The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  •  A question of enforcement

     A question of enforcement

    • Ignoring ECOWAS Court judgments is counterproductive 

    The level of enforcement of judgments of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice, by its member states, revealed recently by the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, Gaye Sowe, is very discouraging.

     Sowe gave a breakdown of total judgments per country, the number of cases dismissed, the number of judgments unenforced, and the number that has been enforced. Nigeria, which has the highest number of cases before the court, also has the highest number of unenforced judgments.

    The breakdown per country shows the Republic of Benin: Total judgments – 19; dismissed – 13; unenforced – six; enforced – 0. Republic of Cape Verde: Total –three; dismissed – two; unenforced – one; enforced – 0. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire: Total – 28; dismissed – 19; unenforced – nine; enforced – 0. Ghana: Total – 13; dismissed – six; unenforced – seven; enforced – 0. Guinea-Bissau: Total – one; dismissed – 0; unenforced – one; enforced – 0; Republic of Guinea: Total – 25; dismissed – seven; unenforced – 18; enforced – 0. Liberia: Total – 15; dismissed – 10; unenforced – four; enforced – one. Nigeria: Total – 125; dismissed – 67; enforced – 10; unenforced – 48 (recently rising to 50). Senegal: Total – 35; dismissed – 23; unenforced – nine; enforced – three.

    He went further: Sierra Leone: Total – 18; dismissed – six; unenforced – 11; enforced – one. The Gambia: Total – 13; dismissed – five; unenforced – five; enforced – two; one struck out. Togo: Total – 58; dismissed – 26; unenforced – 29; partially enforced – one; amicably settled – one; withdrawn – one.

    A cursory look at the unenforced judgments across the member states shows that the level of enforcement is abysmally low. Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, and Republic of Guinea have no single judgment enforced within their jurisdiction. Topping the list, Nigeria has a total of 50 unenforced judgments.

    It is pertinent to ask, what is the cause of the high level of unenforced judgments across the member states? To properly situate that question, the national governments must through relevant protocols determine the enforcement procedures for the judgments of the ECOWAS community court. Within the territorial jurisdiction of every member state, relevant national laws must recognise and give bite to the enforcement procedure for the judgments of the court. Where such protocols exist, the enforcement of the judgments will not depend on the whims and caprices of those at the helm of affairs of member states.

    The member states, through relevant protocols and national laws, must also determine the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS community court and the nature of cases that can be determined by the court. The circumstances under which an individual can approach the court must be clearly defined.

    With the national courts of individual member states functioning and able to dispense justice, there should be clearly defined circumstances before an individual from member states can approach the court for the adjudication of the infringement of their personal rights. Without such clear delineation, the dockets of the courts could be overwhelmed by irrelevant cases.

    Read Also: 2026 will see faster road projects, stricter monitoring — Umahi assures Nigerians

    The President of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, Ricardo Gonçalves, spoke on the future of the ECOWAS Court. He said, “The court has given several progressive judgments spanning different areas of human rights, such as the rights to life, freedom from torture, expression, association, assembly, education, work, healthy environment, among others.

    “By these judgments, the court has held states accountable for violations of civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as third generation rights. By its progressive interpretation of international human rights norms, the court has significantly contributed to aligning the law and policy of ECOWAS member states to their freely assumed international human rights obligations.”

    The future of democracy in the region is assured when democratic norms like the rule of law are obeyed. We urge all member states of ECOWAS to take steps to ensure that the judgment of the court they freely established has the requisite bite in defence of human rights. It sends dangerous signals when the judgments of the court are ignored.

  • Cut to size

    Cut to size

    Sanitising bureaux de change

    The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) recently confirmed 82 Bureaux De Change (BDCs) fully licensed to operate under revised guidelines with effect from November 27, 2025. Before the action, there were 5,867 operators, a number considered too large to service the genuine need for foreign currency for school fees, health care, tourism and visits, imports and exports, as well as investments abroad.

    The CBN said only BDCs listed on its website are authorised to operate from the effective date, adding that it will continue to update the list for public verification. It advised the general public to avoid dealing with unlicensed foreign exchange operators.

    It also warned that operating a bureau de change business without a valid licence is a punishable offence under Section 57(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020.

    As the apex authority in the finance sector, the CBN has the power to oversee the operations of all operators. In 2024, when the cry about the roles of many BDCs in facilitating kidnapping and financing terrorism was rife, it was the responsibility of the apex bank to take drastic action. It raised the capital base to a minimum of N2 billion, considered a tall order by the operators. Under the 2024 guidelines, all BDCs are required to reapply for Tier 1 or Tier 2 licences and meet minimum capital requirements: N2 billion for Tier 1 and N500 million for Tier 2, alongside non-refundable licence fees of N5 million and N2 million, respectively.

    Subsequent to that was the recent significant cut in their number, suggesting that only those that could meet stringent conditions are permitted to operate in the country. Although the decision has been met with mixed reactions from the public, we accept the measure taken in the bid to sanitise the sector.

    Already, the CBN has succeeded in ensuring stability in the foreign exchange market. If it did not take the step, we could be back in the dark age when round tripping reigned. All avenues for criminality in the country must be blocked.

    Read Also: 2026: Abiru urges Nigerians to consolidate reforms, back Tinubu for economic recovery

    As in other countries, including African nations like South Africa, Egypt and Ghana, any transaction in currencies other than the Nigerian legal tender should be traced. This can only happen when discipline is enthroned and credible operators are genuinely registered.  It makes it possible to trace the flow of illicit funds coming in or leaving for drug dealing or ransom payment.

    The monetary authorities have been lauded for doing a good job so far under the Tinubu administration, but they must not relent. Apart from the BDCs, the Point-of-Sale operators too should be closely monitored. Some are known to have aided criminal activities and, while the security forces are moving against all criminals and their supporters, the finance sector has a duty to ensure that only clean businesses are allowed in the country.

    Trading in foreign currency by the roadside must stop in our country. This is the 21st century when all countries market themselves as the destination for ethical business. Nigeria has been known as an abode of crooked officials, and where all attempts at ensuring ease of doing business have failed so far. This is the daunting task before the monetary and fiscal authorities in the country if we are to keep the economic reforms on track.

    Trimming the number of the BDCs to 82 could be considered too drastic, but the rot has percolated the system for so long that only due application of the rules will do. At a time when the Federal Government is expecting dividends of its strident campaign for foreign direct investments, the CBN has to keep the foot on the pedal and remain focused because every investor has options and would perform due diligence before choosing where to berth with hard-earned money.

  • No exit

    No exit

    PZ Cussons’ review indicates Nigeria’s recovery and growth

    It is heart-warming news that the industrial conglomerate, PZ Cussons, has after a strategic review of its Africa operations, not only shelved its planned exit but also outlined ambitious growth plans as part of a broader group strategy aimed at balancing its portfolio between developed and emerging markets. The company, in a statement published on its website, cited the improving economic indicators in Nigeria and strong growth projections as a major factor.

    It said: “The strategy is based on the significant long-term opportunity in Africa, where the population is forecast to grow by more than 900 million over the next 25 years, representing over half of total global population growth. Nigeria’s population alone is forecast to increase by over 100 million, further benefiting from urbanisation and rapidly growing middle classes. Recent economic and currency trends have been more favourable, supporting double-digit revenue growth in our Africa business in the first half of the financial year.”

    It is unfortunate that things had to get to this point for a company that has operated for approximately 126 years in Nigeria. At inception in 1899, the company had focused on the export of West African commodities and import of textiles and food, and by 1948 had acquired a local soap manufacturer, marking its entry into manufacturing in Nigeria.

    By the 1970s, it expanded into manufacturing detergents and home appliances like refrigerators, including such diverse portfolios as beauty and skin care products. Such was the measure of its organic growth that the company was, in 1972, listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange, selling 40 percent of its shares to the Nigerian public, with additional 20 percent sold in 1977.

    Nearly five decades on, it seems to us a tragedy that many of the younger generation would find it hard to identify with the entity that once gave Nigerians the iconic homecare products like the Joy soap, the Elephant detergent, Morning Fresh, Premier and Rob – no thanks to the difficult business climate that came in the wake of the economic downturn in the 1980s and the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) policies, and the wave of divestment that followed.

    However, while PZ Cussons may not have exited like other multinational conglomerates did during the period, it is a measure of how its fortunes have ebbed over the years that the conglomerate broached an exit from its African operations when it did in 2024.

    Read Also: New Year: First Lady urges Nigerians to choose peace, empathy, unity

    There are lessons to be learned.  Yes, the tide may be changing, with the company already affirming that the “economic and currency trends” is “more favourable, supporting double-digit revenue growth in our Africa business,” and that “the long-term growth potential from Nigeria’s strong population growth and increasing consumer demand” can no longer be ignored in its plans for the future; yet, we consider it important that the planned future include a renewed commitment to investing in backward integration, local raw materials sourcing and greater export drive to guarantee its sustainability.

    While it says a lot about the state of our industrial policy that the country continues to shell out $600 million annually to import palm oil, of which she enjoys unparalleled natural advantage and historical expertise, the other part of the story, often untold, is that PZ Cussons, a major user of the raw material, which had been in operation for more than 60 years before the country gained independence, did pretty little to domesticate the source of this major raw material hence its continuing importation to sustain its operations.

    What Nigerians expect, going forward, is for the government to lay out a broad but compelling vision of backward integration and the incentives available. A policy tailored towards backward integration would be more than a fitting complement to the macroeconomic stability already achieved.

  • Attack on Sokoto

    Attack on Sokoto

    • Nigeria deserves help when it seeks it

    On the night of Christmas, 16 tomahawk missiles cruised through the Nigeria airspace from the Gulf of Guinea and landed in southern Sokoto, signaling a sort of climax to a radical posture by United States President Donald Trump’s threat that he would strike gun blazing to stanch what he saw as Christian genocide in the country.

    But the strike has been misperceived in some circles as a unilateral action. Rather, it was a congress of decisions between Nigerian and American governments. This should not be a surprise because when President Trump issued the threat in October, the Nigerian President, Bola Tinubu, had categorically denied any charge of Christian genocide and he made it clear that the series of attacks from the lairs of bandits were agnostic forays that recognised neither Christians nor Muslims, but killed, maimed, raped and lay waste vulnerable persons and communities.

    What followed was a flurry of diplomatic activities. Led by the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, the Nigerian delegation comprised military and diplomatic hierarchs that included Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Olufemi Oluyede, and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Ojukwu. The team engaged top American office-holders and legislators like Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Congressman Riley Moore.

    Moore led a delegation to Nigeria and undertook sightseeing tours of North Central, especially Benue State. The mutual visits underscored transparency and a spirit of reciprocity between both countries.

    The attack was therefore a consequence of a methodical and painstaking handling of the relations between both countries. In his response to the guns-a-blazing statement on X, President Tinubu said Nigeria was open to help from the United States and other partners who love peace and would want to put an end to the insurgency in parts of the country.

    While we await the result of the attack on the terrorist stronghold in southern Sokoto, some facts are clear. It was not intended to harass or destroy lawful persons and there are no reports from any community that the strikes hit innocents in any part of the country.

    Tomahawk missiles are not only expensive for each cost as much as $20 million; there were reports of debris and shards from the weapon as it cruised along. This is not abnormal. The missiles often shed innocuous parts. It sheds weight for renewal like a snake sheds its skin. Places like Jabo and Offa witnessed such debris, but the residents in those places have been disabused of any notion that they were targets.

    Tomahawk missiles are smart weapons and they are precision-guided and go exactly where they are asked to hit. Hence it was a responsible action.

    Read Also: New tax laws take off January 1, 2026, Tinubu insists

    It makes sense that the United States can now understand that the Nigerian state is not complicit in the flare of violence in parts of the country and intelligence reports have shown that they are rag-tag groups running at their own tangents of greed and cynical zealotry. Cynical zealotry because they do not represent genuine Muslims, and tend to exploit tropes that mark them out as soldiers of pious belief. If they are anything, they are soldiers of fortune of the basest sort seeking to make money out of the misery of their fellow country men and women.

    It must be noted, too, that the weapons used demanded American taxpayer investment. It would cost this country an arm and a leg to launch 16 such expensive weapons in one sortie. We do not have tomahawk missiles in our armoury, and it is a favour that we can enjoy such a high-grade advantage from the U.S.

    The U.S. has been in talks with Nigeria to make available some of the weapons that we have spent hundreds of millions for but their top officials have expressed fear that they may be targeting the innocent. That has restrained our hands and let the bandits roam free with the malignancy of their defiance. The Tucano aircraft were given to Nigeria on the proviso that they cannot be deployed outside of the Borno area.

    Even though President Trump framed the attack as a plus against Christian genocide, it saves the country from the threat of those hoodlums and both Christians and Muslims will enjoy its security. After all, the many girls abducted by the goons from a secondary school in Kebbi State were hijab-wearing Muslims.

    Some persons have tried to poison the minds of some Nigerians that it was an attack on our sovereignty. They tried to demonstrate without proof that the Nigerian government was not aware of the move and therefore President Trump acted without respect to international law and decorum. Defence Secretary Hegseth has put such fiction to rest and the foreign affairs ministry issued a statement that very Christmas night stating the series of engagement that culminated in that barrage of missile onslaught in the Northwest.

    We wrote an editorial after the Trump threat in October that we did not only welcome help from President Trump. We noted that we wanted the administration to work with our government by making available information about the funding network that is the lifeblood of these vermin in our world.

    The reason for this is clear. If their funding is cut off, they become impotent. Not long after that, former attorney general and minister of justice under President Muhammadu Buhari, Abubakar Malami, was nabbed for a slew of charges including terror financing. We are not sure if it was based on U.S. cooperation, but it is significant that a major official and politician has fallen under such searchlight.

    We also noted that the fight against the bandits is not a Nigerian fight alone. The terror ring targeted on Christmas night is known as Lakurawa and they are populated by recruits in the Sahel region, including Mali and Burkina Faso.

    When ISIS infested the Middle East and Gulf regions in the aftermath of the Iraq war, hordes of bandits pillaged and ruined communities until the U.S. deployed resources and its airstrikes to bring them to their knees.

     Those who wonder why Americans can come to our neighbourhood and help us lack a sense of geo-political cooperation. Nigeria has helped countries in need in the past. We were the backbone of ECOMOG in Liberia and in the forefront of the soldiery in Sierra Leone. We had been in the Congo in the 1960s and have joined the United Nations peacekeeping forces around the world. It was in that spirit that the Benin Republic called for Nigerian help a month ago to quell a mutiny.

     If others deserve our weapons and troops, we, too, deserve help when we need it. We have been our neighbour’s keeper and part of the guarantor of world peace for decades. We should enjoy tranquility within our shores even if we cry for help.

  • Local inadequacy

    Local inadequacy

    •It’s concerning that Nigerian firms can’t undertake deep offshore drilling

    Speaking at the recently concluded Practical Nigerian Content Forum, organised by the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil) Heineken Lokpobiri stated that no Nigerian company has the capacity to undertake drilling in deep offshore waters. He was apparently responding to concerns within the petroleum industry that the NCDMB continues to grant waivers for the award of some contracts to foreign companies in contravention of the local content law.

    Officially known as the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content and Development Act, which became law in 2010, the Local Content Act prioritises the promotion of Nigerian participation in the oil and gas sector. The law mandates the use of local resources, services, and personnel in the industry to build indigenous local capacity, generate employment and reduce capital flight.

    The President Bola Tinubu administration has further consolidated on this policy through its Nigeria First initiative that emphasises the patronage, as much as possible, of local contractors, expertise and raw material input by private firms and public sector organisations in the conceptualisation and implementation of projects.

    With particular reference to the oil and gas sector, however, Lokpobiri, insists that adherence to this policy is impracticable and even harmful to the economy. He contends that, as a result of lack of capacity for deep offshore drilling by Nigerian companies, contracts awarded to the latter are subcontracted to big foreign multinational oil companies with negative implications for production costs and the country’s competitiveness in the global market.

    The minister, who, statutorily, is the Chairman of the NCDMB, argued that “When you see waivers being given, as somebody who also participated in the local content law, I would never, under my chairmanship of the local content governing council, outsource Nigerian jobs to foreigners; but rather than give a Nigerian a job that he will still outsource to foreigners, I take that cost and give it directly  to that foreigner so that our pricing can be competitive.”

    Read Also: Hakeem Shitta: Why Nigeria must cherish, preserve arts, cultural history — Curator

    Lokpobiri stressed his point with reference to the Petroleum Technology Association of Nigeria (PETAN), whose members, he claimed, dislike him because he doesn’t give them jobs. His words: “We can’t give PETAN members jobs that they cannot do in the name of employing Nigerian companies. They will add up their 20 per cent, and they will still go to those big boys.”

    The minister may well have been just blunt and realistic, not given to emotional patriotic idealism. But we worry that he does not question why, nearly seven decades after the commencement of prospecting for oil in Nigeria, indigenous firms cannot participate actively in all aspects of the industry, including deep offshore drilling. The ministry needs to focus on this question, and go beyond lamenting the deficiency of local companies, and draw up policies to correct the clearly unacceptable situation.

    Why have indigenous Nigerian companies over the years not developed the capacity to operate in the highly specialised sectors of the oil and gas industry? Have there been government policies targeted at enhancing their capacity in this regard? If so, why have these failed? Is there any linkage between curricular development in our higher institutions in the sphere of petroleum technology and the need to respond to the critical needs of the industry as adumbrated by the minister?

    What incentives are in place to encourage indigenous companies to acquire local expertise to enable them compete effectively in all segments of the industry to boost local capacity and significantly reduce technological dependency in the interest of self-reliant national development? We urge the Ministry of Petroleum Resources to address these issues speedily.

  • Technology gaps

    Technology gaps

    •Inexcusable drawbacks in the fight against insecurity

    There are strong indications that Nigeria’s fight against banditry and terrorism is hobbled by technological challenges.  Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Policy Communication Daniel Bwala unwittingly exposed the country’s technology deficiency in a recent interview with Nigeria Info FM, explaining that while security agencies can trace Nigerians using local social media platforms, tracking criminals who rely on services outside the country is more complicated.

    According to him, “There is a regulatory body in Nigeria that has a database of Nigerians and their phone numbers. There is also a body that deals with internet service provision, where if you are using an internet service covered within the sphere of Nigeria, they can trace through the IP address.”

    However, he added, “If you are using Starlink, we cannot trace it because Starlink is not registered in Nigeria; it is in space…These terrorists most of the time are using cellular services from neighbouring countries and not from Nigeria, so it becomes tricky.”

    These public comments, which could be accessed by the same terrorists he referenced, amounted to arming the enemies with information revealing the country’s vulnerabilities. The country is facing an alarming surge in insecurity, with rising cases of banditry, terrorism, and kidnapping, particularly in the Northwest and Northeast.

    Reports indicate that some of the criminal groups are increasingly using social media and digital communication tools to coordinate their activities. Notably, in May, a report said insurgents in the Northeast were using TikTok to spread propaganda, carry out youth recruitment and showcase weapons and cash in videos accessible to the public.

    The country must pay greater attention to this aspect of insecurity, and ensure that it has the technological capacity to deal with the situation.   

    Read Also: U.S., Nigeria get kudos on joint strike on terrorists

    Efforts in this direction appear to be underway; at an end-of-year briefing in Abuja, the Director-General of the National Counter Terrorism Centre, Maj.-Gen. Adamu Laka, spoke about the issue of social media platforms used by terrorist groups.  According to him, the authorities “have had several meetings with these social media platforms like: TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and X.”

    He added: “They are businesses looking to grow their subscribers, but we engage them, explain the effects of certain posts on national security, and we take them down.”

    He also said: “There was a time when bandits would go on TikTok showing their loot. We took those accounts down—you don’t see that again. At some point, they were even doing live streams and holding conversations, but we’ve been able to handle all that.”

    This update is commendable. However, considering Bwala’s admission about the difficulty in tracking terrorists who use cellular services from outside Nigeria, it is obvious that the authorities need to do more to effectively counter terrorist activities.  

    Bwala’s comments were similar to earlier remarks by the then Minister of Defence, Mohammed Badaru Abubakar, in an interview with the BBC Hausa Service. Badaru had said bandits and terrorists were hiding in the forests to avoid bombs. His words: ‘Yes, we know their locations, but some of these areas are places where direct strikes could endanger civilians, or forests where our bombs cannot penetrate.” Nigerians were puzzled: which forests cannot be penetrated by modern bombs?

    It is curious that top government officials make ridiculous statements in an effort to defend the rather unimpressive performance of the security forces against bandits and terrorists.  

    It is noteworthy that an information technology expert, Olufemi Ariyo, recently proposed the deployment of integrated, data-driven and people-centric technology systems as a practical solution to Nigeria’s security challenges. “Technology can address insecurity,” he argued.

    Ultimately, the country must leverage technological developments in the fight against insecurity.  Not doing so is inexcusable.

  • Rightful power

    Rightful power

    • Supreme Court vindicates the President on state of emergency in Rivers

    The Supreme Court, by a split decision of six to one, finally laid to rest the controversy over the interpretation of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Section 305(1) provides: “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.”

     In exercise of that power, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, on March 18, 2025.

    Dissatisfied with Tinubu’s exercise of the constitutional powers, the Attorneys-General of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa states, which were all controlled by the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), approached the apex court, urging the court to determine “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend, or in any manner whatsoever interfere with, the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the 36 component states of the Federation and replace them with his unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the Plaintiffs’ States.”

    The claimants also asked “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 4(6), 11(4) & (5), 90, 105, and 305 of the Constitution, the President can lawfully suspend the House of Assembly of any of the 36 States under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in such States.”

    Read Also: Tinubu must complete eight years as president – Wike

     In its judgment, the apex court agreed with the preliminary objection raised by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), that the Plaintiffs have not brought any cause of action capable of activating the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for adjudication, but however went ahead to hear and determine the issues raised before the court, which the majority dismissed entirely.

    While the entire panel of Justices agreed that the President has the power to declare the state of emergency under the provisions of the constitution, Justice Obande Ogbuinya held that such power does not extend to the power to suspend elected state officials, including governors, deputy governors, and members of state house of assembly.

    But in the majority judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to adopt extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where a state of emergency has been declared.

    The court held that Section 305 of the constitution vests the President with the power to declare a state of emergency “where there exists imminent danger of invasion or actual breakdown of public order or safety of such gravity as to endanger the stability or continued existence of the Federation or any part thereof.”

    The court noted that the silence of the constitution on the nature of the extraordinary powers granted the President was intentional, “as emergencies are inherently situational, varying in scope, intensity, and threat.” The learned Justices further held that “The constitution therefore entrusts the President with discretion to determine the measures required to restore peace and security, subject always to constitutional limits.”

    The jurists noted that during the emergency declarations in 2004 and 2006 in Plateau and Ekiti states, elected institutions were suspended, but conversely during the emergency declarations in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe states, in 2013, the elected state institutions were not suspended. So, they held that depending on the circumstance, the President may suspend elected officials, provided any such suspension is for a limited duration.

    Before the judgment of the court, many eminent lawyers and politicians had expressed strong views that the president has no powers to suspend elected officials under any guise.

    While the debate raged, we had wondered whether those arguing against the declaration of state of emergency had not juxtaposed the state of anarchy in Rivers State vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 305(3)(c) and (d), considering that the governor of the state and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly were completely dysfunctional.

    While Governor Similaya Fubara exercised illegitimate executive powers, with an insignificant minority of the state House of Assembly, the legally recognised majority members of the state legislature, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule, were operating without the recognition of the executive. In addition, there were acts of violent threats to critical national assets in the oil industry, within the state.

    We recall that the Supreme Court, in one of the several suits filed by the contending parties, had declared that the actions of the state governor, with regard to the budgetary process, were grossly unconstitutional, and declared that the governor was operating as a dictator in the state.

    We, therefore, agree with the Supreme Court, that the makers of the 1999 Constitution had such situation that arose in Rivers State in mind, when it provided in Section 305(3)(c) that “the president shall have power to issue a proclamation of a state of emergency only 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’.”

    Sadly, while the crisis persisted, many of the elders in the state took sides, and instead of calling the combatants to order, they were inflaming the fire.

    Clearly, the intervention of the President had led to the restoration of peace and security in the state. Going forward, we think it is in the best interest of the contending parties and, more importantly, the people of the state, that everyone concerned ensures that peace and security is maintained.

  • Restoring mercy

    Restoring mercy

    There is new opportunity for Presidential clemency for Maryam Sanda

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria recently affirmed the death verdict passed by lower courts on Abuja-based housewife Maryam Sanda for killing her husband in a 2017 domestic dispute. Sanda, daughter-in-law to a former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was sentenced to death by hanging in January 2020 by the High Court in Abuja, which found her guilty of fatally stabbing Bilyamin Bello at their home in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    Following her conviction by the trial court, Sanda had headed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the death sentence. She approached the Supreme Court with a further appeal, on which the justices delivered their verdict on December 12, 2025.

    The apex court, in a split decision by four justices against one, dismissed Sanda’s appeal and resolved all issues she raised against her conviction as being without any merit. In the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the appellate court was right in affirming the trial court’s verdict.

    Against the backdrop of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu having commuted Sanda’s death sentence to 12 years imprisonment, the Supreme Court further held that it was “wrong for the Executive to seek to exercise its power of pardon over a case of culpable homicide in respect of which an appeal was pending.”

    Referencing several past judgments, Justice Adumein noted that the court had consistently criticised the executive arm for granting pardons to those convicted of capital offences while their appeals were pending. He said the clemency extended to Sanda did not strip the court of its jurisdiction to hear her appeal and issue appropriate orders.

    READ ALSO: No place for terrorists, kidnappers in Kwara, says Abdulrazaq as forest guards end training

    “By Section 233(2)(d) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal where, as in this case, a death sentence was affirmed. I do not think that this jurisdiction can be affected by the grant of pardon by the Executive when an appeal against the death sentence is still pending in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. When an appeal against a death sentence is pending, it is better and safer to delay granting amnesty or pardon to the convicted person. The grant of pardon during the pendency of appeal does not prevent the court from proceeding to determine the appeal on its merit,” the justice argued.

    The Presidency had in October commuted Sanda’s sentence to 12 years, following public outrage over wholesale pardon granted her. There were 174 other beneficiaries of the presidential prerogative of mercy.

    According to a federal gazette of October 23, 2025, the presidential prerogative was exercised in pursuance of Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). It explained that Sanda’s sentence commutation was on compassionate grounds.

    The gazette, released by Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, read: “Maryam Sanda, whose offence was culpable homicide, sentenced on 27/01/2020 to death by hanging, having served six years and eight months at the Medium Security Custodial Centre (MSCC), Suleja, will now serve 12 years based on compassionate grounds.” The gazette said this was in the best interest of her two children, and for her “good conduct, embraced new lifestyle, being a model prisoner and remorsefulness.”

    Corroborating the gazette in a statement, Attorney-General of the Federation and Justice Minister Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) said the presidential prerogative that earlier granted Sanda and others clemency was reviewed following consultations with the National Council of State. He explained: “This exercise underscores the President’s desire to balance justice with compassion and the belief that justice must not only punish, but also reform and redeem. The review was undertaken with meticulous commitment to due process to reinforce the administration’s broader commitment to justice reform and humane correctional practices in line with international standards.”

    No matter the good intention of the prerogative of mercy, however, due process was certainly not followed. Sanda’s appeal had already been heard by the Supreme Court on October 2, 2025 and reserved for judgment, before the President commuted her sentence. That is to say, the judicial process was ongoing when the executive arm butted in with the sentence commutation. It is absurd to think the apex court would let go of its constitutional duty because the President purported to commute Sanda’s sentence while her appeal was pending.

    We consider it obvious that Mr President was badly advised. It was the act of the special duties office. Justice Minister Fagbemi stepped in after this embarrassing misstep.

     Now that the judicial process has been exhausted, the President could do a fresh commutation of Sanda’s sentence – if only for process tidying. Separation of powers, observance of rule of law, and respect for judicial process, particularly that of the apex court, is key to strengthening our democracy.

  • Relief on the roads

    Relief on the roads

    •VIOs must obey Appeal Court ruling

    For motorists who have complained that the Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIOs) in various parts of the country have become a thorn in their flesh, the Appeal Court has ruled that the officials of the Department of Transport lack the power to stop or impound vehicles.

    Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi of the Abuja Division of the Court ruled in the lead judgment that the officials’ actions are not in consonance with any law of the land. Thus, the power to “stop, impound, confiscate, seize or impose fines” is exclusive to courts of law. The Justices held that the officers had been exercising powers ultra vires and in violation of the fundamental rights of motorists.

    They described the actions of the VIOs as oppressive and unlawful and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the directorate and its agents from further violations of motorists’ rights to freedom of movement, presumption of innocence, and ownership of property.

    The court also said the respondents had no statutory powers to impound vehicles or impose fines, adding that such actions breached motorists’ rights to a fair hearing and freedom of movement under various sections of the constitution and provisions of the African Charter.

    This is a landmark ruling that would bring smiles to the faces of many motorists who have been complaining about the VIOs’ vexatious exercise of non-existent power for years. 

    As the Federal High Court and Appeal Court held, the actions of the VIOs are arbitrary and sometimes oppressive. They impose exorbitant fines on people who are already reeling under the impact of the harsh economy.

    Motorists owe the relief to a public interest lawyer, Abubakar Marshal, who elected to fight the injustice meted out to him by the Department at Jabi, Abuja in December 2023. In an action to enforce his fundamental right, argued on his behalf by Femi Falana (SAN), Marshal wanted the officials stripped of all forms of arbitrariness. The pleas were granted by the Federal High Court in Abuja, and the Appeal Court when challenged by the Department.

    This is an eye-opener showing that democracy and democratic practices are not subject to the whims and caprices of any individual, institution or organisation. If governments and institutions of state could act contrary to the dictates of the law, what examples do they set for non-state actors?

    For sanity to be restored to our roads and the public space, all must be conversant with provisions of the law and abide by them at all times. Where there is ambiguity, it should be resolved in favour of the citizenry until a court of law would weigh in as the arbiter.

    Read Also: Christmas: Kukah urges Nigerians to rise above divisions

    Unfortunately, officials of state too often hide behind technicalities to deprive people of their rights. For instance, a court in Asaba, Delta State, had earlier ruled on a similar case; and that should have been sufficient for the transport authorities in all states of the federation to know the spirit of the law.

     However, others quickly claimed that the ruling was applicable only in Delta State. We need, as government and people, to realise that the modern state runs on the wheel of justice, and where various sectors wait on judgment and technicalities, discontent would build up and grace evaporates.

    Sixty-five years after independence, Nigeria ought to have established sufficient protocols and conventions that would support the convenience of citizens. Traffic management officials should stop chasing after vehicles, which in some cases leads to the death of motorists and commuters.

    Importantly, by adopting automated enforcement, as is the case in parts of Lagos State, traffic agencies can eliminate the hazardous practice of chasing after vehicles, replacing physical confrontation with a digital system that ensures accountability without compromising public safety.

  • Tanko Muhammad (1953 – 2025)

    Tanko Muhammad (1953 – 2025)

    •A long-serving jurist departs

    As Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) from 2019 to 2022, Tanko Muhammad faced an internal protest unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court, which cast a shadow over his long judicial career.

    Under his leadership, 14 Justices of the Supreme Court signed a protest letter, which was leaked to the public, complaining about their working conditions.  Their grievances included non-replacement of aging vehicles, chronic accommodation shortages, and a lack of essential drugs at the Court clinic.

    Furthermore, they highlighted systemic operational failures, including unreliable power supply, the rising cost of diesel without a corresponding increase in allowances, and the absence of internet services in both their residences and chambers.

    Further administrative lapses included the failure to sign amended Rules of Court for nearly three years, the suspension of essential annual foreign workshops and training, and the failure to provide the Justices with qualified legal assistants.

    Particularly striking was the disclosure that the Justices were served with an internal memo, that electricity would be supplied to the Court between the hours of 8am and 4pm daily due to a shortage of   diesel.  But the Justices required electricity to work at home after closing at 4pm because of the policy; and they needed improved diesel allowance in the face of a huge diesel price hike. Also, the Justices needed restoration of their monthly internet allowance as they required uninterrupted internet service for access to online material to write judgments.

    The situation was inconceivable, particularly its effect not only on the Justices but also the justice system: it amounted to the slow strangulation of the Supreme Court.

    In response, Justice Muhammad established a welfare committee to investigate these issues. The problems were attributed to poor funding. Delay in releasing funds to back the Supreme Court budget, which had frozen at N110bn since 2018, was said to be a major factor.

    Amid the intense crisis, he resigned abruptly on health grounds in June 2022, leaving the issues unresolved. He exited 18 months before his scheduled retirement at age 70 in December 2023.

    His passing in Saudi Arabia on December 16, at the age of 71, occurred approximately three and a half years after his resignation. President Bola Tinubu, in a posthumous tribute, described him as “an eminent jurist whose life was devoted to the cause of justice and the strengthening of Nigeria’s judiciary.” The Supreme Court of Nigeria noted his “dedication to the rule of law, judicial independence, and the fair administration of justice during his tenure.”

    Read Also: Nigerians’ resilience weakened by poor governance, oil dependence, says MUSWEN president

     He hailed from Bauchi State, and studied Law at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria from 1976 to 1980. He earned a master’s degree and a doctorate in Law from the same university.

     He began his judicial career as Magistrate Grade II in 1982 with Bauchi State Judiciary. He was appointed as the Provost, College of Legal and Islamic Studies, Bauchi in 1986. He became Chief Magistrate/Deputy Chief Registrar, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in 1990, and from 1991 to 1993, he served as a Kadi (Judge) of the Sharia Court of Appeal, Bauchi State.

    After his elevation to the position of Justice of the Court of Appeal in 1993, he was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2006.  He became acting CJN in January 2019.  Muhammad was in July 2019 sworn in as the substantive 18th CJN by President Muhammadu Buhari at the Presidential Villa, Abuja. He succeeded Justice Walter Onnoghen, who had been suspended from office amid allegations of corrupt practices.

    Following his sudden resignation, the President conferred the national honour of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) on him in October 2022.

    Ultimately, the enduring lesson from his tenure at the pinnacle of judicial power is that a robust and effective system of justice requires providing judicial officers with the necessary conditions to thrive.