Law has its language and places its hallmarks on words and their origin. Such hallmarks have some uniformities – origin, objective, and avoidance of ambiguity. Law is meant to avoid quarrels.

In the area of property, this is more evident. Property law is founded on certainty, as far as humanly possible. The term ‘next of kin’ bears this hallmark.

The term ‘next of kin’ does have a literal expression of a kindred relationship and its ordering. Kindred relationship matters in law mainly in relation to the capacity to marry, to inherit and in trust relations. It is potentially relevant in medical practice for treatments and where there are some breaches.

Next-of-kin is defined as a person’s closest living relatives through blood or legal relationships. The first use of this expression was recorded in 1670 referred to as Charles II, 1670 & 1671 and described as ‘An Act for the better settling of Intestates Estates’.

Each jurisdiction would normally have its ordering. Some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom have tweaked the concept of next-of-kin by abolishing altogether laws relating to it and redefining methods of inheritance by enacting the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, 1975.

For such jurisdictions, the term does not apply to inheritance although, as we shall see below, it does still apply to residues of Wills and certain aspects of Trusts.

The term next-of-kin is a technical legal term and short-hand ‘Will’ of testamentary transfer of property. Furthermore, the very structure of the term, next of kin, bears the mark of its legal roots. When a person is required to, and he or she states a next-of-kin, it becomes a declaration in the law of a mode of inheritance. It identifies who is entitled to inherit in the absence of a Will. This is so particularly in the context of employment and/or in the unfortunate event of an accident.

The person declared and identified in a document as next-of-kin may inherit absolutely or in trust for named or unnamed others.

That is another matter and internal to the declarant. The person requiring the declaration of next-of-kin may be a notifier or the next-of-kin may be the notifier.

Thus, where the intendment of requiring a declaration of next-of-kin is for notification of a related person, then it is better to state so, by indicating: ‘Person to be Notified’. If one so desires it, more specifications may be added, to indicate purpose. This may then require qualifications such as: ‘Person to be notified in case of emergency’ or ‘Person to be notified in case of death’.

The Will itself, within this context, must be strictly understood. It is a testamentary document of transfer of property which takes effect only upon the death of the testator and becomes a Will only on the satisfaction of probate. The nearest legal principle to the operation of the term, next-of-kin is the Donatio mortis causa.

The donatio mortis causa is, in legal contextualisation, of less weight than a declaration in writing of a next-of- kin. The donatio is nevertheless, a legally recognised mode of testamentary transfer even, of landed property. The clear similarity between both concepts is that they are both declarative actions taken in contemplation of death.

The next-of-kin commands more weight than donation because it is an intended conscious process- the declarant has not only intended it but also indicated it in a written process. The donatio on the other hand is a verbal declaration but with the legal hallmark of immediacy, which must be made in contemplation of death.

The law accords recognition to the donatio human circumstance. It is only different from a Will, in that as, next-of-kin, it is a rebuttable presumption.

At any rate, a Will could also fail, so in this case, it could also be a presumption but with a higher burden of rebuttal.

In both Wills and next-of-kin, the kin and executors can be bare Trustees or trustees and also, beneficiaries. All three, next-of-kin, donatio and Will bear similarities and work in the same way with different weights attached to them in conceptual legal analysis or legal theory.

Thus, next- of- kin when seen in the context of mere notification is a misnomer and does not detract from its technical legal expressions.

To reinforce the technical legal roots of the term-next-of-kin, the residuary estate in testacy goes to next-of-kin as identified by Law. A resulting trust arises mainly of the unexhausted beneficial interest of a trust and is held in trust for all the next-of-kin of the settlor.

Where the next-of-kin is not indicated, there is an order of next-of-kin which is established in the Administration or Distribution of Estates Laws, and in Nigeria of the various States of the Federation and the Administration of Estates Act, 1990 or the rules thereto.

In an application to the court for the issue of Letters of Administration, the applicants have to prove their status and relationship to the deceased in the ordering of kindred.

When a person indicates a next-of-kin, he/she truncates that order and establishing any other Order requires an Order of Court.

The question remains on whether a real property can be transferred by a declaration of next-of-kin. In reality, this issue will not arise in those circumstances where a declaration of a next-of-kin is the basis of inheritance.

In this circumstance and where the next-of-kin is disputed, the holder of the item of property personal or realty becomes a Trustee of the property until a rightful heir is identified and, in this case, by Court order.

What is clear and certain is that a next-of-kin as indicated is the lawful inheritor until a Court of Law declares otherwise or the kin him or herself chooses to be a Trustee rather than the beneficiary.

 

• Prof Chinwuba, Ph.D, is of the Department of Private and Property Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos.

 

For Shaka Momodu, the editor of This Day and a columnist with the newspaper, column writing is about hurling insults, cheap abuse, curses, invectives, peddling gossip, trading in unverified rumor, hypocritical moralistic posturing and wallowing in the gutter of mudslinging. That the Editor of what is supposed to be a leading newspaper in the country can be allowed by his medium to write such vile stuff on its back page filled with bile, vitriol, unhidden malice, outright falsehood and wild generalizations shows how much media practice, just like virtually every aspect of the country’s social life, has degenerated badly. Momodu was in his perverse elements in his recent piece titled ‘Buhari’s Legacy and Tinubu’s Albatross’.

Of course, his obsessive hatred for the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is well known. He has written several pieces seeking to savage the character and tarnish the reputation of Tinubu. Unfortunately for him, the more he indulges in his reckless misadventure, the brighter the political prospects of Tinubu continues to shine.

It is Momodu’s view that the President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration has performed so badly that the All Progressives Congress (APC) does not deserve to win the next election and he is certainly entitled to his view. Indeed, left to him, the APC should not even be allowed to field candidates or participate in the next general elections. He asks: “On what basis is the party presenting candidates for various positions in the forthcoming general election? Shouldn’t it rather be apologising every day for the escalating insecurity in the land?”. This is the columnist as extremist. He avers that those who don’t agree with his political views or stance deserve ‘psychiatric attention’. Yet, is it not a columnist and supposed public intellectual who cannot offer nuanced and objective analyses of public issues, appreciate the complexity of the realities he is discussing and who has a one track mind that is deserving of mental checkup?

The writer excoriates the performance of the Buhari administration unsparingly and he has a right to do so. No one, for instance, will be impressed by the way it has handled the security situation. In the same way, even many APC members have criticized what is widely perceived as the insular character and orientation of the administration, especially the regionally skewed nature of its appointment to critical security agencies. Its handling of the economy could most certainly have been more competent and result-oriented.

But Momodu’s unreasoning hatred for Tinubu blinds him to the fact that the APC candidate of the major contenders to succeed Buhari has the best track record that shows his capacity to govern in a different way and tackle these challenges in a result-oriented matter. It is simplistic, naive and narrow-minded to see the 2023 elections as essentially a contest between the political parties. There is little ideological and programmatic distinction between parties in Nigeria. What will count are the experience, knowledge and as the poverty capital of the world and one ranking among countries with the highest number of out-of-school-children even during the PDP years?

Why then was the Jonathan administration so roundly defeated in 2015, ending the PDP’s arrogant boast that it would be in power for 60 years and marking the first time that an incumbent government at the centre would be defeated by an opposition party in the country’s history, if it was a time when the country was ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ according to Momodu? Could it be that Momodu was on vacation in a foreign country at the time? Why did the APC’s campaign on the basis of its change agenda so resonate with the public who wanted change at all costs and desired no more of the uninspiring and venal PDP administration?

Momodu deludes himself that “Fulani were brought in from neighbouring countries – Sierra Leone, Mali, Senegal, Niger and Chad to facilitate victory for the APC in 2015”. It was the vast majority of the Nigerian electorate that voted out the PDP government in 2015. They again voted for a second term for Buhari in 2019 because they did not find the PDP a better option even with all the admitted flaws of the APC government. Even now, Momodu does not give any empirical or logically compelling reason to convince anyone that the PDP or Labour Party offers a better alternative for the country after Buhari next year.

In assessing the Buhari administration’s economic performance, will any serious analyst and thinker that wants to be taken seriously, not take into consideration, for instance, the effects of the unanticipated Coronavirus pandemic which from 2019 dislocated the economies of both poor and rich countries and continues to have negative economic implications or the drastic crash in the price of crude oil, the country’s main revenue earner in the international market towards the end of 2014? The price of crude oil for the most part of the Jonathan administration was at least $140 per barrel. It fell to less than $40 per barrel by the time the APC came to power. Yet, at that period of relative buoyancy, the PDP did not build even one additional refinery to enhance the country’s local oil refining capacity and reduce dependence on imported refined oil products and the attendant humongous oil subsidy payments that constitute a severe drain on the economy.

Would the country not now be benefitting more from the rise in crude oil prices as a result of the ongoing Russian-Ukraine war just as other oil producing countries are doing if the PDP had better utilised its higher oil revenue earnings? Indeed, despite earning significantly more revenue from oil than the succeeding APC administration, the PDP abandoned the construction or completion of much needed critical infrastructure such as the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, the Second Niger-Bridge, the Lagos-Badagry-Expressway, Oshodi-Apapa Expressway as well as vital railway projects across the country, which the Buhari administration has been aggressively pursuing.

Again, with far less revenue in seven years than was available to the PDP in 16 years, the APC’s Social Investment Programmes involving mass transfers of funds to vulnerable sections of the populace through the School Feeding Programme, Market-moni, Trader-moni and subventions to the elderly, among others, is unprecedented in the country’s history and one of the most extensive of such pro-poor interventions in Africa. Yet, Momodu is angry that the administration has had to resort to heavy borrowing to construct infrastructure in the face of dwindling revenues and the gross infrastructure deficit it inherited. Of course, this does not excuse the high rate of crude oil theft that continues to occur under this government.

According to Wikipedia, “Under President Muhammadu Buhari, the office has created four programs to address poverty and help increase economic development. The N-Power (Nigeria) program provides young Nigerians with job training and education, as well as a monthly stipend of N30,000 ($83.33). The Conditional Cash Transfer program directly supports the most vulnerable by providing no-strings-attached cash to those in the lowest income group, helping reduce poverty, improve nutrition and self-sustainability, and supporting development through increased consumption. The Government Enterprise and Empowerment Program (GEEP) is a micro-lending investment program targeting entrepreneurs with a focus on young people and women. This program provides no-cost loans to its beneficiaries, helping reduce the start-up costs of business ventures in Nigeria. Finally, the Home Grown School Feeding Program (HGSF) is the one way government is attempting to increase school enrolment by providing meals to school children, particularly those in poor and food-insecure regions. The program works with local farmers and empowers women as cooks, building the community and sustaining economic growth from farm to table”.

Momodu attributes Buhari’s victory in the 2015 election which ousted the PDP government to Tinubu and he obviously cannot forgive him for this. According to him, “Nigeria is on a free fall under the leadership of President Buhari of the APC who was brought to power by Tinubu” and “Our country is completely falling apart under a man sold to Nigerians by Tinubu as a Messiah who would build the country of our dreams, but who has proved to be a destructive, incompetent, ethno-religious irredentist, the worst of the worst ever to rise to leadership position in this country”. The writer does not tell us that Tinubu cast a spell on anybody and compelled them to vote for Buhari in 2015 or 2019.

Everybody was tired of the lackluster Jonathan administration and wanted a change. It was calculated that with Buhari’s huge haul votes from the North demonstrated in the 2003, 2007 and 2011 elections, he could win the 2015 election for the newly formed APC if he had more pan-Nigerian support from  the South. If Tinubu was the strategic genius that helped achieve that objective, how is that a crime? In campaigning for the 2015 election, Buhari himself, obviously mindful of public perception of him, told Nigerians that he was a reformed democrat. He campaigned on his anti-corruption credentials as well as his capacity to deal with the country’s security challenges, given his professional antecedents as a retired Army General. If his performance is perceived to have fallen short of that promise, how is that Tinubu’s fault? Does Momodu presume that Tinubu has supernatural powers and could have foreseen how Buhari would perform if elected? In any case, those like Momodu who now try to visit the perceived failings of the Buhari administration on Tinubu were the very ones who mocked Tinubu mercilessly when they saw he had been marginalized in the administration and his role in the government minimal after the APC’s victory.

Of course, Momodu inevitably resorted to his trademark ritual of denigrating and hurling all manner of insults on Tinubu. We can only hope that his pathological hatred of the man does not affect his blood pressure and mental health. He regurgitates the old verbiage about certificate forgery, not minding that the Chicago State University has severally confirmed that Tinubu graduated from the institution. He alleges that Tinubu was once convicted of drug-syndicate related crimes in the United States without evidence. In a February 14, 2003, letter to the then Inspector General of Police, the late Mr. Tafa Balogun, the US Consulate in Lagos said there was nothing in the records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicating that Tinubu had at any time in the past been arrested or wanted for crime in the US. The letter, signed by the Legal Attache in the Consulate, Micheal H. Bonner, was in respect of an inquiry by the Nigerian police authorities on whether or not Tinubu was eligible to contest for re-election on the platform of the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) in 2003.

Momodu recklessly accuses Tinubu of massive corruption as governor and amazingly writes that “EFCC and other crime agencies fear him and dare not investigate him”. And this is from an editor of a supposedly credible newspaper. EFCC is an agency controlled by the Federal Government. Tinubu left office in 2007 and enjoyed no immunity between 2007 and 2015 when the PDP was in power at the centre and in control of the EFCC. At that time Tinubu was easily the leading opposition politician in Nigeria. The former Chairman of the EFCC, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, has publicly stated that Tinubu under him was thoroughly investigated both within and outside Nigeria by the EFCC in collaboration with anti- crime agencies in the US and UK and nothing incriminating was found against him.

Momodu makes the same old hackneyed reference to Alpha Beta Consult and revenue collection in Lagos State again on the basis of gossip, rumors and assumptions without any credible evidence of alleged wrong doing. He says the Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS) is doing much better than Lagos State in revenue collection while omitting the fact that the FIRS was reformed along the lines of the Lagos Internal Revenue Service (LIRS) when the former Chairman of the LIRS, Mr Babatunde Fowler, was appointed as Chairman of the FIRS between 2015 and 2019.

Shaka Momodu affects hypocritically to be concerned with character, integrity and public morality. That is far from the truth. His acerbic, unrestrained and unprofessional attacks on Tinubu are motivated by the most selfish interests and base, greedy instincts.

We commend to Shaka Momodu the words of President Thoedore Roosevelt in a speech he delivered in Washington, DC, on 14 April, 1906, “In Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-Rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who could neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor…My plea is, not for immunity to but for the most unsparing exposure of the politician who betrays his trust, of the big businessman who makes or spends his fortune, in illegitimate or corrupt ways. There should be a resolute effort to hunt every such man out of the position he has disgraced. Expose the crime, and hunt down the criminal; but remember that even in the case of crime, if it is attacked in sensational, lurid, and untruthful fashion, the attack may do more damage to the public mind than the crime itself. It is because I feel that there should be no rest in the endless war against the forces of evil that I ask that the war be conducted with sanity as well as with resolution. The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor”.

 

 

 

 

Like Mr Festus Keyamo (SAN) said in a recent interview, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu is a specific, very easy and straightforward product to sell because he is the most competent, tested and capable candidate among the lot presently jostling to replace President Muhammadu Buhari as the President of Nigeria come 2023. Asiwaju has a track record of achievement, which no other candidate has. Asiwaju’s competence for the job stands out in his famous and outstanding performance as Governor of Lagos between 1999 and 2003. He performed creditably well that he formulated, planned and implemented radical policies that make Lagos an unprecedented leader in progress and development in Nigeria today.

In fact, the position today is that since Asiwaju became Lagos governor, Lagos ceased to compete with Nigerian states but started competing with African nations. What better way to express this competition than the fact that Lagos is today Africa’s fifth largest economy with the potential to grow further with the years?

Democracy, as the saying goes, is a game of numbers. The North has the numbers. It has the preponderance of voters and has always wielded considerable influence on who becomes president in Nigeria with its massive swathe of the politically-sophisticated population. The North is politically adroit and always makes solid and decisive political statements that hmmm ppl resound with a loud, united thud in the entire Nigerian landscape.

Although the North had always made profound political choices, it had shared equally in the strings of leadership failures that had visited Nigeria since independence. Its leaders share in this leadership ennui too, so the North has shared both in the glory and afflictions of the Nigerian state since independence.

Since the dawn of democracy in 1999, the North has struggled to maintain a firm leadership grip. In the military period preceding the present democracy, the North dominated power through strings of military rulers. Such raised the stakes of agitation among the Southern confederates for a power shift to the south, which never happened as successive military regimes seized the country’s leadership. This scenario tailed into June  12 1993, presidential election, where a Southern Muslim, Chief MKO Abiola, defeated a Northern Muslim, Alhaji Bashir Tofa, to land a genuinely pan-Nigerian electoral victory that would have seen power smoothly transmit to the South. But the Babangida military junta was to callously annul that election, thus throwing Nigeria into a cataclysmic turmoil that threatened the country’s existence as it lasted.

The heightened agitation for the de-annulment of the June 12 election took a considerable toll on the nation and peeked at the time the late military despot, Gen. Sani Abacha, started his plot to transform from a military despot to a civilian president. The dramatic death of both Chief Abiola and Abacha was to throw up Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar. He walked his promise to relinquish power to a civilian regime in record time to address the years of agitation that followed June 12.

The emergence of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was a deft move by the departing military to soothe the  pains of the Yoruba, who were the immediate victims of the annulment and the strenuous efforts made to sustain it. Also, Obasanjo’s choice was scripted as a proper exit strategy for the military which had become infamous for its meddlesomeness in politics, especially in the June 12 imbroglio.

Obasanjo, the underserved appropriator of the fruits of the June 12 agitation, did everything to consign June 12 to history’s dustbin throughout his eight years in power. Moreover, Obasanjo was roundly rejected by his Yoruba people in the election that brought him to power. But he was to unleash every foul means to conscript and conquer the South West states for his PDP in the repeat election in 2003.

In his exit election in 2007, Obasanjo went shopping for a Northern PDP candidate for the railroad as his successor. He didn’t choose any other Northerner but the ailing Umaru Yar’adua as the fit and proper person to succeed him. He never sought nor got the consent of the North in choosing his successor. Yar’adua himself was suffering from a terminal ailment when Obasanjo chose him; thus, he was not even present in most of the electioneering campaigns that brought him to power. For his deputy, Obasanjo flipped through more astute and qualified candidates from the South and settled for a political greenhorn and pliable Goodluck Jonathan in a tricky game that was seen as Obasanjo’s effort to call the shots from behind the scene.

The subsequent election was a farcical charade. Obasanjo unleashed every imaginable vile tactic to force PDP back to power. It was so bad that  Yar’adua. The prime beneficiary of Obasanjo’s rough tactics even admitted that the election that brought him to power was heavily compromised.

But Yar’adua struggled to hold on to power amid a protracted illness that hospitalised him largely abroad. He eventually died after two years in office, thus abridging the North’s hold on power in consonance with the power rotation agreement between the North and the South. Therefore, with his death power went back to the South after Obasanjo’s eight years at the helm.

In 2011, having completed two of the four years Yar’adua was elected for, PDP decided to shun the demand of the North to have another Northerner take up the presidency by putting forth Jonathan for the presidential race. He won despite all protestation by the North, so when he rounded up his tenure in 2015, which marked 16 years of PDP’s rulership, the South had ruled for 14 years and the North a mere two years!

But PDP was not done yet; it still put up Jonathan for a new four years ticket. This was when Asiwaju Bola Tinubu set in. He took three men and went straight to Daura to rouse then Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who had had three shots at the presidency and lost all to PDP’s gerrymandering. Buhari had, after the 2011 presidential contest, thrown in the towel and announced his retirement from politics. But Asiwaju went to his home to convince him to shell out from his retirement and enter the presidential race. Satisfied with Asiwaju’s template to make his presidential dream a reality, Buhari came out of retirement and entered the race, and this started the movement that eventually led to the historic defeat of a ruling party by an opposition party in Nigerian history.

This singular historical event was the largest factor that restored the potency of the North, which was then reeling under the manipulative thumbs of PDP, which was working on a blueprint to deprive the North of access to power. The masterstroke of 2015, which saw a new APC rout the ruling PDP, thus restoring power to the North, bore vintage Asiwaju signature and this hurt PDP and its cohorts so badly. No less a person scripted it than Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, and the North owes him a debt of gratitude by reciprocating in 2023 when Asiwaju will run for the presidency.

Let us recall the fierce and acrid attack the PDP government, its media allies, members and supporters of PDP ranged against Asiwaju in the process leading to the 2015 elections. When we remember that Tinubu wasn’t on the ballot for the election, we will realise that the PDP in its full apparatchik targeted Asiwaju with their full venomous bile because of the deft masterstroke he executed when he went to Daura to bring Buhari out of retirement and gift him a formidable APC  that posed a deadly threat to PDP’s stranglehold on power and which frustrated PDP’s scheme to continually keep the North out of power, in deference to the principle of power rotation that has guided the practice of democracy since the inception of the present democracy.

So in 2015, Tinubu was persecuted by PDP and its cohorts for bursting their rendezvous and helping the North to regain power. No amount of bile and scurrilous drivel has been spared in shredding Tinubu, who was not contesting any election but was merely exercising his full democratic rights by supporting Buhari, APC and the North in its quest for justice in the spirit of power rotation among the two blocs that make up Nigeria. So Asiwaju suffered untold negative propaganda and attacks for championing power shift to the North when PDP was neck deep in plots to continue keeping the North out of power. The North owes Asiwaju a huge debt of reciprocity in 2023.

Good enough, we all saw how the APC presidential primary panned out. The strategic role of key Northern politicians in ensuring Asiwaju had a leisurely sail at the primary indicates that the North recognises the tremendous role Asiwaju played in 2015 and is ready to pay him back. The coming presidential election will offer Northerners the opportunity to pay him back. As Northern politicians are noted for straightforwardness and fidelity in relating with others, one does not doubt that the North will finish the job in 2023 in favour of Asiwaju.

One notes that since 2015, the North, especially the Fulani, have been under an intense spate of negative profiling and intense propaganda engineered and vended by PDP and its allies like Afenifere, Ohaneze, IPOB, Yoruba Nation agitators, Middle Belt Forum etc. This syndicated effort aims to paint the North and the Fulani in a bad light just because a Northerner and a Fulani, President Buhari, defeated PDP’s Jonathan in 2015. For this, a whole region and leading ethnic group were targeted by the worst ever negative profiling in Nigeria’s history. Every crime in Nigeria since 2015 was attributed to Fulani herders to punish and besmear entire people for their complete democratic choice in 2015. This got so bad that Fulani was perceived as a killer, murderer, kidnapper and criminal. Undoubtedly, this remains negative profiling, carried with such brazen gusto that Fulani was perceived as Nigeria’s foremost public enemy. This was a carefully targeted script by PDP and its allies to demarket the Fulani because of a Fulani Buhari.

Several groups in the South, especially the old Afenifere and Yoruba Nation agitators, have directly targeted Tinubu for expressive attacks on the charge that he helped a Fulani man, Buhari, to get to power in 2015.

In the midst of these orchestrated antics, Asiwaju had weighed in on the side of reason, pleading for cross-ethnic understanding that doesn’t tolerate targeting any race or people for group attack. He continued building bridges across the entire North and had stood his ground that he made the best choices in 2015 despite the syndicated campaigns against him and the North. By 2023, Northerners should holistically repay the bounteous sacrifices Asiwaju has made to ensure the North realised its quest to have power since 1999.

Since 1999, Asiwaju has drawn massive attacks, bile and vicious umbrage from sundry bigots and rabid ethnic groups in the South for supporting Buhari to take power against a Southern Jonathan. He has been lacerated severely by southern irredentists who are still at a loss why Asiwaju should support a Northerner in 2015, not caring about the merits and justice of his political actions. These ghoulish groups and persons have strived to tap into any social unrest to target Tinubu for physical and verbal attacks, scurrilous propaganda and bile-vending. Opposition politicians carefully choreographed the 2020 EndSARS protest to launch attacks on Tinubu’s real and presumed properties just for supporting Buhari and the North’s hold on power.

Suffice it to state that no Nigerian has been made to suffer such huge damage and cause tremendous sacrifice for the North’s grip on power today than Asiwaju. He has borne his pains with such equanimity that he offers excellent support to the Buhari government to date. It is only natural that the North reciprocate with their votes to Asiwaju in the coming presidential election. He has paid his dues quite satisfactorily.

Asiwaju has promised to refocus Nigeria’s economic strength on fully harnessing the agricultural potential of Nigeria. The North is the food basket of the nation, blessed with rich, arable land; thus, it has been meeting the food needs of Nigerians. The bustling agriculture chain in the North is not yet fully tapped. President Buhari has done so much to unlock this potential for the good of Nigerians as the regime has tapped into the food chain in the North to ramp up food production that has seen Nigeria achieve food sufficiency. Asiwaju has pledged to tap the rich agricultural value chain in the country to harness the agricultural potential of the country entirely. This will significantly benefit the North as agriculture remains the mainstay of the economy of the entire North. Asiwaju is a proven wealth creator with an uncanny potential to turn opportunities into goldmines. When he unleashes his famed possibilities on the country’s agricultural sector, the entire North will be a vast goldmine, and the people of the North, predominantly agriculturists, would experience a tremendous transformation that would transform their social statuses. So the entire North should see the need to turn in massive votes to this famous wealth creator to turn their fortunes around just like he did for Lagos and Lagosians.

At this turn of Nigerian history, what every Nigerian need is a President that will build on the massive infrastructures and policies Buhari set in place to give Nigerians a bountiful harvest. The North needs such leadership that will not start reinventing the wheels but continue the rebuilding of Nigeria, which the Buhari government has invested heavily to sustain. This issue of continuity is one of the factors that has accounted for the hugely successful Lagos brand. Continuity, consistency and uniformity in policy implementation have given Lagos a stable and consistent leadership that ensures policies and projects are not abandoned but consistently pursued till they birth results. That is what Nigeria needs; that is what the North needs. They all need a government that will continue the massive successes recorded in the last seven years in infrastructures; roads, rails, bridges, airports, housing, etc., as well as the gigantic attention to agriculture, national security, and other sectors.

Asiwaju and President Buhari belong to the same APC, so there is no doubt that an Asiwaju presidency will build on the Buhari legacies and bring in Asiwaju’s own financial wizardry to transform Nigeria into a bubbling and prosperous economy, create massive jobs, expand opportunities, trade and commerce, just as he did in Lagos, which has transformed Lagos to Africa’s fifth largest economy today. The huge population of hard-working Northerners need this. Perhaps the reason why Governor Sani Bello of Niger State recently said Nigerians need Asiwaju to come and replicate the feats he wrought in Lagos on Nigeria.

Asiwaju is unarguably the best accepted and loved Southern politician in the entire North today. A cosmopolitan. urbane, charismatic politician, Asiwaju has built massive bridges across the country, particularly in the North. He has cultivated love, acceptance and widespread constituency in the North such that he is more acceptable in the North than many top Northern politicians.

Asiwaju is one of the country’s most detribalised selfless and patriotic leaders. He is blind to ethnic and religious considerations, and he demonstrated this in his broad approach to governing Lagos and the policies he developed in Lagos, which favoured every Nigerian. This is the Southerner the North could trust to offer pan-Nigerian governance of the country and give every Nigerian a stake in the country, no matter where one comes from.

The North, I mean the politically viable North, agrees that power should go to the South in 2023, in consonance with the power rotation agreement guiding our current democratic practice. These same viable politicians showed their commitment to this unwritten code during the APC presidential primary, where they frantically fought off efforts by a few Northern politicians to break this agreement and retain power in the North as PDP did with the South in their 16 years in power. With the solid backing of these same viable Northern politicians, Asiwaju easily picked the APC presidential ticket in a fierce contest.

On the other hand, the PDP, which deliberately shut the North out of power for the years it held political power, has suddenly woken to the reality of patronising The North with its presidential ticket, thus going directly against the power rotation agreement it scripted by itself. PDP’s cheeky calculation is that Northerners are dummies who would easily mass round any Northerner, even if he is among the Northerners that have been chieftains, members and leaders of the same PDP that has found means to deny the North its presidential ticket, that same Northerner that had joined in PDP’s negative profiling of Northerners and Fulani since 2015. PDP, whose governors, support groups and allies had been carrying voracious propaganda and attacks against Northerners and Fulani since Buhari came to power, thought that by fielding a Northerner and Fulani as its 2023 presidential candidate, Northerners would vote en mass for them in 2023 thus violating the power-rotation principle and give power back to the same PDP that brutally raped the entire country and vilified the North since 1999.

The entire North has to teach PDP a big lesson in 2023 by shunning its mischievous antics, solidifying its bond with the South and punishing the same PDP that had been playing tricks on the North since the dawn of democracy in 1999. The only way Northerners can do all the above is to vote massively for Asiwaju in 2023, thus damning those who have been insulting, vilifying, inciting hatred and anger against Northerners since 2015.

After the Buhari governance in 2023, Northerners need a Southern bridge-builder and consummate nationalist to continue where Buhari stopped and ensure that such factors made it easy for PDP to keep scheming the North out of power till Asiwaju weighed in, are not allowed to crop up again. The North needs a broad-minded Southerner with a deep connection to ensure Northerners, like other Nigerians, are given equal opportunities and chances to prosper and excel for the ultimate good of the country. The North needs a detribalised Southerner with deep national links to pursue the reintegration of all Nigerians into one united and prosperous nation. Northerners need that Southerners with a proven capacity and competence to change their lives, the region’s fate and the fortune of Nigeria for the better. That candidate is Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. He had done it for Lagos, and the results are noticeable. Let him do it for the entire country. The North has a critical role to play in who becomes Nigeria’s president by deploying their massive votes to elect a president they believe will add value to their lives and the nation’s progress. Let them see the need to vote for Asiwaju Bola Tinubu because he is the best, the most competent, the most detribalised, and the most sophisticated among all the candidates at the display. Let the Northerners do it again by massively voting for Tinubu and APC because they best serve the interests of the North and Nigeria.

 

An examination of the call by the Governor of Zamfara State, Bello Matawale to citizens to apply to carry arms to defend themselves can best be examined by taking into consideration the words of the iconoclast – William Shakespeare, in his classic- Macbeth: ”Give sorrow words; the grief that does not speak knits up the o-er wrought heart and bids it break.”

This is the peak of helplessness that has been foisted on the citizenry. It also confirms the magnitude of the insecurity problem that has exceeded the capacity of the government to manage it.

Moreso, it is a clarion call for Nigerians to henceforth not reward incompetence in governance since by virtue of Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the security and welfare of Nigerians is the primary purpose of government!

Remarkably, Sections 33 to 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) grant to every Nigerian citizen the right to life, the dignity of the human person and personal liberty.

The rising spate of insecurity in Nigeria is such that has reached a record high under the current administration. It is in the light of this that President Muhammadu Buhari on May 22 2019 revoked firearms/short gun licences effective from June 1, 2019, by the Executive Order revoking all firearm or shotgun certificates or licences in Nigeria.

The President also recently gave his assent to the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Bill 2021. This is to complement the Firearms Act.

The germane issue of the power of a Governor to issue gun licenses to interested citizens in his State is hereunder discussed.

 

Power of governor to direct Commissioner of Police to issue licenses

 

Section 176(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is clear that the Governor of a State shall be the ‘Chief Executive of that State’. Admittedly, Item 2 Part 1, Second schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) – Exclusive Legislative List confers on the National Assembly the powers to legislate for the whole nation concerning arms, ammunitions and explosives; hence their legislations can appropriately empower State Governors.

As will be gleaned herein, the powers of the governor of a state on firearms are non-negligible when acting in concert with the Commissioner of Police of the state in question as it relates to ‘muzzle-loading firearms’.

Interestingly, in recognition of this, Section 215 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides-

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the Governor of a state or such Commissioner of the Government state as he may authorize in that behalf, may give to the Commissioner of Police of that state such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the state as he may consider necessary, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with those directions or cause them to be complied with: Provided that before carrying out any such directions under the foregoing provisions of this subsection the Commissioner of Police may request that the matter be referred to the President or such minister of the Government of the Federation as may be authorized in that behalf by the President for his directions.”

The Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004, being considered for amendments(The Firearms Act Amendment Bill 2022 SB. 889 is sponsored by Senator Mohammed Sani Musa) and the novel Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Act 2022 are relevant for consideration as it concerns the said- ‘muzzle-loading firearms’.

The Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 makes provision for regulating the possession of and dealing in firearms; of importance to this discourse is- ‘muzzle-loading firearms’.

Section 8(1) Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 provides-

“No person shall have in his possession or under his control any ammunition in respect of any firearm referred to in the Schedule to this Act except in accordance with the terms of a licence or permit granted to him and in force in respect of such firearm”

The powers of the Governor of a State with respect to firearms are limited to ‘muzzle-loading firearms’. Section 5(1) Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 on powers of a Governor for “muzzle loading Firearm” states-

“The Commissioner of Police of a State, with the consent of the Governor of the State in respect of the State or any part thereof, may by order prohibit the possession or control of any firearms of the categories specified in Part III of the Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as a “muzzle-loading firearm”) without the licence of an authority to be specified in such order.”

Part 3 of the Schedule to Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 defines muzzle loading firearms as dane guns, flint-lock guns and cap guns; all being unrifled and muzzle loading. Also, Section 29 Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Act is apt, viz- “muzzle-loading firearm” means firearms into which the projectile and usually the propellant charge is loaded from the muzzle of the gun including Dane-guns, Flint-lock guns and Cap-guns.

Of note, Section 7(1) Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Act is as well relevant viz-

“The Commissioner of Police of a State, with the consent of the Governor of the State may grant license for the possession or control of muzzle-loading firearm.”

Likewise, Section 32(2) Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 states that the governor and the President may by regulations provide for their fees to be paid in respect of the licensing of personal firearms in the State.

Nonetheless, it has to be emphasised that Section 6 (2) Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 bars grant of licence in certain instances, viz-

“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, no licence or permit under the provisions of this Act shall be granted if there is reason to believe that the applicant or holder of the licence-

(a) is under the age of seventeen.

(b) is of unsound mind.

(c) is not fit to have possession of the firearm in question on account of defective eyesight.

(d) is a person of intemperate habits.

(e) has during the previous five years been convicted of an offence involving violence or the threat of violence.”

Further, Regulation 3(1) Firearms Regulations provides- “A licence shall, unless forfeited, remain in operation until the 31st of December of the year in which it was granted”

Sections 23(1) and 23(3) Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Act are equally relevant viz- ”23(1) Any person in possession of firearms or ammunition without a licence shall on conviction be liable to two years imprisonment or a fine of not less than N1,000,000.00 or both where the person has no previous criminal record.

23(3) Where a person commits an act of violence with a firearm that is not licenced such person shall on conviction be liable to 6years imprisonment.”

 

Conclusion

 

On June 26, 2022, Bello Matawalle announced that residents of his state can now apply to own gun licences; the directive of the Governor of Zamfara State to citizens to apply to carry arms to defend themselves is to be viewed in the light of his powers when acting in concert with the Commissioner of Police as it relates to ‘muzzle-loading firearms’.

Unfortunately, it equally amplifies the abysmal scorecard of our leaders. Definitely, restraint has to be exercised to avoid a state of lawlessness which will ultimately compound the helplessness of the citizenry.

This is amplified by the first major American gun control/ gun safety legislation recently signed by President Joe Biden to checkmate abuse possession of firearms.

As highlighted herein, Section 7(1) Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Act permits the Commissioner of Police, with the consent of the governor to grant a license for the possession or control of muzzle-loading firearm.

In a similar vein, Section 5(1) Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 provides that the Commissioner of Police, with the consent of the governor in respect of the state or any part thereof, may by order prohibit the possession or control of any firearms of the categories specified in Part III of the Schedule to the Act, being dane guns, flint-lock guns and cap guns; all being unrifled and muzzle loading.

Physically remote but fully involved in the  processes leading up to Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s victory at the APC primaries and also in the power play that led to the emergence of Senator Kashim Shettima as the vice presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, it was with quixotic astonishment and predictable derision that the mere suggestion of a controversy over a same-faith presidential ticket provoked my angst and anger.

When are we going to stop laying the foundation of every new experiment in national development on trivia? When will we stop chasing the shadows of selfish greed and particularist obsession with power and embrace the task of national transformation that has become our generational opportunity or imminent apocalypse?

Whatever the permutation- Christian/Christian, Muslim/Muslim or even Animist/Animist – reducing the gargantuan task of taking the country from the brink of socio-economic chaos to a debate over faith reflects the numbness of the elite to the flaring anger of the swarming throng of the hapless and hopeless.

It is an involuntary suspension of reason when in great need. How many of us, on boarding a plane, enter the cockpit to interrogate the religious identity of the pilots? Or do women in labour insist on the faith of the midwife before delivery? In critical situations as these, we trust the expertise of the persons in charge, convinced that we are in safe hands.

Just to remind us and jerk us out of our reverie, look at what the figures are saying.

In terms of poverty, the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics has reported that foreign investment, a principal source of industrial production and jobs in our liberalized economy, declined by 81.46 per cent from $8.49bn in the first quarter of 2019 to $1.57 billion in this year’s first quarter.

No wonder NBS could report that unemployment increased from 27.1 per cent in the second quarter to 33.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2020. In this period, NBS reported that 12,160,178 Nigerians had no work to do!

Among the youths aged 15-34 years, the unemployment rate was 42.5 per cent. Embarrassed by the worsening situation of job scarcity, the NBS has cleverly kept the figures for 2021 and the two quarters of 2022 to its chest.

These statistical admissions are the cosmetics of grinding and crushing poverty in urban homes and rural households amidst inflationary spikes because the suffering of our people is beyond what these figures capture. They viscerally illustrate that the economy needs to be overhauled urgently and make an emergency of our ‘normalcy’.

Nobody needs a soothsayer to see the connection between the economic recession and crime, unemployment and kidnapping and between hyperinflation and the citizens’ desperation to run from pillar to post to survive even if it means using children, brothers or neighbours for money rituals whose efficacy is false.

From individual anarchism to sub-national rebellion, from separatist movement to fundamentalist invasion, Nigeria is pulled taut at the seams by centripetal forces even as her legislative, executive, judicial and bureaucratic managers are busy sharing the national cake that remained after the creditors have taken their interest for the month.

And that is why the controversy over a Muslim-Muslim ticket, Christian -Christian ticket or any same-faith permutation is so provocatively out of tune with the needs of a country ridden with poverty and insecurity  and threatened by the daredevilry of those who sold the country seeking to return to plunder.

Who gains from the current faith induced anti Tinubu campaign? Certainly, not the millions of devout parishioners and congregants whose meek surrender to fate and hope of a better tomorrow lies in the conviction that Christ has died for their sins. They know they will not be invited to the Villa to attend service with the Chaplain or share Holy Communion with ministers and permanent secretaries. They know they will not leverage on any pastoral claim to the earthly acquisition of wealth to ask for contracts or juicy appointments. And they know that when state banquets or weddings of the President’s children hold, they would be content to watch their leaders laugh and grin excitedly in conversations with the high and the mighty.

So It is actually the golden layer of Christendom that fears it will suffocate if it has no one to call to circumvent one government policy or the other or consolidate access to authority and the public purse. However, once we refuse to reduce our elected officials to their religious identities, we establish a civic code that enables all of us to engage as citizens and restrain them from violating their oath of office by favouring one religion or another. It will enable them to face the urgent task of rescuing the country from poverty and insecurity by casting away the distractions of religion.

We should have learnt our lessons.The history of our present predicament, particularly since 1999,  cannot be told without the roles of presidents and vice presidents who disguised their real personalities, with religious cloaks. A President once made us believe he was born again. He preached in prison and even built a church. But when his Christian values were put to test by the Courts for wrongfully seizing the revenue allocations to Lagos State, the meanness of spirit showed boldly. He did not care if Christians in Lagos State who would be affected by his unconstitutional act starved to death.

With all his pretences, Goodluck was promoted by Obasanjo as a good Christian from the South-South first as Vice President and later as president. The reign of the Boko Haram and herdsmen slashing the throats of farmers became ferocious under his watch. As the simple, poor faithful folks flocked to cemeteries to bury their dead, many of their faith leaders were clinking glasses of champagne in Aso Villa and purchasing jets in the name of the Lord.

For each of these leaders -Christian, Muslim or Animist – that mobilised us  based on faith to gain power, public office has subsequently exposed them as mere mortals with the same pecadilloes to succumb to temptations, arrogance of power and oftentimes, gross incompetence.

Many of the antagonists of the same faith ticket argue as if the specific electoral context that led to the decision of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to pick Senator Kashim Shettima is irrelevant. They must realise that the All Progressives Congress delegates made Asiwaju the flagbearer because he has demonstrated the tested capacity to win for the party. The concrete, visible evidence is Lagos State, where for 23 solid years, he has led the party to victory. In 16 of these years, the party that he  consistently defeated in Lagos was in full control at the federal level with  unfettered access to humongous resources and control of the coercive apparatus of the Federal Government.

To justify this huge confidence, Asiwaju is challenged to demonstrate that if he could help the party end the inglorious era of the PDP as the ruling party, he commands the strategic and tactical capacity to consolidate the control of the Federal Government by the APC to tame the hydra headed monsters bedevilling Nigeria currently. It is electorally, a game of numbers focused on the history of the voting behaviour of citizens for the party. When you crunch the numbers, the APC has relied on the Northern states to win the presidency. It was the repetition of the feat of 12 million votes that made the merger of the founding parties so realistic in the first place. It worked in 2015 and 2019. As it is said, you don’t change a winning formula.

For consistently delivering for the party, the Northern states have become the strongholds of the APC. President Muhammadu Buhari continues to hold sway, particularly in the North Western zone. To further consolidate the votes, the vice presidential ticket in the North East is a tactical offensive to share the votes of the rival PDP in the zone of its presidential candidate rather than give him a free ticket.

Any concerned party man who looks at the matter more from these power perspectives will likely sympathise with Asiwaju for taking a difficult but smart decision than resort to threats or tantrums. The vice presidency is significant but the Presidency is elaborate executive machinery in which many offices will require loyal and competent hands.  Getting down to brass tacks, how does picking a Christian Vice President improve the general welfare of the average Christian in Zungeru, Ikoro Ekiti, Awka, Badagry or anywhere else ?  How has a Christian vice president stopped or suppressed the persecution of Christians in the last seven years to justify the current cacophony ?. Yes, Nigeria is multi ethnic, multi religious, multicultural etc, but should we be perpetually trapped in the quagmire of pervasive religiosity devoid of actual spirituality ?

I was born a Christian and remain a Christian for life and no force on earth can convert me to any other religion but my faith does not enslave me to the wily self aggrandizing manipulation of some strident politico-commercial faith merchants !

This is the period Nigerians should  seriously interrogate more germane governance issues like security, infrastructure, economy etc vis a vis the capacity, capabilities, track record, experience, vision, knowledge and courage of the presidential contenders rather than dissipate energy on sabre rattling, unedifying, strictly unproductive controversy over the religious tag of a ticket !

The presidential election is crucial but it will take place simultaneously with governorship, national and house of assembly elections. These are the tents that people will return to when the elections take place in February. Therefore, there is no basis for the zero-sum tension that those who lost out in the vice presidency bid are orchestrating. It’s about time Nigeria broke the  chains

tying her economic, political, social and spiritual progress .

In Nigeria, judicial power is by virtue of Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution vested in the courts created for the federation and component states.

These courts have wide powers subject to their respective jurisdictions to adjudicate on all matters involving all persons and authorities.

One of the bodies saddled by the Constitution with a very important role is the various election tribunals. Election tribunals are the direct creation of Section 285 of the Constitution. The section makes provision for the National Assembly Elections Tribunal and the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal. The composition of the said tribunals is, however, as provided in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.

By virtue of the said Schedule, each tribunal is to be comprised of a chairman and four other members who are to be appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal from serving judges of a High Court, Kadis of a Sharia Court of Appeal, Judges of a Customary Court of Appeal or others not below the rank of a Chief Magistrate.

It is from the clear wordings of the Sixth Schedule that a problem with Nigeria’s dispute resolution mechanism for election petitions should appear to any discerning mind.

This is as a result of the involvement of serving judges in the hearing and determination of election petitions. The judiciary is an important arm of any government.

It plays a very vital role in the interpretation of laws which are passed by the legislature and eventually enforced by the executive arm of government. Independence of the judiciary which may be loosely defined as the ability of the judiciary to discharge its duties without being influenced directly or indirectly by outside interference or considerations is a prerequisite or sine qua non for the achievement and sustenance of any truly democratic process.

Thus the question that arises is whether appointing serving judges to serve on election tribunals in the course of which they will be required to adjudicate on purely political matters, which election disputes in reality amount to, will not in the long run erode the Independence of the judiciary?

The answer to this all-important question can be found in the controversies that have trailed most decisions of the various elections tribunals over the years.

It will be rightly observed that there has been a significant increase in the number of election petitions filed from 2007 to date.

The courts have, therefore, had more opportunity to pronounce on very contentious issues and in so doing add to our jurisprudence on election petitions.

Whilst some of these decisions have attracted much praise and commendation for the tribunals and the judges who served on them, some of the decisions of these tribunals have, however, attracted condemnation from some quarters.

There have been accusations and counteraccusations from politicians regarding the integrity of some tribunals. Most of these accusations and allegations ranging from the plausible to the ludicrous have often been made or informed by no other factor than the side of the political divide on which the politician making the allegation has found himself on account of the judgment sought to be impugned.

Cases have been reported in which parties to election petitions already submitted to court for adjudication and in some cases even already adjourned for judgment, declared openly that the outcome or judgment of the petition would be favourable to them.

Some have been reported to have distributed traditional wear or uniforms amongst their party members and supporters and made extensive elaborate preparations for celebrations including engagements of musicians all before the actual judgment of the tribunal or Appellate Court is delivered.

At one time, there were allegations by a particular set of petitioners that the respondent and also incumbent governor of the state at that time was about to take steps to arrest by judicial means, the imminent delivery of the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The respondent in reply aside from a denial of the allegation, posed the question whether the petitioners had not by their allegation, inadvertently given away the fact that they were already privy to the contents of a judgment yet to be delivered.

He queried why they would be so bothered that anyone was trying to arrest a judgment if they had not been assured that it (the judgment) would be in their favour?

He stated further that the petitioners had already distributed celebration uniforms to their supporters. The judgment, when it was eventually delivered, was in favour of the Petitioners.

In yet another case, a newspaper reported soon after conclusions of arguments on a contentious application before a tribunal, that the application had been granted by the said tribunal. This was despite the fact that the tribunal was yet to deliver its ruling on the said application.

It had as a matter of fact adjourned its ruling by over 48 hours in open court. When this anomaly was investigated, it was discovered that the media accounts of the grant of the application were influenced by a media statement sent to several media houses before the actual delivery of the ruling in open court by one of the media assistants to one of the parties in the petition.

Most curiously, the eventual decision of the tribunal when it was eventually handed down by which it granted the application tallied with the accounts reported by the newspapers a day before.

Having regard to the numerous, persistent, and disturbing accusations made against election tribunal judges by desperate politicians, the coincidence or otherwise of judgments which were predicted by politicians who had made victory preparation in advance of the judgments, and the tempting pressure in a poor economy, is it proper for serving judges to handle political cases?

In any event whether the “prediction” of politicians regarding the outcome of yet to be delivered judgments pans out or not, the integrity of the Judiciary is always the ultimate loser.

This is so for if the “prediction” is found to be correct, the losing side will forever point to the fact that the judgment had already been known well in advance of the delivery of same.

If on the other hand the “prediction” is found to be false, then supporters of the losing side will also forever allege that some underhand dealings were responsible for the change in the judgment from what they had been told or assured to expect.

This heightened level of attention and criticism is bound to affect the psyche of some judges and rub off on their ability to discharge their duty.

It exposes them in several instances to a situation in which their every conduct and pronouncement is expected to measure up not to the dictates of the law but to the high and often misguided and misplaced expectation of the public which in most cases is totally ignorant of the position of the law.

Judges being human beings and not infallible may sometimes unwittingly yield to some of these pressures and let themselves be influenced by totally irrelevant factors.

Furthermore, serving judges are of course very much interested in career advancement. Often some of the politicians who come before the tribunals either as petitioners or respondents may ultimately be able to decide or influence the professional fortunes of some of the judges.

When this is viewed against the determination of the average Nigerian politician to win at all costs, a compelling reason for worry emerges. In the long run, the judiciary and the public it is meant to serve will be the ultimate losers.

Another very important consideration for the exclusion of sitting judges on election petitions is the effect which the length of such sittings will have on existing cases before those judges prior to their appointment.

One of the most known challenges facing the administration of justice is the issue of delay in the court process. William E. Gladstone popularly noted that “justice delayed is justice denied”.

In many jurisdictions all over the world, timeliness and delay in the administration of justice are generally measured by gauging the time taken for a dispute to progress from the commencement point of filing or referral to resolution.

In conclusion, I advocate the appointment of retired judges to serve on election petition tribunals. In addition, there is no reason why election petitions cannot be referred to arbitration rather than tribunals.

This, to my mind, will ensure that petitions are determined not only with dispatch but also in an atmosphere of fair play.

The winner takes all attitude which pervades every sphere of the electoral process from campaigns to the resolution of electoral disputes will be totally absent if the resort is had to arbitration.

Nigerians please shine ya eye. In the coming 2023 general elections, there will be no free lunch. As they say in Yoruba land: eniti yio wo ina, aa se wahala (even he that will make hell must sweat for it).

This time around, the dominant elites will pay for their incompetence and strategic indolence – and it will be a just reward for their sins against good governance dividends – that metaphorical Golden Fleece that was promised in 1999 when the nation trembled to divest from military rule and reinvested the proceeds in a constitutional democracy. The augury of that comeuppance is what has been explored in this piece.

If anything has become obvious, the critical innovations in the new Electoral Act of 2022 were engrafted by power outsiders in a silent coup while the highly indulgent and pampered political class was asleep.

Eternal vigilance is the price of retaining anything of enduring value that is never enough to go round, and that the society will tolerate being coveted – in this case, political power. Power and morality are strange bedfellows and from the tending narrative by the emerging third force movement they too are still short on this understanding for all they have done and gotten right so far. Sad as that truism is, it has been so from time immemorial and all across the globe.

If the battle ahead is between good and evil (where APC and PDP represent evil) as being defined by the third force, it will be naive to expect anything but a rofo-rofo fight. History affords us no precedent where such a fight between good and evil was ever free, fair and transparent or with both parties triumphant.

That the ruling parties are oblivious of the force of disruption being rolled out by the third force and have kept making seemingly pedestrian missteps in planning their primaries, as well as structuring their selling messages, in keeping with its provision is telling.

Too many groundbreaking and transformational booby traps are embedded in the Electoral Act 2022 (in particular the statutory validation of BVAS and electronic transmission of results from polling units). This has tempered public cynicism of the electoral process and heightened an understandable belief that votes will count as advocated by third forces (whose mole in the legal reform effort are the tireless CSOs).

In other words, the APC government enacted a law to guide an election whose implications on their intent to hold on to power by all means possible they played scant regard to, blinded by their overconfidence of incumbency advantage. And the hapless populace is grateful for the unexpected gift.

It is obvious now that the established political class thought wrong. As a result, the coming 2023 general election is not looking to be like anything that’s ever happened before in Nigeria.

When I read the likes of Prof Attahiru Jega (ex-INEC boss who has the distinct honour of supervising the only election in which an incumbent Federal Government in Nigeria was not only DEFEATED but actually UNSEATED) Prof Pat Utomi, Femi Falana (SAN), Senator Shehu Sani etc, NLC, TUC, ASUU teaming up with the vocal youths, endSARs army reserves and making actionable and action-backed declarations and referencing provisions in the new Electoral Act as motivating factors for their conviction that votes will count and rigging scuppered, it would be delusional to write them off. They can be seen methodically and deliberately taking positions in the front seat of an unfolding coalition that is now focused on cataclysmic power change.

They have moved from the fringes of power as intellectual guides to the arena of the contest. Most of them are no more as politically naive as they were during the June 12-inspired pro-democracy struggles that culminated in the restoration of civil rule in 1999. They went on loan into the field to understudy the ways and wiles of the political technocrats in the course of the last two decades.

They flirted uncomfortably with AD, PDP, NCP APC etc but the liaisons led to no union or offspring. But they are back now; better equipped and with a practical store of actionable experience.

Their victory at the polls will not just be an  upset – it will have devastating revolutionary implications for the entrenched political class as we know it. You cannot wage a successful war against ‘evil’ ( as the third force is making out) and then preach accommodation of agents of devils in victory. That will be mocking God for His grace.

The third force is gaining momentum steadily by a combination of compelling messaging and rigorous, strategic political engineering helped by the absence of any alternative that is refreshingly resonant with the disaffected but partisanly uncommitted majority of the ordinary voting public.

It is largely driven by the adoption of a strategic disruption game-plan. On the other hand, the established power elites are not trained in upsetting the apple cart that disruption entails. They are a band of closeted conservatives united largely in keeping the political status quo through trade-offs, compromises; and occasional bluffing.

The credibility of intent and purpose is on the side of disrupters which makes for savings in political advertisements and campaign expenses. Conversely, credibility deficit is the albatross of the entrenched political parties. The Act is now more voter-friendly but disruptive of traditional rigging designs built into previous Electoral Acts – the job of election riggers has suddenly been made more onerous.

In a more serious polity, a comparatively radical electoral law like was enacted in 2022 should only have scaled through after hard-nosed negotiation by all interested stakeholders. And everyone would have been alert to its consequences to plan ahead and restrategise for their survival under it. Eerily the entrenched parties are still thinking and acting ‘business as usual’ less than eight months to a defining election that has no precedent.

Anybody who has a passable knowledge of the theory and praxis of adapted disruption should make no claim or boast that the present challenge posed by the third force, emerging largely to benefit from the enabling provisions of the 2022 Electoral Act, can be safely dismissed.

An open source online definition of disruption may not be out of context to presage this exposition.

Simply defined, “The theory of disruption predicts that when an entrant tackles incumbent competitors head-on, offering better products or services, the incumbents will accelerate their innovations to defend their business.”

In a more illustrative explanation culled from Harvard Law Review – What Is Disruptive Innovation? by Clayton M. Christensen, Michael E. Raynor, and Rory McDonald. The writers postulated in summary: “Disruption describes a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses. Specifically, as incumbents focus on improving their products and services for their most demanding (and usually most profitable) customers, they exceed the needs of some segments and ignore the needs of others. Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality-frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require while preserving the advantages that drove their early success. When mainstream customers start adopting the entrants’ offerings in volume, disruption has occurred. (See the exhibit ‘The Disruptive Innovation Model’).”

Based on this theory, an adaptation of it to present political contestation will reveal that the emerging third force is feeding and gestating on the theory of disruption. But are the incumbent parties restrategising or innovating to respond to the emerging third force?

Perhaps it is too early to call them out for their palpable inertia and defensive response. Rather than confront the challenge, they are pitifully reacting by citing what weaknesses they observe in the third force, such as their supposed lack of finance, structure or pedigree in the field.

Coming months will tell if this overhyped Achilles heel of the third force suffices to outfox them in the field. The people’s critical point of pain (if accessed and politically canvassed) is less about religion, ethnic balancing, party identity or loyalty than about good governance deliverable only by merit-guided, competent leaders who have demonstrable empathy and compassion beyond mere promises. That message is fast catching on online and an unprecedented eight months of the campaign will strike me as a generous leg up to effectively replicate the crusade offline right on the field.

Their added advantage is that the market is flat and unsegmented – every vote by their disruptive effort carries the same weight as any other in the electoral stable.

 

It’s likely going to lead to an implosion of the country if the major parties take too long to appreciate their threat and respond in kind by recalibrating and retooling their winning formula to make it fit for the new purpose. Being defenders of the staid status quo they are the target for disruption, but so far they come across as fixated- unprepared and probably ill-equipped to compete on the disruptive turf. They are so far, in denial that the market is going to be receptive to the new deal on offer by the third force.

On the other hand, the disrupters are also merely exploiting the momentum while adapting and improvising on the road. This is because the third force is feeding on popular anger and disaffection with the current power wielders. The composition and contradictions will inevitably lead to a cacophony of dichotomous objectives – workers, the left-behind and marginalized members of the middle class as well as ethnic jingoists disguising as nationalists are mingling with some upper-class members in forging a joint venture to rival and take on the two, highly resourced and entrenched competitors that are in the business for blood diamond profit – there is bound to be schism at the annual general meeting of the third force which reverberations may decisively disrupt the market .

We are arguably heading to another June 12 where the likes of ASUU, NANS, NLC and ITT ( previous class enemies ) suddenly and unexpectedly locked themselves in a rainbow battalion to battle against established order that was heavily invested in keeping a business asset jointly owned and run with ITT before disagreement ensued. The old order is alarmed. They might go for broke in their desperation by resorting to war tactics outside the rule book of the Geneva Convention ( as was the eventual culmination of June 12).

Meanwhile, it had better dawn on the seemingly entrenched parties (APC and PDP) that they are endangered regardless of their gut feeling to the contrary. The burden on them to rebrand and reinvent themselves cannot be dismissed or wished away if they hope to stave off or effectively compete with the marauding machine of political disrupters in the medium to long term. The third force is here to stay. It cannot be wished away by the bombastic bravado of the dying hegemons in the Nigerian political space.

Now, the right attitude to adopt by all stakeholders who have something to lose, if hell breaks loose and PRESCIENT POSSIBILITY (even if a distant probability ) happens, is to manage and cope with the possibility that the third force may prevail in the general election. It is counselled that everyone psyches themselves to live through the shock that it portends and wait for better luck another day. The shock of June 12 more than the fact of it was its undoing – it was an unplanned and sudden revolution that nobody prepared for and so could not be assimilated and endured by the losers and could not be competently managed by the victors.

It bears acknowledging that modern history is not a stubborn goat repeating and reproducing itself; it’s a cloned version injected with a modifying DNA of a chameleon.

Only the biophysicist who engineered the modified DNA can predict the end product. Who is that biophysicist in this instance? The jury is out. Hopefully, the jury will be the electorate; not one dark-goggled Aladdin.

 

Owonikoko is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN)

 

 

 

 

The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) notes with dismay and disappointment the rate at which Nigerians accused of Economic and Financial Crimes refuse to honour invitations by constituted authorities to surrender themselves for interrogation for crimes they are suspected of having committed.

Our judiciary and all concerned should know and note that it is illegal to restrain anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies from arresting such suspects, regardless of their statuses in society.

These illegal restraining orders amount to hindering the agencies of government from carrying out their responsibilities.

Recently, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) invited some high profile individuals for interrogation and these invitations were ignored.

Rather these persons obtained court orders restraining the agency from arresting and putting them to trial, although, they do not come within the category of officials covered by immunity conferred by Section 308 of the Constitution.

Our courts have stated at the highest levels again and again that no court in Nigeria has the power to restrain the Police and other state agencies like the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) from carrying out their duties.

It is contrary to public policy to seek and be granted an injunction, not to be investigated, interrogated and arrested in the future, by the police, security and anti-corruption agencies.

Such court orders constitute a charter for criminals to engage in nationwide impunity.

The admonition of the Supreme Court in Dokubo Asari v. F.R.N. [2007] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 320 at 360, that fundamental rights are not absolute and that the rights of an individual must be subordinated to that of the nation and society, must continue to reverberate in all courts of justice.

According to the court: “The above provisions of Section 35 of the Constitution leave no one in doubt that the section is not absolute.

“Personal liberty of an individual within the contemplation of Section 35(1) of the Constitution is a qualified right in the context of this particular case and by virtue of subsection (1)(c) thereof which permits restriction on individual liberty in the course of the judicial inquiry or where, rightly as in this case, the appellant was arrested and put under the detention upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a felony.

“A person’s liberty, as in this case, can also be curtailed in order to prevent him from committing further offence(s).

“It is my belief as well that if every person accused of a felony can hide under the canopy of section 35 of the Constitution to escape lawful detention then an escape route to freedom is easily and richly made available to persons suspected to have committed serious crimes and that will not augur well for the peace, progress, prosperity and tranquility of the society.” [Emphasis supplied]

In A-G Anambra State v. (1) Uba, (ii) Inspector-General of Police & (iii) A-G of the Federation & Anor. [2005] 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 44, the First Respondent, Chris Uba, sought inter alia: “(iv) An Order of injunction restraining the appellants and the 2nd – 4th Respondents by themselves, through their agents, officers, servants, privies or any person howsoever deriving authority or power from them, from arresting, detaining or imprisoning the 1st respondent; or causing him to be restrained or inhibited in the exercise of his rights and freedom of movement, liberty, dignity, pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

Rejecting this claim outright, Bulkachuwa, J.C.A., speaking for the Court of Appeal, held as follows: “Of particular importance is the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff as contained in relief IX in the statement of claim.

“In effect, the 1st respondent is asking the court to shield him from criminal investigation and prosecution.

“The contention of 1st respondent that his claims as contained in the statement of claim were a diligent exercise of the right to preserve his life and liberty as a citizen of Nigeria, cannot hold water.

“This is particularly so in the view of the mandatory provision of section 174(1) of the 1999 Constitution which provides: ‘the Attorney-General of the Federation shall have power – (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court-martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly.’

“There is also a similar provision in Section 211(1) in respect of the Attorney-General of a state.

“For a person, therefore, to go to court to be shielded against criminal investigation and prosecution is an interference of powers given by the Constitution to law officers in the control of criminal investigation.

“The plaintiff has no legally recognisable right to which the court can come to his aid. 

“His claim is not one the court can take cognisance of for it has disclosed no cause of action. 

“The plaintiff cannot expect a judicial fiat preventing a law officer in the exercise of his constitutional power.

“If there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence, his liberty may be impaired temporarily.

“In the same vein, a person’s liberty may be tampered with so as to prevent him from committing an offence.

“In short, it is clear that no citizen’s freedom or liberty is absolute.

“The freedom or liberty of a citizen ends where that of the other man starts.

“This must be well considered and balanced by a judge when considering question of bail.”

The legal effect and implication of these cases are that no court has the power to restrain the police and the anti-corruption agencies from exercising their powers of investigation, interrogation, arrest, detention and prosecution.

The only power a court can exercise is to pronounce a particular arrest and detention in a matter already before the court illegal, or to restrain the police, from arresting a person in a specific circumstance, before the court, NOT a perpetual order against future arrests or detention.