroun

    Impeachment is not an offence. It is a constitutional provision which the lawmakers, if they have the number and follow strictly the procedure for removal, can use to whip a governor into line. Barely 24 hours after the notice was issued, some militants blew up oil pipelines in parts of Rivers, despite knowing full well the consequences of their actions. The resort to violence by militants whenever there are issues like this did not start today. It is their way of blackmailing the nation to yield to their demands whether genuine or not.

    Our oil production took a nosedive a few years ago because of such activities as well as the large scale theft of crude. Of recent, things have been looking up for Nigeria as oil production took a huge leap crossing over 1.8 million barrels per day. The militants’ irrational and unpatriotic actions may take us back and down the economic slope if they are not stopped forthwith. The declaration of a state of emergency may be a better way of doing that since Fubara seems to be at peace with what is happening.

    Why will he not? I recall what he told a gathering at a commissioning ceremony about 17 days ago. “To our youths, be strong. Don’t be perturbed. At the right time you will get instructions”, he said on the occasion. I warned on this page 14 days ago that I hoped he was not planning something sinister. So, why is the President being crucified for imposing emergency rule on Rivers when the governor is only pretending to be interested in peace, but doing something else behind the scenes.

    Till his suspension from office on Tuesday, Fubara kept his executive council (EXCO) comprising mainly commissioners confirmed by the illegal Oko-Jumbo-led lawmakers, in defiance of the apex court’s decision which he said he would implement after receiving the certified true copy (CTC). He got the CTC long ago and left his commissioners intact. The opposition will rave and rant – in their usual style. Legal experts will also attempt to pull the wool over the people’s eyes on this matter.

    The thing is emergency rule is an aberration. This is why it is so named. When it is in place, democracy is suspended. It is painful but that is the plain truth. It is a weapon of last resort used in a democratic setting when all else has failed. Section 305 states the conditions under which it can be imposed and these were well spelt out in the President’s broadcast on Tuesday night.

    But those who want the status quo to remain are bickering. Can democratic institutions and the wielder of emergency legal powers exist side by side? It is trite that two captains cannot man a ship. How then can a governor and a sole administrator be in charge of a state under emergency rule? Let us leave politics aside and face reality. There would have been no need for this emergency if the gladiators had given a thought to the consequences of their actions.

    The framers of the Constitution did not expressly state in Section 305 that the governor and members of a House of Assembly should be suspended after the imposition of a state of emergency because there cannot be democracy under emergency rule. They are strange bedfellows. Democracy automatically gives way where there is a state of emergency.

    This is why I agree with the 2013 submissions of renowned law teacher Prof Akin Oyebode and the late constitutional lawyer Fred Agbaje in their reactions to former President Jonathan’s imposition of emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states then. “You cannot declare emergency rule and leave the status quo”, Oyebode said, adding: “emergency rule warrants extraordinary measures which nullify the maintenance of the status quo”.

    To Agbaje, “what the president (Jonathan) has done is to stand the Constitution on its head, by purporting to declare a state of emergency, and at the same time allowing the state legislature to function. His action is constitutionally heretical and anathema”.

    Instead of throwing tantrums, those who disagree with what President Tinubu has done in Rivers can explore the legal option. The outcome of their lawsuit will help to enrich our constitutional jurisprudence.

  • A woman’s world?

    A woman’s world?

    The Natashagate has reopened the vexed debate on gender parity. Feminists crave parity with men. They argue that men and women should be treated equally in all facets of life. Many men have come to accept their female counterpart’s position, not only for peace to reign but also because they believe that women like men should be given a chance in life too. It is an unending conversation, which has even pitched men against themselves. What a woman cannot do does not exist!

    Though born the same way as a man, the life of a woman is defined right from birth. From being a girl to becoming a woman she passes through some good and rough patches. What many women are complaining about today started long ago, precisely on the day they were born. Unlike her male counterparts, the girl-child has a set of rules to live by.

    The boys too have their own. You cannot grow up in the 50s, 60s and some years in the 70s without living under the strict ‘terms and conditions’ of hardcore parents who brooked no nonsense. They did not spare the rod so as not to spoil the child. But for the girls, the rules were sterner and they must not be broken under any condition. The girls broke them at their own risk. Interestingly, these rules were not meant to cage the girl-child, they were set to put them on the straight and narrow path.

    The path that they would follow in later years that people who did not know their backgrounds would see them and say: “you were raised well”. More often than not, they followed it up with the question: “who are your parents?”. From time immemorial, ours has been a society of morals and values. A society that places much store in the dignity, chastity and honour of a woman, than those of a man.

    This is why the girl-child comes into the world already ‘profiled’. From the cradle, she is taught how to be a woman and mother, who must always look down and not into others’ faces while she is being addressed. Society did and still does all these for the good upbringing of the woman. In the days of yore, this arrangement was accepted without fuss. Our mothers grew up to know their place in society, and they accepted what fate had chosen for them.

    Since as they say, the only constant thing in life is change, the modern day disruptive rules of raising children have come to rock the system. But the ‘Old School Way’ of doing things remains a constant. You can only change what is bad and improve on what is good. Just as no one changes a winning team, you also cannot change that ‘archaic’ (their word, not mine) way of bringing up a child. Today’s feminists are fighting the old order because they perceive those rules as ‘constricting’ and fashioned against women.

    What they do not realise is that there is nothing in the old order of raising children that says a woman cannot compete with a man. Nor fight for all the good things of life; go in search of knowledge in any part of the world, no matter how distant; seek the best jobs and aim for the highest positions available.

    All of these come with a fiat to do so with their heads held high. However, they should not in the desire to achieve their goals become a nuisance to themselves. As our parents were wont to say then: “remember the child of whom you are”.

    These words still ring in our ears today. Like a man, a woman is free to fight for a seat (this word again) at the table. Nothing and nobody should stop a woman from doing so. What society demands, just as it was instilled in us as we were growing up, is that the woman should not lose her decency in whatever she does, whether in the public or private domain. A woman must be a woman in deed, honour and character.

    Read Also: Umahi sets November 2025 deadline for East-West road completion

    Nobody is saying that the woman should be a second fiddle. No, not at all. All that is being said is that a woman should not because of the perks of office be a disgrace to herself and her family. In whatever situation she finds herself, she must like Caesar’s wife be above board. A woman who acts indecently in order to get to high office will always face the repercussions, if not now, certainly sometime in the future because those who witnessed it all will never forget.

    The gender debate was ignited by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s out of the blue allegation of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The matter is being blown out of proportions by feminists, while the live issue of Natasha breaking the Senate Rules called the Red Book has been overlooked. This writer has nothing against women and I am not advocating that their place remains the kitchen.

    Our society has since passed that stage. Women whether in the political or any other space should be able to hold their own and learn to play by the rules (this word too!). It should not be one set of rules for them and another for men. Rules are rules and they are made for the peaceful coexistence of the members of a group as well as the larger society.

    No matter how many times men and women fight, they will continue to live together. This is why it is unfair for feminists and their co-travellers to always shout misogyny whenever issues arise as they are bound to, in any human enterprise. When they arise, the wise thing to do is to come and let us reason together. The truth is we shall continue to fight and live to fight again and again as man and woman. Are men misogynist when they insist on women doing the right thing by following the rules?

    Are they misogynist when they ask for proof from a woman accusing them of sexual advances and/or harassment? Are they misogynist when they demand of a female member to follow the group’s rules? So, for the fear of being accused of misogynism, a man should allow a woman to malign him and get away with it? All this noise about misogynism is to obfuscate matters so as to drown the main issue, but it will not work.

    With the ill-advised externalisation of her sexual harassment claim that is sub judice and best handled at home, those mouthing misogynism should by now know where the accuser who is doing everything to nail the accused is coming from and probably heading to. Our Senate may not be perfect just like any other political institution here or abroad, but it remains our highest law making body, and it should be accorded the respect it deserves by members and non-members.

    Before I am crucified, I make bold to say that I am a he for she. But for the fear of being called misogynists, many men are siding Natasha. They conveniently chose to forget that the accused deserves the benefit of doubt until clearcut evidence says otherwise.

    I will not for the fear of being tagged a misogynist back any woman, no matter how highly placed, who accuses a man of sexual misbehaviour until she proves the allegation. This is the rational way to go. People should not allow their emotions to get the better of them over this matter.

  • Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    The much-awaited certified true copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court verdict on the Rivers State political crisis which was released on Thursday has ended all legal disputes among the feuding parties. With the court’s profound findings, any matter pending in court has died a natural death. The court without mincing words defined the status of the 27 lawmakers led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule as authentic, adding that it is the only body that Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do business with.

    Until the decision, Fubara was comfortable dealing with the then Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly, claiming that the Amaewhule group had defected from the Peoples Democratic (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even after the Court of Appeal affirmed a Federal High Court order that it was constitutionally wrong of him to deal with only three of the 32-man assembly, Fubara  disobeyed the orders. He insisted on having his way, boasting that the “house exists at his pleasure”.

      Rather than do as directed by the high and appeal courts in Abuja so that peace can reign in the state, he went to a state high court in Port Harcourt to obtain an order to enable him present the 2025 budget to the Oko-Jumbo group, even after his presentation of the 2024 budget to the same set of lawmakers had been declared illegal. It was an error on his part. The apex court was unsparing in its reprimand of the governor, who it described as a despot that collapsed the government of the state so that he could have his way. Indeed, it was needless for him to have gone to the high court, while pursuing a cross-appeal at the apex court, which pronouncement would swallow whatever the lower court comes up with, no matter how brilliant.

    Fubara was only buying time and postponing the day of reckoning which finally came on February 28 . Still he did not see the handwriting on the wall when Amaewhule and co., went to court to stop him from further receiving allocations from the central bank and the accountant-general of the federation as he was not operating a valid budget. The high court decided in the plaintiffs’ favour. The governor went on appeal and won. The appeal court held that it was a constitutional matter on which the high court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It restored the high court order. Quoting from the appeal court verdict, the apex court held:

    Read Also: Natasha/Akpabio feud: External plot to tarnish Nigeria’s image – NASAC

    “The objective of the high court case is to stop the release of funds to the governor so as to compel him to cause the making of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution… the Court of Appeal also acknowledged that based on two of its judgments as at today the Amaewhule group who allegedly defected are still legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and empowered to conduct the business of the Rivers State House of Assembly”. It said it was therefore wrong of the appeal court to have declared that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fund allocation case.

      According to the apex court, Fubara’s fear of impeachment led to his cat-and-mouse relationship with the Amaewhule group. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the governor started the prevention of the sittings of the assembly as constituted by its members as prescribed by Section 96 of the Constitution. His reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Necessity, His Lordship said, “is to continue the brazen subversion of Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State. Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 lawmakers from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to the aforesaid Sections 102 and 109 and the Doctrine of Necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State”.

    The court was not done: “The governor had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place. The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery. What is clear is that the 27 lawmakers are still valid members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House by the governor in cahoots with the four other members. Sections 102 and 109 cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise”.

    Berating the governor for choosing to collapse the legislature to enable him govern as a despot, the apex court declared: “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State… political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person. What he has done is to destroy the government for the fear of being impeached”. With this decision, the case before the Port Harcourt High Court seeking to sack the 27 lawmakers for alleged defection has become mere academic exercise. It is as dead as a dodo.

  • Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    ANALYSIS

    The much-awaited certified true copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court verdict on the Rivers State political crisis which was released on Thursday has ended all legal disputes among the feuding parties. With the court’s profound findings, any matter pending in court has died a natural death. The court without mincing words defined the status of the 27 lawmakers led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule as authentic, adding that it is the only body that Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do business with.

    Until the decision, Fubara was comfortable dealing with the then Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly, claiming that the Amaewhule group had defected from the Peoples Democratic (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even after the Court of Appeal affirmed a Federal High Court order that it was constitutionally wrong of him to deal with only three of the 32-man assembly, Fubara  disobeyed the orders. He insisted on having his way, boasting that the “house exists at his pleasure”.

      Rather than do as directed by the high and appeal courts in Abuja so that peace can reign in the state, he went to a state high court in Port Harcourt to obtain an order to enable him present the 2025 budget to the Oko-Jumbo group, even after his presentation of the 2024 budget to the same set of lawmakers had been declared illegal. It was an error on his part. The apex court was unsparing in its reprimand of the governor, who it described as a despot that collapsed the government of the state so that he could have his way. Indeed, it was needless for him to have gone to the high court, while pursuing a cross-appeal at the apex court, which pronouncement would swallow whatever the lower court comes up with, no matter how brilliant.

    Fubara was only buying time and postponing the day of reckoning which finally came on February 28 . Still he did not see the handwriting on the wall when Amaewhule and co., went to court to stop him from further receiving allocations from the central bank and the accountant-general of the federation as he was not operating a valid budget. The high court decided in the plaintiffs’ favour. The governor went on appeal and won. The appeal court held that it was a constitutional matter on which the high court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It restored the high court order. Quoting from the appeal court verdict, the apex court held:

    Read Also: Dettol Cool brings freshness to fitness enthusiasts, communities across Nigeria

    “The objective of the high court case is to stop the release of funds to the governor so as to compel him to cause the making of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution… the Court of Appeal also acknowledged that based on two of its judgments as at today the Amaewhule group who allegedly defected are still legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and empowered to conduct the business of the Rivers State House of Assembly”. It said it was therefore wrong of the appeal court to have declared that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fund allocation case.

       According to the apex court, Fubara’s fear of impeachment led to his cat-and-mouse relationship with the Amaewhule group. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the governor started the prevention of the sittings of the assembly as constituted by its members as prescribed by Section 96 of the Constitution. His reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Necessity, His Lordship said, “is to continue the brazen subversion of Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State. Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 lawmakers from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to the aforesaid Sections 102 and 109 and the Doctrine of Necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State”.

    The court was not done: “The governor had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place. The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery. What is clear is that the 27 lawmakers are still valid members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House by the governor in cahoots with the four other members. Sections 102 and 109 cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise”.

    Berating the governor for choosing to collapse the legislature to enable him govern as a despot, the apex court declared: “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State… political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person. What he has done is to destroy the government for the fear of being impeached”. With this decision, the case before the Port Harcourt High Court seeking to sack the 27 lawmakers for alleged defection has become mere academic exercise. It is as dead as a dodo.

  • Rivers: Jungle don mature

    Rivers: Jungle don mature

    A local government council cannot be governed or administered by the Federal Government, state government, governor of a state, local government caretaker committee, administrator, head of local government or by whatever name called or by any other state agency or other body. The government of a local government area other than by a democratically-elected council is not in accordance with the 1999 Constitution

    – Supreme Court verdict on local government autonomy

    Nothing… shall preclude a House of Assembly from making laws with respect to election to a local government council in addition to but not inconsistent with any made by the National Assembly – The Constitution

    The Supreme Court’s verdict on Friday on the Rivers political impasse touched on many issues ranging from the legality of the state’s 2025 budget, to its allocations from the Federation Account, to the conduct of the last local government election, as well as the status of the Martin Amaewhule-led 27 lawmakers and the executive council (EXCO) as presently constituted, albeit tangentially.

    Though, the court did not specifically make any pronouncements on the propriety or otherwise of the EXCO peopled mainly by commissioners that must be screened and cleared by a duly-comprised House of Assembly, its non-recognition of the Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly that confirmed them has made the positions they occupy illegal.

    Despite the court’s unambiguous orders, these commissioners are still parading themselves in office as well as speaking on the judgment. It is the fashion these days for governors and their lieutenants to treat court orders with contempt. With the aid of their lawyers, who are mostly Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), they pick and choose which court orders to obey. They only see good in the judgements that favour them.

    When they do not, the judge or judges must be corrupt and the losing party goes to town, again supported by these senior lawyers to run down the judiciary. Since the Supreme Court put him in his place on Friday, Governor Siminalayi Fubara has not been himself. He is not happy with the verdict and he is not hiding it. When he first spoke on the judgment on Sunday, he grudgingly promised to comply with the far-reaching orders therein, which he said he did not agree with.

    Really, he does not have to agree with the verdict in toto before complying with it – so far he does so fully. There is nothing like partial compliance with court orders. It is either you comply or you do not and face the consequences of your action, which is imprisonment for contempt, no matter the status of the contemnor.

    Pretending to be complying with the judgment, he directed the local government chairmen who were elected last October 5, in defiance of a high court order, to hand over to the heads of their councils. The Supreme Court frowns at such arrangements and the governor cannot claim to be unaware of what the highest court in the land said in the local government autonomy case (See the top of this piece) in which his state was well represented by his attorney-general whose office is no longer tenable in view of last Friday’s decision.

    Since he facilitated their election, the council chiefs complied promptly. I was not surprised. The puppeteer was only pulling the strings of his puppets. Since the apex court has sacked the council chiefs, they needed no prompting by the governor or any other person for that matter before packing their bags and go. Fubara claims he is obeying the apex court. What kind of obedience is that when he is, in the same breathe, flouting the same court’s order that only a democratically-elected government can run a local government area?

    Last July 10, the court as per Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that it is unconstitutional to have undemocratically-elected governments at that level. Under the cover of obeying one order, Fubara is deliberately disobeying another one because he does not want to deal with the 27 lawmakers that the court told him to represent the 2025 budget to. But for how long will he continue to bury his head in the sand like ostrich? The governor should stop deceiving himself.

    Nigeria can earn $2.5billion annually from trades with Morocco – Abbas

    If he does not know, he should hear it now that the market is over. To borrow the famous words which he uttered while swearing in his Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice last year: Jungle don mature, while threatening to probe the immediate past administration of his now estranged godfather, Nyesom Wike. I am not gloating over Fubara’s fate, but the truth is that he is the architect of his own problems. He can boast all he likes while talking in public, but he should not forget that he has become more vulnerable than ever.

    The truth is he is now at the mercy of the Amaewhule-led assembly which on Monday gave him 48 hours to present the 2025 budget as directed by the apex court. This was the same thing the President asked him to do when the First Citizen intervened in the initial stages of this crisis. Who knows, the crisis would have been long settled and forgotten by now, if he did.

    But based on bad advice, he demurred, claiming that he was “ambushed” to sign the presidential peace pact. Which is better: that missed political solution or this judicial lashing? Let nobody weep for Fubara. He may take all the time in the world to apply for the certified true copy (CTC) of the judgment, but the lawmakers do not owe him a duty to wait for him.

    The governor is not in a position to dictate what he wants to do or does not want to do. He is alone in the crowd of his commissioners (can they still be called that?) and other aides that surround him. They know that the party is over and one by one, they will start jumping ship so that he goes down alone, if he remains recalcitrant. Fubara can still salvage the situation if he manages things well as he is at his political nadir.

    Present (or represent) the 2025 budget, dissolve his EXCO and send a fresh list of nominees to Amaewhule and co., and allow them to work out the modalities for a fresh local government poll. These things should not be too hard for him. All he needs to do is to eat the humble pie. If he decides to play smart, he risks impeachment. His ominous statement on Monday that to “leave office is the worse that will happen to me” does not have to come to pass, and only him can prevent that from happening.

    Whatever may be his choice, Fubara should not misadvise others, especially the gullible youths of his state. What does he mean by the statement: “to our youths be strong, don’t be perturbed. At the right time, you will get instructions”. What instructions? I hope he is not planning something sinister. Well, the security agencies are not sleeping.

    LAST WORD: I had finished writing and sent in this piece when reports filtered in that Fubara won’t honour the assembly’s ultimatum. The choice is his. May I remind him of the saying: “As you make your bed, so you shall lie on it”.

  • June 12 and IBB’s say nothing book

    June 12 and IBB’s say nothing book

    The real account of the June 12 saga has yet to be given. All that former military leader Gen Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) did in his book in which he wrote extensively on the subject was to make himself look good and patriotic. IBB did not come clean with Nigerians about what really happened to June 12 beyond rehashing the tales they actually know about the annulment.

    Writing on the subject in Chapter 12, under the title: Transition to civil rule and the June 12 saga, the ‘evil genius’ lived up to his appellation as he danced around the subject, looking for ways to justify the actions he took on the issue. He blamed every other person connected with the election, except himself, for what happened. But as ‘’president and commander-in-chief’’ he told readers that he took responsibility for everything. Who else does he want to take such responsibility?

    His second in command, the late Admiral Augustus Aikhomu, who he tacitly accused of initiating the annulment with a ‘’terse, but poorly written statement on a scrap of paper’’ by the late former number two citizen’s press secretary, Nduka Irabor? Or the then National Electoral Commission (NEC) chairman, the late Prophet Humphrey Nwosu, who he alleged ‘’suspended the June 12 election results ‘until further notice’ without my knowledge or prior approval”.

    The IBB autobiography: A journey in service is replete with such accusations and blame game. Every bad thing was done by a third party, while he was involved in only good deeds. Is this not the same IBB who once boasted that he “is not only in government, but also in power”? Did he not also tell the world that as a soldier, he was”trained to dominate his environment”? How then did he become a weakling in a situation where he was expected to show strength and damn the consequences?

    As shown in his memoir, his authority was challenged time and again by some of his subordinates, especially his friend and ally, the late Gen Sani Abacha, and he never had the nerve to call them to order. According to him, it was not because he was afraid of Abacha, but for the safety of himself and his loved ones. If IBB so loved the country as he claimed in every portion of his book, no sacrifice would have been too much for him to make for his nation. But as he may say, he is not Jesus that laid down His life for the world.

    Where then is the so-called patriotic streak that propelled all he did while in office? He was only patriotic to the point that it benefited him materially. He said he had no pact with Abacha to leave the latter in office when he “stepped aside” on August 27, 1993. Was that a wise decision since he knew how dangerous and power-hungry Abacha was? For a man who had “wanted to violently overthrow” him, IBB did not play the statesman by, so to say, bequeathing Nigeria to Abacha.

    Read Also: How U.S. based Nigerian nurse is changing lives through food pantry

    For all he cared, Nigeria can burn as long as he and his family had their peace of mind. It is a cardinal sin for him to have done that and no amount of whitewashing can cleanse him of it. June 12 was a momentous event and it provided a chance for IBB to leave a lasting legacy after his exit from office. IBB missed the opportunity and posterity will never forget that when the time came for a soldier of his calibre who confronted a coup plotter, Buka Suka Dimka, with barehands and also executed a “loyal and childhood friend”, Mamman Vatsa, for alleged coup, to take Abacha down, his legendary courage failed him.

    There is nothing IBB writes or says about June 12 today that will interest Nigerians until he is ready to come out with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He was a central figure, nay the main character in the saga. Everything about the June 12 election revolved around him. He held, as they say, the knife and the yam and he could cut it the way he liked without anyone challenging his authority. He was not ready to stand up for the country because it seemed he, just as Abacha, had animosity against Abiola which he did not write about.

    As Abiola said of him in the heat of the June 12 imbroglio, with “a friend like IBB, who needs an enemy?” Abiola knew his enemy before he took on the over four-year battle for his mandate that eventually claimed his life in 1998. Today, IBB is shedding crocodile tears for that ‘friend’, and according him the honour he knowingly denied the business magnate while alive. Readers cannot be fooled about the sweet nothings he wrote about Abiola in his book because he was economical with the truth about the events surrounding the June 12 annulment.

    It was obvious even before the election that the poll was going to meet with a bad end. The June 11, 1993 meeting of the National Defence and Security Council (NDSC), to which he unilaterally changed the name of the Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) after he dissolved the nation’s then highest ruling organ, was full of foreboding for the election billed for the next day.

    In a rare press conference, held somewhere in Lagos after the AFRC dissolution, former defence chief, the late Lt Gen Domkat Bali, accused IBB of running “a one-man show”. Prior to the NDSC meeting, the late Justice Bassey Ikpeme had on June 10 stopped NEC from conducting the June 12 election, setting off a chain of reactions, which prompted, among other things, the acrimonious NDSC meeting on the way out, which he recollected in his book.

    The booby traps set for the June 12 election were many. There is no way that IBB can say with his hand on his heart that he was not part of those opposed to the conduct of the election from the outset. The speed at which he sent a United States (US) diplomat, Michael O’Brien, packing for issuing a statement that postponement of the poll would be unacceptable to America was alarming. It portrayed IBB as having his own agenda for the election and in the fullness of time, the nation saw the result. If Babangida is serious about laying to rest the ghost of the June 12 saga, he should be bold enough to do full disclosure.

    At 83 going to 84, there is nothing for IBB to fear again. He has, as they say, seen it all. What the people want from him is a fair and accurate account of the June 12 poll annulment, and not this tale of how he was boxed into a corner to accept what others wanted in order to allow peace to reign in the military, and by extension the country. It is good as a leader for him to take responsibility for the action of his then subordinate, Abacha, who he claimed annulled the election.

    But taking responsibility is not the same as being the one who annulled the poll. Or did he? His honest response is the only way to bring closure to the June 12 saga. If he needs to write another book to do that, why not? So far, the truth comes out.

  • United in life and death

    United in life and death

    When beggars die, there are no comets seen; the heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes – Shakespeare

    The nation is still reeling under the news of the death of two great men. Men who shaped the thoughts and opinions of others. Men who took the bull by the horns and faced down those who dared them. However, like all mortals, they were not perfect; they made mistakes now and then.

    Chief Ayo Adebanjo (1928-2025) and Chief Edwin Clark (1927-2025) were two of a kind. Adebanjo died on February 14, and Clark passed away on February 17. Call them birds of the same feather and you will not be wrong. Though from different ethnic groups – Adebanjo was  Ijebu; and Clark, Ijaw – they held similar positions on many issues. One cannot say if this was by design or default. Their age and accomplishments made them the natural leaders of their people.

    Little wonder that their homes were a Mecca of sorts where political associates and friends from all walks of life gathered to learn at their feet. Mind you, they were forceful characters who went out of their way to get whatever they wanted. They were not quite, at all. They were fiery in speech. Many dared them at their own peril. They were not only power brokers, they were also king makers.

    It is a funny world. They seemed to engage in what they accused national leaders of doing. Adebanjo and Clark never suffered fools gladly. They were on top of their game and always had their way. They parted ways with you if you did not see things their way. What is that saying again? Though raw, it can be roughly said of them that they would never stand by and allow anybody to wield a sword around them. Moral: they know what the sword wielder can do with it.

    So, whenever they spoke of somebody being dictatorial or not listening to others, you knew where they were coming from. It is not in our tradition to speak ill of the dead. It is perceived as offensive to say of the dead that they were bad even if the world knew that is the truth. A person’s sins are forgiven once they are dead. Does that make the dead a saint? No, but society frowns at turning them into game after their passing.

    Even though Shakespeare noted that “the evil that men do lives after them”, this evil is hardly mentioned upon their demise in order not to offend the sensibilities of the bereaved families, friends and associates. Conversely, we relish in speaking about the good that they did. We remember how they paid school fees for this; got a job for that and helped those they never knew to start a business. We talk about all these good deeds, which Shakespeare said “are oft interred with their bones”.

    The dead do not talk. Whatever is said about them, they will never hear or respond to. It is those they left behind that will take the hit. For sure these people will not like it, especially if they did not share the views of the dead. But they have to put up a front, by defending the dead’s legacies, be they a father, mother, son or daughter. This is the lot of survivors which we can all relate with.

    Read Also: Akpabio assures of Senate full participation in Clark’s burial

    No man is entirely good or evil. No matter how careful we may be while walking, our heads will sway. The critic is good at one thing and that is to draw attention to the shortcomings of the national leader. In most cases the critic, as in the case of Adebanjo and Clark, may be a leader in his own right too doing the same things that he is accusing the national leader of, but he never sees it that way because he is not in the spotlight.

    Criticism is the oil of modern day development. It acts as a spur to sensitive leaders who desire to bequeath a lasting legacy. It becomes another thing, however, when it turns to mudslinging. Adebanjo and Clark were critics of no mean repute. Their biting criticisms went a long way in helping our leaders to sit up. But they went too far at times. They always wanted it their way and no other way. They forgot that like the national leader, no critic is 100 per cent right.

    As critics and leaders, Adebanjo and Clark have played their part and left the stage. We recall their sojourn on earth so as to make our lives too sublime. We do not do it to run them down, but to draw attention to the fact that as living beings, we are subject to human foibles and frailties. They were not perfect. If they were, they would not have walked this earth. It is because they were not saints that they had challenges within their respective groups.

    We join the Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, and the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) in mourning these great Nigerians. Their roles in these groups will never be forgotten. Clark appropriated PANDEF. He was the group’s all in all. Something that he would never accept from any national leader. On the other hand, Afenifere was challenged in recent years because of the self-inflicted leadership tussle between Adebanjo and Pa Reuben Fasoranti.

    The cause of the friction was something that should not have reared its ugly head in the first place, as Afenifere has a natural process for picking its leader. According to its hierarchical structure, the oldest person takes charge whenever the Leader’s position becomes vacant.

    Fasoranti’s feeble health made him to cede his natural position to Adebanjo, but the latter declined to step down for the former who sought to return after feeling a bit better. The group became factionalised. Until his death six days ago, Adebanjo called the shots from his Ijebu Ogbo (Ogun State) homestead, while Fasoranti held court in Akure, the Ondo State capital.

    Telling it as it is, to borrow the title of Adebanjo’s autobiography which he wrote to mark his 90th birthday six years ago, there is no better time than now for Afenifere to bind its wounds and resolve the crisis which has dragged on for too long. Adebanjo’s death should mark the beginning of a rapprochement within the group. Adieu, Pa Adebanjo! Adieu, Pa Clark!! May you find rest in the Lord’s bosom.

  • Is El-Rufai the North?

    Is El-Rufai the North?

    Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, the self-styled accidental public servant, is at it again. Sounding off and drawing attention to himself, as usual. What ails El-Rufai? What is biting him really? El-Rufai is good at blabbing, flapping and flailing, all at the same time. He seems to have lost bearings after missing out on being made a minister in the present administration.

    Both in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), where he once held sway as minister, and Kaduna, his home state, where he was a two-term governor from 2015 – 2023, El-Rufai has turned himself into a laughing stock of sorts, the way he is carrying on. Under the guise of speaking ‘truth to power’, that is what his likes always say after their quibbling, he sees nothing good in what President Bola Tinubu, and Governor Uba Sani, his (El-Rufai’s) successor, are doing.

    Hardly a day passes without El-Rufai taking potshots at both men. He is hyperactive in the traditional and social media, as he has joined forces with other disgruntled politicians to pick, especially on the President. His hitherto political enemies are now his friends. Those people were not only his political foes, they were also not economically and socially compatible. El-Rufai now finds comfort in their bosom. Not to worry, at the right time, they will be put asunder by what brought them together.

    The time is drawing close. And El-Rufai is stepping up his campaign of calumny against Tinubu, pretending to be speaking as a friend. With a friend like him, the President does not need an enemy. His latest outburst was not altruistic. It was, as usual, self-serving. He assumed to be the voice of the North as he thundered over the President’s chances in the 2027 election. The North, he claimed, would ditch the President as the region did to Goodluck Jonathan in 2015 because of “his (Jonathan’s) attitude and that of people around him to the zone”.

    Read Also: Nigeria got $52b in 10 years as Afreximbank’s largest beneficiary

    In other words, he was saying that for Tinubu to get a second term, he must surround himself with more northerners, give them what is commonly referred to as ‘fat and juicy’ appointments and open up the treasury for them, if need be, so as to appease this northern deity created by him, which cannot be defied. The train has since left El-Rufai behind. If he did not know, he should know now. He is no longer a factor in the nation’s politics. These days, he is just being tolerated, all because of what he was in the past.

    El-Rufai no longer has a place in the political future of this country. So, to threaten the President with the loss of the North’s vote in 2027 is mere talk. Grammarians call it gibberish. I will not do that because El-Rufai, as Mark Antony referred to those who killed Julius Caesar, the major character in William Shakespeare’s tragic play of the same title, is an ‘honourable man’. The North knows its own and its own know the North. El-Rufai cannot now pretend to be what he is not to the region that produced great men like Sardauna Ahmadu Bello and Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa.

    When those men spoke, the North listened. Who will listen to El-Rufai? Come to think of it, how many soldiers does he have to warrant him to make such a sweeping statement for the North. Lest he forgets, he is no longer a governor nor a minister with favours to dispense. People are no longer at his beck and call. He should stop living in the past. It is not of his making that a Southerner is the President today. It will also not be of his making that a Southerner will remain President in 2027.

    The Southern Presidency is an idea whose time did not just come today. It came years ago and El-Rufai was wise enough to join the bandwagon then. All the best, if he wants to jump ship now. I concede that he played a leading role in rallying the All Progressives Congress (APC) governors from the North to support the project. That was then when he, as governor, was on the ground in Kaduna. It is because he is no longer on the ground that he seems not to know the things that the President is doing for the state.

    El-Rufai is seeking a return to political reckoning with his recent activities. He speaks glowingly of APC at public forums, but deep down he knows that he is insincere. His statement titled: South West, Tinubu’s supporters playing with fire – Part 1, released on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday was a dead giveaway of his intentions about Tinubu and their party. Is he still in APC? Time will tell. Playing with words, he wrote:

    “I have read and heard the arrogant posturing and braggadocio by some people who I refer to as political rabble-rousers… May I remind some persons that, more than the performance or lack thereof, of President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, it was his attitude, and that of people around him, towards the North that ultimately brought him down…” Can you hear that? El-Rufai’s plan to set the North against Tinubu is dead on arrival.

    He cannot incite the North and its people against Tinubu at a time that the President is doing all he can for the region. May we remind El-Rufai that he is not the Oracle of the North that speaks and the people will follow. He can only speak for himself and not the region which has had it good under the Tinubu Presidency. God sparing our lives, 2027 is just two years away. It is Tinubu’s achievements and not the bile spewed by a disgruntled politician that will determine his return to office.

    Like every other eligible voter, El-Rufai has only one vote. He should cast it for whoever he likes. I bet him, he will be shocked by the outcome of the 2027 Presidential Poll, notwithstanding his statement inciting the North against Tinubu ahead of the election. The second part cannot be more incendiary than the first. The public awaits that installment.

  • Casino journalism: Another view

    Casino journalism: Another view

    IT IS NOT for nothing that journalism is described as history in a hurry. It is so described because of the frenetic pace at which journalists work. News breaks and all hands must be on deck to cover all the angles, leaving out nothing.

    The stories are written to beat the 24-hour daily deadline of producing a paper, without compromising facts and figures. The most important factor is to get the story out fast, which translates to getting the paper out first and every other thing shall follow. The journalist does his job with an eye on posterity, the ultimate judge of everything that we do today.

    Journalists do not operate in a vacuum. They are members of the society, but privileged to know or are informed about  goings-on in hidden and open places. The journalist’s job comes with a burden. The burden of truth and trust. Is he truthful?  Can he be trusted? These ultimately define who the journalist is and how others relate with him.

    Unfortunately, journalism practice is being hindered these days by the economy, which has made things difficult for practitioners. The cost of production is so high that newsprint, a major component in the printing of newspaper, is sky high. And it is still rising. The survival of journalism and the journalist is at risk today because of this and other sociopolitical factors.

    It is for the cause of survival that journalists have resorted to some creative means of remaining in business. Gone are the days when sales and the traditional means of generating adverts were the bulwark for newspaper houses. Things are no longer so because of the ever rising cost of production which cannot always be reflected in the cover price of newspapers. For those who do not know, newspapers sell at a loss today even at the cover price of N300 or a little above, which many Nigerians cannot afford.

    To survive, newspapers have become ingenious in order to remain in business. Even at that, they are not on the newsstand. Circulation continues to dwindle as they now cut their cloth, according to their size. Their print run is commensurate to their economic power and advert intake. We may call it Casino Journalism, as Prof Ismail Ibraheem did in his thought-provoking inaugural lecture entitled: Casino Journalism: The Ending of History, but that is the reality staring every media organisation in the face.

    As a concept, Casino Journalism may sound good, but the truth is how can the media survive in the circumstance it finds itself today without being creative and start thinking out-of-the-box? The media has not put profit before its work of informing, educating and entertaining, and most importantly, holding the government accountable to the people. The truth is like every other segment of society, it is economically shackled and must find ways of staying afloat.

    What then comes first is its continued operation as a going-concern in order to meet its obligations to its publics, not discounting its workers and investors, too. I agree that, at times, too much emphasis is placed on money making at the expense of other things, but again as I noted earlier, reality dictates that such measure be taken for the good of the business. The risk of not doing this will be too enormous for the media and its workforce.

    Read Also: Wike to Nigerians: nobody should panic, Tinubu’s policies are for greater good

    There is no story that the media can do that will bring in the kind of money it requires to survive on the long run and there is no businessman that will come to its aid when the chips are down. No matter what the media does for a businessman today, go to him for help tomorrow and you will be hit with the statement: “I am in business to make money”.  Translation: Journalism too is business.

    But for too long, it has been run as charity. The media must ensure a balance between its business side of profit making and its journalism work of public service. Public service does not mean that journalists and allied workers should earn peanuts or the investor should not make profit. How do you pay well or make profit when the business is floundering? Media houses cannot depend on their foundations because they are separate (or are they not?) entities.

    The foundation is not to fund the newspaper, otherwise the funders will cut the source of funding. It is to fund the work of the foundation that is media related. The way out remains Casino Journalism, not in the spiteful sense of the word casino, where gambling and related things go on, but to ensure that in playing casino, journalism and its practitioners stick to the Canons of the profession of accuracy, fairness, objectivity and balance.

    By upholding these tenets, journalism will remain a buffer for its practitioners. There will be no room for hit-and-run stories, that is breaking a story and not following up on it, as the Prof noted, thereby ending the story just like that, for the next big report, and the cycle goes on and on. I concur that, that is Casino Journalism. Why not pursue a story to its logical end, giving readers all the perspectives to satisfy their curiosity before jumping to another one?

    By the way, can the issue of ownership ever be divorced from media operation? All over the world, practitioners do their publishers’ bidding. After all, as the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. However, in doing his publisher’s bidding, a journalist must not go overboard, as his own reputation is at stake. Nobody remembers the publisher, they all know the journalist, both by name and reputation.

    But then the publisher’s interest must be protected, at all times and for the purpose he set up the publication. Though, this must not be at the expense of the public which has the right to know. It is a delicate balance, but the media can walk the tightrope without playing too much casino.