Headline

Opinion: The Constitutionality Or Otherwise of Gov. Akeredolu’s 7-Day Quit Order On Fulani Herdsmen- Mike Ozekhome, SAN

Published

5 years ago

January 25, 2021

Editor

By Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, FCIArb, OFR,Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

As a well cultured Nigerian and Catholic Christian, I abhor criminality in all its ramifications. I have been a serial victim. But God has always delivered me from the snares of all evils (Psalm 23). As a constitutional lawyer and Human Rights Activist, I speak not just for today, but for tomorrow and posterity. I do not simply jump into the fray of issues and take the popular and most convenient route. Many do. Without weighing the possible negative effect of such populist positions. Such may be good music to the ears in the short measure. I prefer to look at, not just the short, but the medium and long term effects and consequences of such delicate matters. That is why over 98% of my postulations have always come to pass. Not a few Nigerians have wondered aloud whether I am a prophet, seer or Nostradamus. I am neither. Some Nigerians have, on the trending issue, been vociferously in support of the Ondo State’s blanket order given to herders, by my good friend, Governor Rotimi “Aketi” Akeredolu, to quit Ondo forest reserves within 7 days. Many have applauded it. Many endorsed; clapped. There is some sense in this, éclat though. But, have we stopped for a moment, to look at the possible manifold and ponderous effects of such a blanket order on other tribes and indigenes living in other parts of Nigeria other than their own? Have we analysed and interrogated the issues?

When my good friend, Governor Nyesom Wikee of Rivers State ordered the demolition of a hotel for the owner’s violation of covid-19 rules, I intervened, arguing that he should have done it through a court order. I suggest that the owner of the hotel should go to court for redress. In the same measure, I argued that Governor Nasir-El-Rufai should not have rolled out bulldozers and caterpillars to demolish a hotel in Kaduna simply because it was alleged that the owner had desired to use it for a nude party, a matter never proved. It was simply political. But, I believed it should have been done through a court order; not through brute force.

We cannot use illegality to fight illegality; just as it is wrong to use corruption to fight corruption. Can we really stop Nigerians from plying their trade in any part of Nigeria, if done legitimately and in accordance with extant laws? I think not. I hope not. I pray not. We must learn, in a constitutional democracy, to be a country governed by laws, not men. We must build a country of strong institutions, not strong men.

This was why America only just recently defeated a strongman, performer president Donald Trump, with strong institution. It is in this context I will now proceed to critically analyse and interrogate, whether Governor Akeredolu’s 7 days Quit Notice for herders to quit Ondo State forest reserves is legal, constitutional and proper.

THE LEGAL REGIME

The Land Use Act of 1978 (LUA) has since laid the issue to rest as to who controls land in Nigeria. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Land Use Act, provides that “all land comprised in the territory of each state in the Federation are hereby vested in the Governor of that State such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. The Act says “all Nigerians”, not only indigenes of a state. The case of NZENWATA & ORS V. NZENWATA (2016) LPELR-410 89(CA) gives a detailed explanation of the control and management of land under the Land Use Act, 1978, in the following words:
“By the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Land Use Act, 1978, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation were/are vested in the Governor of that state and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of the Act (Section 1 of the Act). Also as from the commencement of the Act, all land in the urban areas shall be under control and management of the Governor of each State and all other land shall, subject to the Act, be under the control and management of the Local Government within the area of jurisdiction of which the land is situated. (Section 2(a) and (b) of the Act). By the provisions of Sections 5 (1) and 6(1) of the Act which deal with the Principles of Tenure, Powers of the Governor and Local Governments and Rights of Occupiers: It shall be lawful for the Governor in respect of land, whether or not in an urban Area- (a) to grant statutory rights of occupancy to any person for all purposes.” Section 5(1) (a) Section 6 (1) of the Act on the other hand provides that: It shall be lawful for a Local Government in respect of land not in an urban area- (a) to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person or organization for the use of land in the Local Government Area for agricultural, residential and other purposes.” The combined effect of the provisions of all the Sections of the Act above quoted is that all lands in urban areas as well as the Rural Areas are either vested in the Governors or Local Government Chairmen and all citizens of this Country who hitherto owned land or not are mere beneficial occupiers or owners as the State Governor in cases of land in Urban areas hold such land in trust for them. See Savannah Bank of (Nig) Ltd. & Anor v. Ajilo & Anor (1989) LPELR-3019 (SC) Per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) at pages 84-85, Paragraphs A-C).” Per AGUBE, J.C.A. (Pp. 32-34, Paras. D-D).”
In accordance with Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978, State Governors can exercise the power to grant statutory rights of occupancy in any part of the State, at which point a proof of the right of occupancy, which is known as a Certificate of Occupancy, is issued by the State Governor. From the above provisions, it is crystal clear that my good friend, the Ondo State government and its Governor, Arakunrin “Aketi” Rotimi Akeredolu has control over all lands within his State territory. It is also clear that “all citizens of this country who hitherto owned land or not are mere beneficial occupies or owners as the state Governor in cases of land in urban areas hold such in trust for them”.
Additionally, section 28 of the LUA, 1978, provides for the powers of the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy already granted for overriding public interest. Similarly, the instances in which these rights can be revoked are provided for in the same section (28). From the aforementioned, it is within the powers of the Ondo State Governor to exorcise and expel occupants of lands within its territories, if it is shown to be in the overriding interest of the public, such as security matters. Governor Akeredolu can therefore, in exercising the rights granted to him by virtue of his position as Governor of Ondo State, issue the order asking herders to vacate the forests reserves within seven days, simply on the ground that the reserve belongs to the Ondo State government. Indeed, the Governor can compulsorily acquire such lands as occupied by the ungovernable herdsmen, in accordance with section 44 of the 1999 Constitution. In such a lawful event, the Governor is expected to make prompt payment of compensation to the herdsmen, who have lawfully been in occupation without criminal records in accordance with section 44(1)(a) of the Constitution. See AIGORO V. COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND HOUSING, KWARA STATE (2011) LPELR-9112(CA).
The Governor has duly exercised his powers under the Land Use Act by giving the 7 days quit notice to the herdsmen. This is constitutional and legal. It is also correct to state that something drastic needed to be done to tackle the increasing menace of crimes and violent acts faced in Ondo State forest reserves, which the Governor adduced as his reason for the order. Said Hippocrates (the father of Medicine), “desperate diseases require desperate remedies”. Akeredolu’s primary function as Governor of Ondo State is the security and welfare of his people (section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution). However, it is trite law that the Governor’s powers are only effective up to the extent that they do not arbitrarily affect a citizen’s fundamental rights under the 1999 Constitution, without resort to due process of law. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, supersedes the provisions of the Land Use Act. It is the highest law of the land, the grundnorm, the fontact origo, and supreme law. See ABACHA & ORS V. FAWEHINMI (2000) LPELR-14(SC). Thus, where any law or provisions of laws conflict with the Constitution, such a law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. Inherently, Governors are bound by their oath of office to obey and uphold the Constitution and all other laws that uphold it. No Governor can therefore unilaterally, arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously order a group of people, tribe or religion to vacate, by fiat and ultimatum, any part of a state which they govern, without resort to due process and the law courts, as this will amount to encroaching on the fundamental rights of citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution. These rights include right to freedom of movement (section 41); right to freedom from discrimination (section 42); and right to own movable and immovable property (section 44). How fair and equitable is a 7 day quit notice from a habit where people have lived all their lives, some for decade? I think it is not!

RIGHT TO OWN LAND

It is arguable that the herdsmen, who have been issued quit notice by Governor Akeredolu are actually being arbitrarily sent away from lands over which they have since legally acquired title and possession over. Where it is proven that some herdsmen have peacefully lived on their occupied lands for a significant time without committing crimes, then they are deemed to have a bonafide title to such lands occupied by them under the law. The case of IDUNDUN AND ORS V. IKUMAGBA AND ORS (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227, reflects this legal position, as it posits five ways in which title to land can be proven:
i. By traditional evidence in the form of traditional history.
ii. By production of documents of title
iii. By proving acts of ownership and possession over a sufficient length of time which are numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner.
iv. By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of land; and
By proof of possession of connected and adjacent land, in circumstances which make it probable that the owner of such adjacent or connected land is probably the owner of the land in dispute.
The above five ways to prove title to land are not mutually connected. Ergo, proving one of these ways is sufficient enough to prove title. See the case of BARTHOLOMEW ONWUBUARIRI & ORS V. ISAAC IGBOASOIYI & ORS (2011) LPELR. Where any of these are proved, the government’s order could be successfully challenged as constituting a breach of those herders’ title or possessory rights. However, section 28 of the Land Use act bestows title over all lands of a state on the Governor, to hold in trust for the people. Consequentially, Governor Akeredolu can lawfully give out lands in a state, just as he can also lawfully take them back. This is the dilemma – striking a delicate balance between Nigerians’ right to live and carry out business wherever they desire, and the need that they live peacefully, without criminal tendencies, in such places. Can the individual ownership or possessory rights of these herders override the need for the Governor to maintain law and order as the Chief Security Officer of his state (section 215(4) 1999 Constitution); and to give maximum security to his people (section 14(2)(b) 1999 Constitution)? I think not.
But, can he do so by fiat, without resort to due process through a court of competent jurisdiction? I think not.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) provides the citizen’s right to freedom of movement throughout Nigeria. He is also allowed to reside in any part thereof. Section 41 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in very clear and precise words, provides as follows:

“Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom”.

This fundamental right is widely applied, as citizens are thereby permitted to move about and across all corners, nooks and crannies within Nigeria, as was aptly held in the case of OKAFOR v. LAGOS STATE GOVT & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41066(CA). It is of no effect whether the citizens live where the land is located, or whether they are mere nomads. This position has been clearly reiterated by the apex court in IBRAHIM V. MOHAMMED (2003) FWLR (PT. 156) 902, where Lordship Kalgo, JSC, stated thus:
“The Land Use Act was promulgated as a whole with a view to making land available to all Nigerians irrespective of where they live”.

Do you hear that please?
See also the case of AROWOLO V. AKAPO & ORS (2002) LPELR-7063(CA).
The only exception/limitation to this is, where restrictions have been placed on the movement or residence of such a person, if he commits a crime, or is suspected to have committed a crime with a view to ‘preventing him from leaving Nigeria’. Thus, applying the literal rule, this limitation appears to apply in an instance such as the present case, where the crime is committed, or is expected, or foreseen, as was Governor’s Akeredolu’s reasons for tackle the increasing spate of violent crimes perpetrated by herders in the forest reserve of Ondo State.
The Governor is legally correct and competent to demand that herders should register for proper identification. Why will they not want to do this, when this will actually help the genuine herders to be separated from the violent and criminally-minded ones, such as kidnappers and armed bandits? This registration will determine how many herders are actually operating in the forest reserves and also separate the authentic herders from invading terrorists who spill in from neighbouring countries.

WHAT MUST AKEREDOLU DO TO QUIT THE HERDERS?

Legally speaking, the right channel available for Governor Akeredolu, in my humble legal opinion (if he must demand their exit within 7 days), is for the Governor to file an action at the Federal High Court, Akure, stating the reasons as to his request to oust and quit the herdsmen from the Ondo forest reserves. His reasons are strong and cogent enough, and courts would readily agree with him. This will enure his acts with legal and constitutional imprimatur; not resort to self-help. Freedom of movement, in any case, is not absolute; though courts of law in Nigeria rarely grant applications that breach the fundamental rights of citizens. In KALU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS (2012) LPELR-9287(CA), the issue for determination was whether the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are absolute. There, EKO, J.C.A. (as he then was), in pages 44-45, paragraphs F-E, concisely and unambiguously stated:
“The courts, including the Federal High Court, know the law and would not do things to whimsically undermine the rights of parties guaranteed by the Constitution. The rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement, guaranteed respectively by sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution, are not absolute. Section 41 (2) (a) of the Constitution says that the right to freedom of movement may be deprived under a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society that imposes restrictions on the “movement of any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a criminal offence in order to prevent him from leaving Nigeria”. An application for enforcement of a party’s fundamental right presupposes the right has been, is being or is likely to be violated otherwise than in accordance with the procedure permitted by law. That argument will be defeated when it is apparent that the right has been deprived of in accordance with the procedure permitted by law.”
Consequently, once the Governor can demonstrate to the court that the peace and order of Ondo State have been serially breached by the herders, the constitutionality of Governor Akeredolu’s order will not be faulted by a court of law; and same will be held to be constitutional; and not unconscionable, arbitrary, oppressive, discriminatory, illegal or ultra vires his gubernatorial powers. This is the best route to follow.

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION
In discussing this fundamental right, I would refer to the Punch Newspaper publication of 19th January, 2021, in which the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, replied Governor Rotimi Akeredolu’s order thus:
“Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, a seasoned lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria and indeed, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, has fought crime in his state with passion and commitment, greater sensitivity and compassion for the four years he has run its affairs and, in our view, will be the least expected to unilaterally oust thousands of herders who have lived all their lives in the state on account of the infiltration of the forests by criminals”.

I completely agree with this opinion. It is important to note that not every Fulani herder living in Ondo state is a criminal. Some, or many, who have lived there for decades, do not fall into the category of the rampant, blood-lusty “herdsmen” terrorizing citizens and states in Nigeria. Consequently, the categorization of every Fulani within the herdsmen bracket, or the categorization of every and all herdsmen in the blood-lusty herdsmen bracket will, in my humble view, appear to be blanketly discriminatory. This is contrary to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed by section 42 of the 1999 Constitution. It is a court of law that can sift the chaff from the seeds. I do not agree with the tarring of a whole race or occupation with the besmearing paintbrush of criminality. Let me give an example: if some Igbo or Edo or Yoruba indigenes (permit my example) living outside their states, are fond of committing crimes in the Sagon Gari area of Kano City, it will be wrong, unconstitutional and even immoral, will it not, to term Igbos, Edos and Yorubas living in Kano as criminals who must be evicted within seven (7) days. What about the majority of the innocent ones, many of whom are living in Kano in their third generation? My simple thesis is that criminals must be separated from the innocent ones. I therefore agree with the compulsory registration exercise introduced by Akeredolu, to sift the good from the bad; the beautiful from the ugly; the clean from the tainted, and the innocent from the guilty.
WAS THE PRESIDENCY RIGHT IN ITS REACTION TO AKEREDOLU QUIT NOTICE?

The Presidency in my view, is right to be gravely worried about the Governor’s 7 day quit notice, seeing that this would infringe on the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens, without a valid court order to that effect. A court order, I repeat, is necessary. We must carefully guide against ethno-religious reprisals in a volatile, mutually suspicious country of major religions and ethnic fault-lines as we have. By the way, why will Governors abdicate their solemn duties of protecting their people through short cuts? What stops Governor Akeredolu and other South West Governors from deploying their local vigilante groups such as AMOTEKUN, to flush out the identified criminals and prosecute them? What are they paid for? Why use the crimes of some (whether in the minority or majority) to deal with every herdsman, including the innocent ones? I don’t agree with this, even if my view is unpopular. Afterall, I am not in any popularity contest with anyone.

HOW BEST STATES CAN TACKLE THIS ISSUE OF INSECURITY

SOME IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

– Bad governance and poor leadership
Bad governance and poor leadership still remain Nigeria’s bane and fundamental cause of insecurity from the past till date. It is the duty of every government anywhere to see its primary function as providing basic services such as security, welfare, water, electricity, good road network, quality education, and general infrastructure. Our governments do not.
– Overpopulation
Nigeria’s population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 208 million today [UNO, mid-June, 2020]. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. This pressure has led to the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion, while the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities, with the latter (e.g. Ondo State) being at the receiving end.
– Porous Borders
One major immediate factor which has enhanced insecurity in Nigeria is the porous borders of the country, where individual movements are largely untracked. Given the porous borders, as well as the weak security system, weapons easily find their way into Nigeria from other countries. Small arms and light weapons proliferation have enabled militant and criminal groups to have unhindered access to arms. Nigeria is estimated to host over 70 percent of about 8 million illegal weapons in West Africa. The porosity of Nigerian borders has also led to unceasing influx of migrants from neighbouring countries, such as Niger Republic, Chad and Republic of Benin. These migrants who are mostly young men constitute the perpetrators of major crimes in the country.
– Rural /Urban Drift
The migration of jobless youths from rural areas to urban centres is a major cause of insecurity in Nigeria. Nigeria is one of the countries in the world with very high rural/urban drift.
– Lack of social irresponsibility of companies
Companies engage in corporate social responsibility to enable them offset corporate social irresponsibility. The rise of terror groups in some parts of the country is directly related to the abysmal neglect of social responsibility by companies to the community where they operate. This has been the case of the Niger Delta, leading to crisis.
– Acts of Terrorism
Acts of terrorism have become the most fundamental source of insecurity in Nigeria. Its primary base and source have been squarely located in religious and ethnic fanaticism and intolerance. There is fear, destruction and death, especially against unarmed targets, property and infrastructure in states.

RECOMMENDED PANACEA

1. Establishment of Grazing Reserves – The establishment of permanent grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practising a more limited form of pastoralism and constitutes a pathway towards a better template of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. It is clear that pastoralism, at least in the short and medium term, may help to prevent seasonal migration of herders from dry to wet season grazing areas.

2. Law and Policy – There is an emerging conflict between the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of movement of persons and goods, and laws emerging in some States which restrict movement. Some States have, rightfully, enacted laws or are still processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are some initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting nomadic pastoralism, which is practised by millions of Nigerians, especially of the Fulani stock? We shall find out sooner than later.

3. Community policing should be immediately established within states of Nigeria for effective management of insecurity. Nigeria’s behemoth Police Force (sections 214 and 215 of the 1999 Constitution) should be dismantled in favour of states, LGAs and community policing.

4. There is an urgent need to create an enabling economic environment that allows for social, security, economic and physical infrastructure. This will allow for business and industrial growth.

5. Creation of job opportunities for the teeming youth is a sine qua non to prevent rising crime.

6. Adequate punishment e.g. barring for life, politicians who use thugs for politics, should be encouraged. This will help our electoral system.

7. There must be good governance, transparency and accountability.

8. Security systems must be strengthened – Our weak security system can be attributed to a number of factors which include corruption, inadequate funding of the Police (and other security agencies), lack of modern equipment, poor welfare of security personnel, and inadequate personnel. There is therefore the need to imrpove our security architecture through the training of security officers, sufficient training in modern security methodologies, provision of state-of-the-art equipment and appropriate remuneration, good service conditions, and a convenient pension scheme. Modern methods of intelligence gathering, and intelligence sharing, training, logistics, motivation, and deploying advanced technology in managing security challenge should be introduced immediately.

9. Poverty reduction is a must. A realistic social security programme must be vigorously pursued and implemented, to ensure that the teeming populace meet their basic needs.

10. There should be mutual trust, respect and accommodation by all ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria. No section should claim superiority over others whom they unfortunately regard as vassals.

Up Next

Sunday Igboho Exclusive ” I Have Never Met Ojudu…My Relationship With Tinubu

Don't Miss

The Constitutionality or Otherwise of Governor Akeredolu’s 7-Day Quit Order on Herdsmen in Ondo

Click to comment

Headline

Iran Has Given Up on Nuclear Weapons, Trump Claims

Published

2 days ago

March 25, 2026

Eric

US President, Donald Trump, said on Tuesday that Iran gave him a “very big present” related to the Strait of Hormuz, boosting his confidence that he is talking to the right people in Tehran to end the war.

The cryptic announcement came a day after Trump unexpectedly postponed threatened attacks on Iran’s power plants and said Washington is in negotiations with unspecified figures in Iran.

Tehran has, however, denied being part of any talks to end the war, which is now in its fourth week and has disrupted global oil supplies passing through the strategic Hormuz Strait.

“They did something yesterday that was amazing actually. They gave us a present and the present arrived today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

“That meant one thing to me — we’re dealing with the right people.”

Speaking at the swearing-in ceremony for new US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Trump said the “gift” was “very significant”, adding that it was “oil and gas-related.”

Asked if it was related to his demand that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic, Trump replied: “Yeah, it was related to the flow and to the strait.”

The US president added that the “present” was not related to Iran’s nuclear program, but repeated his claim that the Iranian side “agreed they will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump has not yet revealed who the United States is negotiating with in Tehran, saying only on Monday as he postponed a threat to attack Iran’s energy sites by five days that it is a “top person.”

“We’re actually talking to the right people, and they want to make a deal so badly,” Trump said.

Former Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei was killed on the first day of the joint Israeli-US air campaign, and successor Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public.

But Trump said that the killing of Khamenei senior and a host of other top Iranian officials meant “we have really regime change. The leaders are all very different with the ones that we started off with.”

US Vice President, JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, global envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner were all involved in the Iranian talks, Trump said.

But he did not confirm reports that Witkoff and Kushner were headed to Pakistan for talks with Iran, with Vance possibly to follow afterward if the negotiations appeared serious.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif offered on Tuesday to act as a mediator to end the conflict.

He said he had spoken with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, promising Islamabad’s help to bring peace to the region.

Trump meanwhile joked that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “didn’t want it to be settled” because he wanted to keep striking Iranian targets.

“We see ourselves as part of this negotiation as well. We negotiate with bombs,” Hegseth said when he was called to the podium by Trump.

Agency Report

Headline

Dangote Warns of Dire Consequences for Nigeria If Iran War Continues

Published

3 days ago

March 24, 2026

Eric

Nigeria’s foremost industrialist, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, has warned that Middle-East tensions driving global oil volatility could have far-reaching consequences for Nigeria and African economies.

Dangote spoke on Monday in Lagos after a courtesy visit and Eid-el-Fitr homage to President Bola Tinubu.

He said the visit was to extend Sallah greetings, reconnect with the president after some time, and reaffirm respect and continued support for the administration’s policies.

Dangote noted Nigeria had no direct role in the crisis but would still feel the impact because of deep global economic interdependence.

“We are part of a global village, and unfortunately, developments like this will affect us even if we are not directly involved,” he said.

He warned that prolonged tensions could trigger higher fuel prices, rising transport costs, inflationary pressures, and widespread hardship across African economies.

“If the situation does not de-escalate, we will end up paying a heavy price, especially given existing economic challenges,” Dangote said.

He explained that governments could face mounting fiscal strain as subsidies rise and revenues fluctuate under unstable global oil market conditions.

Dangote added that Africa’s rising debt burden could worsen under prolonged instability, further limiting fiscal space and weakening economic resilience.

“Africa is already grappling with debt, and additional shocks will only compound hardship for governments and the people,” he said.

He said escalating energy costs would disrupt nearly every sector, including small enterprises, manufacturing chains, logistics operations and household consumption patterns.

“Energy affects everything. From small businesses like barbers to industries running generators, everyone will feel the impact if costs continue to rise,” he said.

Dangote noted that some countries are already adopting coping strategies such as reduced workdays, energy rationing and remote working arrangements.

He said such measures, while necessary, could reduce productivity, slow economic output and affect livelihoods, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Dangote urged global leaders to prioritise de-escalation, stressing that many Africans rely on daily earnings and remain highly exposed to economic shocks.

“In Africa, in Nigeria, many people depend on daily earnings. If they don’t work, they don’t eat. So we must pray this situation comes down quickly,” he said.

On Tinubu’s recent visit to the United Kingdom, Dangote said the trip had opened new economic opportunities and strengthened Nigeria’s investment outlook.

“I believe the visit has opened many doors. Diplomacy without economic outcomes is incomplete, and this has created opportunities for Nigeria,” he said.

He said agreements reached during the visit, especially in infrastructure and financing, signaled growing international confidence in Nigeria’s reform agenda.

“It is not just about the money committed, but the confidence it shows in Nigeria and the reforms being implemented,” he said.

Dangote said planned investments in critical sectors such as ports would significantly improve trade efficiency and support medium-term economic expansion.

“These investments will help improve our infrastructure, especially in key areas like ports, and complement ongoing government efforts,” Dangote said.

He expressed optimism that other countries, including Germany, would follow with investments as confidence in Nigeria’s economy strengthens.

“Once confidence is established, other countries will come in. It is a signal that Nigeria is ready for business,” he said.

Dangote said the agreements would enable Nigerian private sector players to access international financing and technical support for large-scale projects.

“For Nigerian investors, this shows we can approach these agencies to access funding. It means they are now open to supporting our projects,” Dangote said.

He described the development as a breakthrough, noting that such credit facilities had historically remained underutilised by Nigerian businesses.

“We have not really utilised these resources before, but now there is clear capacity and willingness to fund viable Nigerian projects,” he said.

Dangote reaffirmed his support for the administration, expressing confidence that reforms, partnerships and investor confidence would drive sustainable economic growth in Nigeria.

NAN

Headline

The Travails of Nasir El-Rufai

Published

4 days ago

March 22, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The present predicament of the immediate past governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, has created diverse camps of supportive, non-supportive and completely indifferent reactions.

The former governor, who completed his two terms in office on May 29, 2023, has remained in the news ever since for the wrong reasons. First, falling out with his supposed godson, the incumbent Governor of Kaduna State, Uba Sani, who has accused him of embezzlement of public funds while in office, using the state house of Assembly.

Secondly, he was unceremoniously dropped from the list of favored applicants for ministerial positions after the Senate, in a brazen act, rejected his nomination and failed to confirm him after undergoing ministerial screening. El-Rufai has neither forgiven the Senate nor President Bola Tinubu for allowing that to happen.

El-Rufai, whi was once the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), had consequently turned himself into a vocal critic of the government, offering explanations why the present administration must not be allowed to return to power in 2027.

His most recent outburst of accusing the NSA, Mallam Nuru Ribadu, of orchestrating his arrest on arrival to Nigeria from Egypt, had set the stage for his present predicament. The former governor had in a live interview on Arise Television, claimed to have tapping into the NSA’s communications line, thereby becoming privy to the discussions relating to the order of his arrest. He was therefore, invited to explain the whys and hows of his bugging a high level security line. El-Rufai has not come out of detention ever since. His journey has proceeded from the gaurdroom of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to the Department of State Security (DSS).

From all indications, these are not the best of times for the immediate past Governor. And stakeholders have insisted that it’s only a passionate presidential pardon that could extricate the former FCT minister from all entanglements.

Meanwhile, a cross-section of the newest opposition block, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has insisted that the predicaments and persecutions El-Rufai found himself, and is facing at the moment are orchestrations of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) by President Tinubu just as the ruling party has maintained that the former governor is facing the music of his actions and inaction while in office between 2015 and 2023.

Recall that in August 2023, the Senate set the tone for what awaits El-Rufai in the Tinubu administration, when the group, against all expectations rejected his nomination as a minister, confirming 45 others. He was one of the nine former governors nominated for ministerial positions by the Tinubu administration.

The Senate refused to confirm the nomination of Nasir El-Rufai, as well as two other nominees including Stella Okotete (Delta) and Sani Danladi (Taraba).

The President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, had informed that the three nominees not confirmed would be subjected to further security checks even as he advise them to take their matter to Mr President, stressing that the non-conformation status stemmed from ‘security reasons’.

It must be recalled also that during El-Rufai’s screening on the floor of the Senate, Senator Karimi Sunday from Kogi West Senatorial District raised a “very strong petition” against the ex-Kaduna governor that bothered on insecurity, unity, and national cohesion.

Sunday, who praised El-Rufai’s performance as Kaduna governor and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) some 20 years ago, said, “but I have a very strong petition against you that bothers on security, unity and cohesiveness of the Nigerian nation and I think that petition has to be considered along this screening exercise”.

Much as there was a loud resistance from the Senators against the subject, the Senate President insisted on allowing the Kogi senator’s view to stand, citing reception of other petitions against the former governor.

“Distinguished colleagues, perhaps I should inform you that I have received petitions from many other people in respect of other nominees but this is not where we are to deal with petitions. Our job here is to screen and of course, we can refer petitions to where petitions would be dealt with.

“These are the nominees of Mr President. If it is something that is a formal petition before the Senate, we will look at it formally but there are certain petitions that we have to refer to the Presidency or security agencies to look at and that has nothing to do with us.

“I think by the time we are going with the issue of confirmation and approval, we will so advise. So, I will want to plead with my brother (El-Rufai) to take a bow. So, don’t bother about (addressing the petition). Thank you.”

That was the beginning of the many Travails that trailed, and continued to trail the former Kaduna governor. His case was never revisited. His preferred, and speculated ministerial portfolio, Power, was handed to a legal practitioner, marking the end of the presidential consideration. That was when El-Rufai and Tinubu’s relationship entered the stage of ‘no love lost’

Shortly afterwards in June 2024, the Kaduna State House of Assembly’s ad hoc committee had earlier submitted its investigative report on the El-Rufai administration’s financial dealings, loans, and contracts to the House

The chairman of the ad hoc committee, Henry Zacharia, said the loans secured during El-Rufai’s tenure were largely misused, and in some instances, proper procedures were not followed in obtaining them.

The Assembly Speaker, Yusuf Liman, alleged that El-Rufai’s administration misappropriated N423 billion, resulting in significant financial burdens for the state.

Many Nigerians, though had their misgivings about the 8-years stewardship of El-Rufai, dismissed the charges, claiming it was an aftermath of his altercations with the president. Some assumed it was a witchhunt perpetrated by an administration that has issues with the ex-governor.

In response however, El-Rufai sued the Kaduna State House of Assembly over claims that his administration embezzled N432 billion and left the state with significant debt obligations.

He filed a fundamental rights enforcement case against the Kaduna State House of Assembly at the Federal High Court in Kaduna.

El-Rufai, who appeared in person to file the lawsuit, alleged that the committee denied him a fair hearing, according to a statement by the former governor’s media aide, Muyiwa Adekeye, posted on his X handle.

The lawsuit, filed by El-Rufai’s lawyer, Abdulhakeem Mustapha, contested the Kaduna Assembly Committee’s report, which accused El-Rufai of corruption.

Adekeye wrote, “His lawyer, AU Mustapha SAN, said that El-Rufai approached the court as a Nigerian citizen who is entitled to be given a fair hearing before his rights can be determined by a quasi-judicial or investigative body or courts in line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.

“El-Rufai also asked the court to declare that by the provisions of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Investigation of Loans, Financial Transactions, Contractual Liabilities and Other Related Matters of the Government of Kaduna State from 29 May 2015 to 29 May 2023, as ratified by the Kaduna State House of Assembly, is unconstitutional and therefore null and void for violating his right to fair hearing as guaranteed under the Constitution.”

Though questions as to whether the persecutions and legal attacks on El-Rufai were products of his vituperations on the presidency for canceling his nomination as a minister, the former governor had continued to leverage on any interview to speak of the incompetence of the administration, while attempting to rally Nigerians to vote out the government come 2027. El-Rufai had also joined the now major opposition party towards wrestling power from Tinubu and his APC government.

On February 12, 2026, El-Rufai was accosted by security operatives, who attempted to arrest him upon his arrival from Cairo at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja. His passport was seized in the scuffle that ensued, even as he reportedly declined to accompany operatives without the presentation of a warrant.

To make matters worse, El-Rufai, while appearing on a live interview boasted of intercepting a phone conversation, where the NSA Nuhu Ribadu, had given the order for his arrest on arrival to Nigeria.

El-Rufai had alleged that he and some others listen to the telephone conversations of Mr Ribadu after an individual tapped the NSA’s phone.

He defended the legality of the phone interception, acknowledging that it is technically illegal but claiming, “The government does it all the time. They listen to our calls without a court order. But someone tapped his phone and told us that he gave the order.”

But like the government has been waiting for the slip, they capitalized on the revelation to initiate another round of investigation against the former governor

In His reaction after the interview on Arise TV, Presidential Spokesperson, Bayo Onanuga, raised concerns about the implications of the claim for national security.

“El-Rufai has confessed to wire-tapping Nigeria’s NSA on TV. Does it mean that he and his collaborators have wire-tapping facilities?” Onanuga queried.

He added that the issue should not be ignored, stressing the need for accountability.

“This should be thoroughly investigated and punishment meted out. El-Rufai is not too big to face the wrath of the law,” the presidential spokesperson stated.

However, between February 16 and 18, El-Rufai was detained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over the allegations of misappropriating ₦432 billion during his tenure as governor of Kaduna State.

The government made good its threat as the DSS arrested the former governor, and filed cybercrimes charge before the Federal High Court in Abuja against him over the phone-tapping allegation. The case was filed as FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026.

The prosecution said he admitted to intercepting the NSA’s communications, failed to report others who conducted unlawful interceptions, and compromised public safety and national security by using technical systems to tap the NSA’s phone.

The alleged acts were said to violate provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003. No arraignment date has been fixed, and Mr El-Rufai has not publicly responded to the charges.

El-Rufai’s immediate family members have however, denied the DSS allegations just as the former proceeded to the courts to get a judgment declaring every finding as may be presented by the DSS as untenable, citing unauthorisation.

But the ICPC has continued to hold on to the former against the law as many respondents have cited.

In its defence, the ICPC attempted to provide a provide a timeline of events, to prove that El-Rufai’s detention followed a court approved process tied to ongoing investigations into alleged financial crimes., according to statement signed by John Okor Odey, the Head, Media and Public Communication at the ICPC.

“The initial remand order was granted, allowing the Commission to detain the suspect for 14 days to investigate allegations of money laundering and abuse of office. Upon the expiration of the initial order, the Commission applied for a 14-day extension to complete its investigations, which the court acceded to on 5th March, 2026.”

It further noted that an earlier attempt by El-Rufai’s counsel to nullify the remand order had already failed.

“Counsel to El-Rufai attempted to set aside the remand order issued on 19th February, 2026, but the application was dismissed on 9th March, 2026.”

The ICPC maintained that the former governor remains in custody in line with legal provisions.

“Mallam El-Rufai remains in the lawful custody of the ICPC under the remand order dated 5th March, 2026. The Commission is strictly following the court mandated timeline, including the requirement for a progress report.”

It emphasised that all actions taken so far align with the law.

“The ICPC conducts its duties with the highest professionalism and respect for the rule of law. The remand of Mr El-Rufai has been authorised by a court of law in accordance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.”

The Commission also reiterated its stance against media interference in legal processes.

“Furthermore, the ICPC remains firm in upholding its longstanding policy of avoiding media trials. We believe that legal disputes should be settled in the courtroom, not on newspaper pages and social media platforms. The Commission’s leadership remains steadfast and undeterred in confronting any and all challenges in the course of the current investigation.”

It urged the public to rely on verified information.

“We urge the public to avoid spreading unverified information and to rely on official updates from the Commission.”

It will still be till end of March before the fate of El-Rufai is known in these fast-paced travails with the government-controlled security agencies.