Tag: Igboeli Arinze

Nigeria’s justice system has once again become a subject of intense national debate, with two cases highlighting the apparent contradictions in how mercy and justice are dispensed in the country. On one hand, there is the continued detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), since 2021, and on the other, the controversial pardon granted by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to Maryam Sanda and other notable convicts. These contrasting situations raise fundamental questions about equity, justice, and the true meaning of presidential clemency in Nigeria’s democracy.

The question of a pardon for Nnamdi Kanu presents itself as a double-edged sword that cuts across ethnic, political, and moral lines. Since his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria in 2021, Kanu has remained in detention, sparking continuous agitation and counter-agitation across the nation. His supporters view him as a freedom fighter championing the cause of the marginalized Southeast, while his critics including my good self see him as a misguided secessionist whose activities have brought untold hardship to the very region he claims to liberate.

The complexity of Kanu’s case lies in acknowledging certain uncomfortable truths. It is undeniable that Kanu was, at some point, pushed onto the path he undertook—a path that has led to scenarios from which the Southeast region has yet to fully recover. The sit-at-home orders, the violence, the economic stagnation, and the climate of fear that has characterized the region in recent years cannot be divorced from the IPOB phenomenon. The anger and frustration many feel toward what IPOB and Kanu have turned the Southeast into is legitimate and deeply felt.

However, this anger must be tempered within certain historical perspectives and context. The agitation Kanu led is not fundamentally different from the wars waged against the Nigerian state by figures like Ganiyu Adams of the Oodua People’s Congress, Asari Dokubo, Ateke Tom, and Government Tompolo in the Niger Delta. These men took up arms, disrupted oil production, and challenged federal authority in ways that cost Nigeria billions of dollars and numerous lives. Yet today, they walk free. Some have even been co-opted into the very system they once fought against, receiving contracts and positions of influence. If the Nigerian state found it expedient to grant amnesty to these individuals, what makes Kanu’s case fundamentally different?

One must sympathize with those who lost loved ones, properties, and businesses during the turbulent period of IPOB’s ascendancy. Their pain is real, their losses immeasurable, and their anger justified. However, to lay the entirety of this blame solely at Kanu’s feet would be to engage in the age-old practice of giving a dog a bad name just to hang it.

Read Also: Police arrest IBBU student over alleged cybercrimes against Bago

A significant number of the violent activities that terrorized the Southeast were carried out by charlatans and criminals who merely masqueraded under the IPOB banner. Like parasites that attach themselves to a larger organism, these criminal elements exploited the movement’s rhetoric and symbolism to advance their own nefarious agendas—armed robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and score-settling. To attribute every crime committed in the Southeast between 2020 and now to Kanu’s direct command or influence is not only factually inaccurate but also strategically counterproductive to finding lasting peace in the region.

The continued detention of Kanu has not brought peace to the Southeast; if anything, it has become a rallying point for continued agitation and a justification for ongoing violence. The region’s economy continues to suffer, investor confidence remains low, and the psychological trauma inflicted on ordinary citizens compounds daily. A presidential pardon, conditional or otherwise, could be the circuit breaker needed to interrupt this cycle of violence and counter-violence.

 The Maryam Sanda  and Others Paradox

Against this backdrop of continued detention for Kanu comes the shocking news of President Tinubu’s pardon for Maryam Sanda, convicted of murdering her husband in a particularly gruesome manner, along with other notable convicts. This pardon has raised eyebrows across the nation and exposed what many perceive as a fundamental inequity in how justice is administered.

How does one reconcile granting clemency to a convicted murderer while keeping a secessionist agitator—whose direct culpability for specific violent acts remains contested—in indefinite detention? What criteria guide these presidential pardons? Is it political expediency, ethnic considerations, personal connections, or genuine considerations of justice and national interest?

The Sanda pardon, in particular, has been viewed by many as a slap in the face of justice, especially to his maternal  family of the deceased and to associates who had seen her conviction as a rare instance where privilege could not shield one from the consequences of violent crime. The message it sends is deeply troubling: that in Nigeria, justice remains a respecter of persons, and presidential mercy is distributed not according to any transparent criteria but according to opaque considerations known only to those in the corridors of power, forget the talk about his father allegedly asking for mercy? What role did he play in Bilyaminu’s life and then one day he shows up and voila’ she gets a pardon!

I am sorry, but maybe the president, oh sorry the Council of State should also consider a pardon for Akolade Arowolo and other persons standing trial for spousal murders too, who also can say if the Sanda pardon will not offer persons a blank cheque to murder their spouses and have their deadbeat fathers appear to plead for mercy.

Whilst I must commend the president for the pardons to the likes of late Mamman Vasta and the late Ogoni 9, as a fan of the president, I am a bit flustered by the pardon to drug peddlers and notorious kidnappers, the presidency alleges that they are now good citizens but pray are we not setting a morally wrong precedent to a generation battling the ills of drug and substance abuse?

Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The nation must decide whether it will continue down the path of selective justice and arbitrary mercy or whether it will establish clear, transparent, and equitable standards for presidential pardons. The cases of Nnamdi Kanu and Maryam Sanda, though different in nature, together illustrate the urgent need for this national conversation.

If we have found it expedient to pardon those who made war against the state, surely we can find the wisdom to extend mercy to those whose agitations, however misguided, stemmed from legitimate grievances about marginalization and injustice.

And if we are to grant pardons to convicted criminals, let it be done according to standards that the common citizen can understand and accept, not according to considerations that breed cynicism and erode what little faith remains in our justice system.

The question before Nigeria is not just about Kanu or Sanda as individuals—it is about what kind of nation we aspire to be. A nation where justice is blind, or one where it merely squints selectively? The answer to this question will define us for generations to come.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent national honours list has generated considerable discourse across Nigeria’s political and civil society landscape. While the recognition of distinguished Nigerians through national awards remains a vital tradition for acknowledging exceptional service to the nation, the current list reveals troubling patterns of historical revisionism, political expediency, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the hierarchy of sacrifice that built Nigeria’s democratic foundations.

Perhaps the most glaring oversight in the current honours list is the relegation of Professor Humphrey Nwosu to the Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON), a decision that fundamentally misrepresents his pivotal role in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. Nwosu, as Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC) during the 1993 general elections, demonstrated unprecedented courage and integrity in conducting what remains Nigeria’s freest and fairest presidential election.

The June 12, 1993 election, won decisively by Chief Moshood Abiola, stands as a watershed moment in Nigeria’s political history. It was Nwosu’s meticulous planning, innovative electoral mechanisms, and unwavering commitment to transparency that made this achievement possible. His introduction of the Option A4 system, the open ballot method, and the modified open ballot counting system revolutionized Nigerian electoral practice and remains a template for credible elections decades later.

More crucially, when faced with enormous pressure from the military establishment to manipulate the election results, Nwosu chose institutional integrity over personal safety. His decision to announce results as they came in, despite knowing the political consequences, demonstrated a level of patriotism that deserves the highest national recognition. Without Nwosu’s courage, there would be no June 12 to celebrate, no democratic mandate to defend, and no foundation upon which Nigeria’s current democracy stands.

While Nigerians are grateful that President Tinubu deemed it fit to confer such honour, many perceive the CON award as  a fundamental misreading of historical significance. Nwosu’s contribution to Nigerian democracy warrants nothing less than the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON), the highest honour reserved for exceptional service to the nation. His role in preserving the sanctity of the electoral process during one of Nigeria’s most critical moments deserves recognition commensurate with the magnitude of his sacrifice and the enduring impact of his actions.

Equally problematic is the inclusion of the late Shehu Yar’Adua in the honours list, a decision that appears to conflate political opportunism with genuine democratic struggle. While Yar’Adua’s eventual opposition to General Sani Abacha’s self-succession agenda is acknowledged, a careful examination of the timeline reveals a more complex and less heroic narrative.

Yar Adua, readily welcomed the annulment of the June 12 elections, thinking that a reelection as proposed by General Ibrahim Babaginda would favour his long driven ambition to lead Nigeria.

Yar’Adua’s opposition to Abacha’s perpetuation in power emerged primarily when it became clear that the general’s plans threatened his own political ambitions and those of his northern political allies. This was not principled opposition born of democratic conviction but rather a strategic repositioning driven by personal and regional interests. Unlike genuine pro-democracy activists who opposed military rule from its inception, Yar’Adua’s resistance was conditional and self-serving.

The decision to honour Yar’Adua while numerous authentic democracy advocates remain unrecognized sends a troubling message about the criteria for national recognition. It suggests that political calculations and post-mortem reputation management can override the need for genuine democratic credentials. This selective amnesia about the true nature of various individuals’ contributions to democratic struggle undermines the integrity of the honours system.

The current honours list’s most damning indictment lies not in who was included, but in who was conspicuously absent. Nigeria’s democratic journey was forged by countless individuals who chose principle over profit, courage over comfort, and national interest over personal advancement. Their absence from national recognition represents a fundamental failure to understand the true architecture of Nigeria’s democratic evolution.

Colonel Abubakar Dangiwa Umar stands as a towering figure of military professionalism and democratic advocacy. His consistent opposition to military coups, his principled resignation from military service rather than participate in anti-democratic activities, and his decades-long advocacy for good governance and national unity mark him as a patriot of the highest order. His exclusion from the honours list represents a missed opportunity to recognize genuine military statesmanship.

Read Also: FULL LIST: Tinubu confers national honours on Kudirat Abiola, Soyinka, Saro-Wiwa, others

Arthur Nwankwo, the intellectual and publisher, used his platform to challenge authoritarian rule and promote democratic values. His writings and advocacy contributed significantly to the ideological foundation of Nigeria’s pro-democracy movement, yet his contributions remain unacknowledged in the current honours framework.

Osa Director, another fine journalist and media activist, chose to put his life on the line rather than enter a dalliance of sort with the Abacha regime. His deployment of guerilla media tactics in the struggle to reinstate democracy and the Abiola mandate rattled the Abacha regime.

Again, the awards list betrayed a narrow focus on June 12 and its immediate aftermath, while important, has led to the neglect of other foundational figures who shaped Nigeria’s intellectual and moral landscape. The honours system should recognize the broader ecosystem of individuals who contributed to national development across various sectors.

Professor Bala Usman, the revolutionary historian and intellectual, spent his career challenging conventional narratives about Nigerian history and promoting critical thinking about national development. His scholarly work and political activism contributed immensely to Nigerian intellectual discourse and deserves posthumous recognition.

Dele Giwa, the pioneering journalist whose assassination remains a dark chapter in Nigeria’s press history, represented the courage and integrity that should define Nigerian journalism. His commitment to investigative journalism and his ultimate sacrifice for press freedom make him a natural candidate for national honours.

Tai Solarin, the educator and social critic, dedicated his life to promoting educational excellence and social justice. His innovative approaches to education and his unwavering commitment to social reform contributed significantly to Nigeria’s human development efforts.

Professor Pat Utomi stands as one of Nigeria’s most distinguished public intellectuals, deserving of national honours for his multifaceted contributions to the nation’s development. As an economist, political scientist, and management expert, Utomi has consistently advocated for good governance, economic reform, and democratic consolidation across decades of public service.

His academic excellence spans prestigious institutions globally, while his entrepreneurial initiatives have created jobs and economic opportunities. His consistent opposition to military rule and promotion of transparent governance principles mark him as a patriot whose intellectual contributions deserve formal recognition through Nigeria’s national honours system.

The current honours list reflects a system that prioritizes political convenience over historical accuracy and genuine contribution. Several reforms are necessary to restore credibility to Nigeria’s national recognition framework.

First, the establishment of an independent honours committee comprising historians, civil society leaders, and respected public figures could help insulate the process from political manipulation. This body should have the authority to research, verify, and recommend candidates based on objective criteria rather than political expediency.

Second, the criteria for national honours should be clearly defined and publicly available, with emphasis on measurable contributions to national development, democratic governance, and social progress. The current system’s opacity allows for arbitrary decisions that undermine public confidence.

Third, there should be provisions for posthumous recognition of individuals whose contributions were not acknowledged during their lifetime. Many of Nigeria’s most significant contributors to national development died without recognition, and the honours system should provide mechanisms for correcting these historical oversights.

National honours represent more than ceremonial recognition; they embody a nation’s understanding of its own history and values. When these honours are distributed based on political calculation rather than genuine contribution, they become instruments of historical distortion rather than national memory preservation.

President Tinubu’s honours list, while containing some deserving recipients, fundamentally fails to capture the true heroes of Nigeria’s democratic evolution. The undervaluation of Humphrey Nwosu, the questionable inclusion of Shehu Yar’Adua, and the neglect of authentic democracy advocates like Dangiwa Umar, Lawan Gwadabe, Arthur Nwankwo, and Osa Director represent missed opportunities to accurately document Nigeria’s democratic journey.

The path forward requires a commitment to historical honesty and a willingness to prioritize genuine contribution over political convenience. Only through such an approach can Nigeria’s honours system serve its intended purpose of inspiring excellence and preserving the memory of those who truly built the nation. The current list, unfortunately, falls short of this standard and requires fundamental reconsideration to restore its credibility and relevance.