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

ADC Tells Tinubu to Resign As World Bank Reveals 139million Nigerians Live in Poverty

Published

2 days ago

July 20, 2026

Eric

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) on Saturday asked President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to resign rather than seek re-election, asserting that the World Bank’s recent report showing that 139 million Nigerians live below the poverty line is his scorecard.

“The evidence of 139 million people living in poverty and 17 million at risk of starvation is President Tinubu’s scorecard,” the party said. “On account of this catastrophic failure alone, President Tinubu should be contemplating resigning from office rather than seeking re-election.”

It decried that the “catastrophic” situation was occasioned by the Tinubu administration’s policies, which it said, “have favoured money over people and statistics over survival.”

The opposition party maintained that the economic growth Mr Tinubu’s government has repeatedly boasted of as a result of its economic reforms is “meaningless” if the livelihoods of people at the grassroots have yet to improve since 2023, when he assumed office.

“Instead of changing course, the government has stubbornly stuck with its ruinous economic policies and even continues to market recklessness as courage and wickedness as ‘necessary pains.’

“However, three years down the line, it is now clear that the chicken has come home to roost,” the ADC said.

According to the party, Nigeria desperately needs a leader who truly cares about citizens’ well-being and understands that economic reforms should improve citizens’ lives, not worsen their misery.

“A president whose government is not openly feasting while asking the people to continue fasting. A government that does not wallow in profligacy while handing the people palliatives,” it added.

The party condemned the ruling APC’s social intervention programmes aimed at cushioning the effects of its economic policies, adding, “Poverty cannot be defeated through palliatives.”

The ADC pledged that if elected in 2027, it would tackle the root causes of hunger by reducing energy costs, enhancing food production, and ensuring that farmers returned to their farmlands.

It also vowed to rehabilitate the 264 abandoned dams, improve access to fertilisers and quality seeds, and invest in storage facilities.

According to the party, transportation, waste, and food prices would be reduced while creating productive jobs.

“Hunger cannot be separated from poverty, education, or healthcare. That is why an ADC government will prioritise nutrition, primary healthcare, quality basic education, and skills development because no nation can build a prosperous economy while millions of its children are hungry, out of school, or cannot read simple texts,” the party said.

Headline

‘Punishment Before Trial’: The Travails of Nasir El-Rufai

Published

2 days ago

July 19, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

For 150 days and counting, a former Governor of Kaduna State, and one time Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, has remained in the custody of various security agencies including the Department of State Services (DSS), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for alleged offences ranging from fund misappropriation, wiretapping and eavesdropping on security information among others. El-Rufai has not been found of any offence though he has spent over 150 days in custody.

The former governor’s plight was brought back to the fore weekend, when his wife, Asia Ahmad El-Rufai, made a passionate appeal to the international community to intervene over what she described as her husband’s prolonged detention and alleged denial of due process.

Mrs El-Rufai argued that the former governor’s continued incarceration amounted to “punishment before trial” and posed a threat to Nigeria’s democratic institutions. She noted that her husband has not been fairly treated even as she alleged that the former Director-General of the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE) may have taken ill in custody, bleeding from both nose and mouth. She wondered how someone, could made to undergo such severe punishment even when he is not undergone any trial, let alone being found guilty.

In a statement she signed herself, released his social media handles to mark what she described as the 150th day of El-Rufai’s detention, El-Rufai’s wife called on foreign governments, multilateral and multinational organisations and international human rights groups to closely monitor the legal proceedings involving her husband.

She acknowledged not speaking as a political actor but as a wife and mother seeking fairness for a member of her family.

The woman was of the opinion that the period of her husband’s incarceration without trial, has taken a significant emotional and physical toll on the former governor, members of his family and close associates.

“On the 150th day of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai’s detention, I ask readers outside Nigeria to pause over what that number means. One hundred and fifty days is not a legal phrase.

“It is five months of missed meals, missed prayers, missed proper mourning of his deceased mother, missed family conversations, interrupted medical care and moments we can never recover,” she said.

Acknowledging that her husband had been a controversial figure during his more than two decades in public service, as well as how rule of law and democracy should play out, she observed that “My husband is no stranger to controversy or public scrutiny. He has been praised, criticised, loved and opposed. That is democracy.

“But what is happening to him today is not democracy, and it is not accountability. It is punishment before trial,” she said.

Continuing and reflecting on the origin of the travails of her husband, Mrs El-Rufai traced his confrontation with the law to when am attempt was first made to arrest him at the airport on his way back from Egypt. The embarrassing situation at the airport culminated in his appearance for questioning, and ever since he has been allowed except when he was momentarily permitted to go and bury his dead mother.

She said, “There was the sudden invitation, his voluntary appearance before the authorities, and the promise of bail that existed on paper but not in freedom.

“There was the night he was moved between locations without warning and without the dignity of allowing his family to know where he was being taken,” she stated.

Asia also alleged that the former governor became seriously ill while in custody and experienced bleeding from his nose and mouth.

She claimed that officials were reluctant to provide him with adequate medical attention or allow his family to deliver his prescribed medication.

“I still remember the helplessness of hearing that he had fallen gravely ill in custody, bleeding from his nose and mouth, while those responsible for his welfare were reluctant to provide the care any person deserves.

“I remember the anxiety of trying to get his medication to him and wondering whether officials would accept it,” she said.

According to her, the detention had inflicted emotional distress on the family, which continued to wait for the legal process to take its course.

“These are not abstract violations. They are the moments that chip away at a family’s resolve and hope,” she added.

While not requesting that her husband be placed above the law, or escape investigation as a public officer, she insisted that such investigations must be conducted transparently, and in accordance with constitutional safeguards.

“If the state believes it has evidence, let it be presented before an impartial court, openly and fairly.

“But justice cannot be selective. It cannot be pursued through overlapping charges, repeated detention, impossible bail conditions and public humiliation designed to persuade the nation of guilt before a judge has heard the case,” she said.

She accused the government of the day of orchestrating the gory details of the situation, including stringent bail conditions to deprive her husband of freedom, even as the election approaches, stressing that Nigeria was drifting from legitimate accountability towards “lawfare,” which she described as the deployment of legal institutions and judicial procedures as political weapons. She believes that El-Rufai’s problems are the consequence of his disagreement with President Bola Tinubu, and his eventual decanting from the All Progressives Congress (APC).

“The concern is not whether former officials may be investigated; they can and should be.

“The concern is whether the law is being applied neutrally or deployed against those who have fallen out of political favour,” she said.

“His political rupture with President Bola Tinubu’s ruling All Progressives Congress and his refusal to surrender his independent voice should not make him a target for indefinite punishment or detention disguised as prosecution,” she said.

“The legal architecture”, she continued, “surrounding him is bewildering even to trained observers: multiple charges in different courts, overlapping allegations, shifting statutory theories and duplicated claims arising from the same alleged events.

“If one application for bail is made and the conditions are met, another accusation can be filed the next day. If one judge must consider freedom, another process can be used to delay it,” she alleged, querying why such procedures was allowed to turn the judicial process into a form of punishment before conviction.

In March 2026, the ICPC arraigned El-Rufai, alongside one Joel Adoga, before Honourable Justice A.I. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Kaduna Division, on a 10-count charge bordering on abuse of office, money laundering and fraud.

According to the charge sheet marked FHC/KD/73/2026, the former governor was accused of unlawfully receiving multiple sums of money in naira and foreign currencies while serving as a public officer.

Specifically, the Commission alleged that El-Rufai, in September 2020 and January 2023, received the sum of N289,826,998.12 on each occasion as severance allowance, far exceeding the legally entitled sum of N20,013,245.00, being 300 percent of his annual basic salary.

The ICPC charge further revealed that between 2016 and 2023, the former governor allegedly took control of various sums in United States Dollars through his domiciliary account with Guaranty Trust Bank. These include $320,800 allegedly paid in tranches by Joel Adoga, as well as other deposits amounting to $155,800, $305,300, and several smaller sums from different individuals, all reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

Joel Adoga was also accused of conspiring with the former governor in July 2019 to disguise the origin of $10,000 deposited into the said account.

One of the counts reads that both defendants, in July 2019 at Wuse, Abuja, allegedly conspired to disguise the origin of $10,000 paid into the former governor’s domiciliary account, knowing or reasonably ought to have known that the funds formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activity, contrary to and punishable under relevant provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

When the charges were read, both defendants pleaded not guilty to all counts, but they were ordered to be remanded in ICPC custody.

The ICPC further violated the court-ordered access to the former governor, saying that the order did not override the agency’s internal security rules.

In May 2026, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja granted El-Rufai N100 million bail in the trial over the alleged unlawful interception of the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu. However, he was re-arrested right at the court premises by the DSS, prompting the family to raise alarm.

EL-RUFAI’S STRINGENT BAIL CONDITIONS

Much as the embattled former Kaduna governor was granted bail, the conditions have appeared too stringent and tough to meet, the situation that prompted the African Democratic Congress (ADC) among many other concerned Nigerians to react.

In its immediate reaction, the ADC accused the Federal Government of turning El-Rufai into a political prisoner, describing his ordeal as “political persecution dressed up as prosecution.”

El-Rufai’s family also condemned the re-arrest.

El-Rufai’s second wife, Hasiat, who addressed journalists outside the DSS facility, said the family was traumatised by the development and lived daily under the shadow of threats and surveillance.

“We now live in constant fear. Every day we get a threat — DSS is coming to raid your house, ICPC is coming to raid your house, police are coming to raid your house. You are being followed. Our phones are tapped,” she said.

As part of the bail conditions, the trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered the defendant to produce a surety who must be a federal civil servant not below Grade Level 17.

According to the court, the surety must not only be resident in either Maitama or Asokoro highbrow districts of Abuja, but must also deposit the original Certificate of Occupancy of a landed property not valued below the bail sum.

It held that the surety must also provide evidence of receipt of salary for at least three months, with an authenticated letter from the manager of a bank within the jurisdiction of the court.

It added that a verification letter from the surety’s immediate department must be submitted alongside a tax clearance certificate covering the last six months.

The defendant was further mandated to surrender his valid international passports and directed not to travel out of the country without permission.

Justice Abdulmalik ordered the defendant to report to the headquarters of the Department of State Services, DSS, every last Friday of the month by 10 a.m. to sign an attendance register, pending the determination of the case. The former governor was also directed to submit a letter of attestation from the Chairman of the Kaduna Traditional Council.

The trial judge warned that failure to comply with any of the conditions would lead to an automatic revocation of the bail.

Expressing its position on the travails of the former governor, the ADC, in a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said “What is happening to Mallam El-Rufai confirms beyond all doubt that this detention is no longer about justice, it is about politics.

“It also confirms our fears that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is deploying the instruments of state power to keep one of the leading opposition figures out of circulation. This is political persecution dressed up as prosecution.”

ADC also drew comparisons between El-Rufai’s case and those involving former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, and former Delta State governor, Ifeanyi Okowa, both facing separate corruption allegations.

“When placed beside other high-profile cases, the contrast becomes stark and shameful. Yahaya Bello, former governor of Kogi State, has been accused in an alleged N80.2 billion money laundering case.

‘’Ifeanyi Okowa, former governor of Delta State, was arrested over the alleged diversion of N1.3 trillion in derivation funds. But today, they are walking around free, singing President Tinubu’s campaign song,” the ADC statement noted.

However, unconfirmed feelers reaching The Boss have it that El-Rufai’s incarceration has a lot to do with keeping him away from the face politics till after the 2027 General elections. The truth, or otherwise behind the postulation remains to be seen. Nigerians have to wait till the former governor’s next appearance in court by September 2026, to determine the direction of his freedom.

Headline

Mary Habila’s Death: Tinubu Has Failed Comprehensively, Disgracefully – Atiku

Published

5 days ago

July 16, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

A former Vice President, and Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has lashed out at the administration of President Bola Tinubu over its prolonged silence on the death of a medical practitioner, Mary Habila, who died at the residence of the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi.

Atiku condemned the inability of the Tinubu-led government from making any pronouncements or instituting any form of probe to unravel the cause of death since the sad incident occurred on June 27, 2026, saying the administration has failed comprehensively and disgracefully.

Atiku’s remarks are contained in a statement he released on his social platforms endorsed with his regular AA.

While not casting any blame on any particular person or entity, Atiku maintained that condolences are not enough,but must be accompanied by thorough investigation into the circumstances that led to the death of the 26 years old medical practitioner in her prime.

The former Vice President therefore called for a “credible, independent, and transparent investigation” to establish the truth, noting that “it is the refusal of the Federal Government to guarantee such an investigation that constitutes the scandal before us”.

The statement in full:

I have followed with deep sorrow and mounting concern the reports surrounding the death of Miss Mary Habila, a 26-year-old Nigerian from Nok, Southern Kaduna, who died on June 27, 2026, within the private residence of the Honourable Minister of Works, Senator David Umahi, in Uburu, Ebonyi State.

First, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Habila family. No family should have to mourn a daughter taken in the prime of her life while also fighting simply to learn the truth of how she died.

But condolences are not enough. Nigerians deserve answers, and it is on this score that the Tinubu administration has failed, comprehensively and disgracefully.

Consider the facts that are not in dispute. A young woman died in the residence of a serving Federal Minister. For nearly two weeks, neither the Minister, nor the police, nor any arm of government said a word to the Nigerian people. It took the courage of Sahara Reporters to bring this death into public view. Three weeks after her death, no autopsy has been performed. No cause of death has been established. The investigation remains domiciled in the very state where the Minister served two terms as Governor and where his influence is beyond question.

And through all of this, silence from the Presidency. Silence from the Federal Executive Council. Silence from the Inspector-General of Police. Silence from the National Assembly. Not one word. Not one directive. Not one gesture to assure Nigerians that the life of Mary Habila matters to this government.

Instead, the Minister has been permitted to manage the narrative of a death that occurred under his own roof: issuing statements through his personal aides, deploying his private lawyers to correspond with the police, and continuing his official duties as though nothing has happened, while civil society groups, youth organisations, and the family’s own community cry out for an independent inquiry.

Let me be clear: I make no pronouncement on anyone’s guilt or innocence. That is precisely the point. Only a credible, independent, and transparent investigation can establish the truth, and it is the refusal of the Federal Government to guarantee such an investigation that constitutes the scandal before us.

A government’s first duty is the protection of life. Where a life is lost in circumstances touching a high official of state, the burden on government to act transparently is at its heaviest.

President Tinubu’s administration has instead treated this tragedy as an inconvenience to be waited out. If the death of a young Nigerian woman in a Minister’s residence cannot stir this government to act, then Nigerians must ask: whose life, exactly, does this government value?

I therefore demand the following: One, President Bola Tinubu must direct the Honourable Minister of Works to step aside immediately, pending the conclusion of investigations. This is not a punishment; it is the minimum standard of public accountability in any serious democracy. No official under this cloud should preside over a federal ministry as though it were business as usual.

Two, the Inspector-General of Police must immediately transfer the investigation from the Ebonyi State Command to Force Headquarters, with the involvement of independent forensic experts. No investigation conducted in the shadow of the Minister’s home-state influence can command public confidence.

Three, a full, independent, and internationally credible autopsy must be conducted without further delay, with the findings made public. The stalemate over the post-mortem, three weeks after this young woman’s death is an indictment of every institution involved.

Four, the family of Mary Habila must be protected from any pressure, inducement, or intimidation, and must be guaranteed unfettered access to the facts of their daughter’s death.

The measure of a nation is how it responds when the powerful are touched by tragedy and the powerless demand truth. Mary Habila was somebody’s daughter, somebody’s sister, a young professional with her life ahead of her. She was a Nigerian. Her death must not be reduced to a footnote of political convenience.

Nigeria will work again, but only when the life of every Nigerian counts, and when no one, however highly placed, stands beyond the reach of accountability.

May the soul of Mary Habila rest in peace. May her family find justice. -AA