Headline

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

Published

4 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

Who Will Rescue Nigeria from Political Bandits?

Published

12 hours ago

October 6, 2024

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The Oxford Dictionary defines a bandit as a robber or outlaw belonging to a gang and typically operating in an isolated or lawless area. In a layman’s language, a bandit is a basically a robber, most of the times, heavily.

In many professional sectors, bandits have arisen in form of leaders, as a result of their high handedness, disrespect for constituted authorities, greed for power and disregards for humanity. Among the bandits of the Nigerian society are the political bandits. They are members of diverse political parties spread across the judiciary, legislature, executive, business environment and more. The banditry has created dissension across boards, affecting the main and opposition political parties, the Nigerian economy, the judiciary with the infamous conflicting judicial pronouncements and judgments, creating a typical musical staccato.

As a result, while the country battles the known bandits of Sokoto, Zamfara, Kaduna, Katsina and Niger among others, the people are unfortunately putting up with the rascality of the new kind of banditry, which shares public space with the populace, albeit politicians and public office holders. But while the shenanigans persist, the government and people keep a blind eye, pretending that all is well.

“It’s no longer news that the issues prevailing in the country today vis a vis political crisis, judicial rascality and the total economic downturn ravaging the nation, unleashing hunger among the populace is a direct invention of the government of the day.

“Firstly, to decimate the opposition parties so as to create a leeway for a smooth return to power in 2027 as well as impoverish the people, make them hopeless so as to feed them crumbs without questions. Of course, the constant phoney distribution of palliatives is a consequence of the self-made affliction,” an analyst told The Boss.

It would be recalled that the nation has experienced more than a far share of democratic brigandry and political banditry since the May 29, 2023 inauguration day pronouncement of ‘subsidy is gone’ by President Bola Tinubu. Apart from the economy hitting the rocks since then, the opposition parties have continually remained on each other’s neck in what political analysts have described as a deliberate ploy of the government in power to instigated crises across board, and propel the country towards a one party state under the All Progressives Congress (APC).

In the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), leadership tussle has remained endemic, creating factions between those loyal to the Acting Chairman, Umar Iliya Damagum and the the rest of the members, with an allegation that the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Barr Nyesom Wike, has a superlative control of the leadership; a situation that has made it absolutely difficult for the opposition party to successfully play its opposition role.

“No matter what anybody says, it’s obvious that Wike is working for the APC, and at the same time maintains a strangle hold on the PDP for the very wrong reasons. It’s completely difficult for the PDP leadership as presently constituted to speak against the APC or even Wike himself. It is not by accident that Senator Dino Melaye, a vocal chieftain of the party, described it as a ‘dead party’. You know that New Nigeria’s People’s Party’s Rabiu Kwankwaso has echoed that line of thought,” a PDP stakeholder, who prefers anonymity said.

The crisis of leadership has also divided the Governors Forum under Bauchi State governor, Bala Mohammed, causing the party to abandon Rivers State governor, Sim Fubara, in his battles for the state structure against Wike.

While Bala Mohammed had earlier indicated that the forum was considering the return of the national chairmanship to the North-Central, describing the current leadership arrangement in the North-East as unconstitutional, a decision that was supported by Osun state governor, Ademola Adeleke.

“My brother from the North-East is currently acting as the national chairman, which is a constitutional anomaly. According to our Constitution, any vacancy in a leadership position should be filled by the region from which it was originally created,” Bala said on Tuesday.

The Bauchi State governor explained that the North-Central region had been expecting the position and hinted that the forum was working with the chairman, the National Working Committee (NWC), and the broader party structure to return the chairmanship to the North-Central.

“We have discussed the issue and will work to ensure that the North-Central is given the opportunity to assume this responsibility,” he stated.

However, Governor Fintiri of Adamawa, in a sharp contrast to Bala’s stance, declared his strong support for Damagum’s leadership.

Fintiri noted that the North-East zone, which includes Bauchi, supports Damagum remaining as acting national chairman.

He referenced a Federal High Court ruling in Abuja that restrains the NWC, Board of Trustees (BoT), National Executive Committee (NEC), PDP, INEC, and any affiliated bodies from removing, replacing, or nominating a new chairman outside of Damagum.

“The court’s ruling is clear, and we must respect it for the sake of our party and democracy,” Fintiri stated in a statement earlier issued by his Chief Press Secretary, Humwashi Wonosikou.

The Adamawa governor further praised Damagum’s leadership for rebuilding public confidence in the PDP following the party’s defeat in the 2023 presidential election, and he endorsed him to complete the tenure of the former chairman, Dr. Iyorchia Ayu, a situation many members of the party disagree with.

Fintiri also emphasised that the North-East, having delivered strong results for the PDP in the 2023 elections, deserves the national chairmanship more than other regions. The zone includes Adamawa, Taraba, Gombe, Bauchi, Borno, and Yobe states, and Fintiri argued that their performance in the polls strengthens their claim to the chairmanship.

Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, also declared his full support for the NWC under Damagum’s leadership, underscoring the growing division within the PDP Governors’ Forum over the party’s leadership crisis.

Makinde noted that, while internal disagreements are inevitable in any political party, the focus should remain on unity as the party prepares for critical elections.

The party also agreed to support Fubara in Rivers, resolving to hand over party structure to him against Wike’s quest to hold to the structure. But in response, Wike threatened to step fire in the states of the PDP Governors, who took the decision. But while Mohammed called his bluff, Makinde pleaded to be exempted, acknowledging alleged Wike’s superiority.

The dissension that has continued led to the party’s loss of the Edo State governorship election. They claimed it was rigged by the APC.

Demagum continues to argue that the party’s rules allow for some flexibility in leadership positions and pointed out that the deputy chairman from the North could naturally assume the chairmanship if it were vacated.

Also in the Labour Party, leadership crisis has continued to polarize the party, creating a faction supposedly chaired by deposed Chairman, Julius Abure, and another by the new caretaker Chairman, Esther Nenadi. The party’s crisis also resulted in the dismal performance of their candidate, Olumide Akpata, in the just concluded Edo State governorship election on September 20.

The political rascality has further transcended to the judiciary, where what appears to be judgment for the highest bidder, is in vogue.

This situation has been witnessed in Rivers State, where the several court judgments continue to flow from several courts in favour of anyone, who applies for it.

On September 30, the court barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from releasing the voter register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) for the elections.

The judge, Peter Lifu, cited RSIEC’s non-compliance with its 2018 law concerning the voter register as a reason for the court’s decision to halt the elections

Many lawyers and judicial stakeholders have expressed their disagreement with the court order and stressed the importance of judicial independence.

They argued that the case underscored the unconstitutionality and undemocratic nature of caretaker committees managing local governments.

A lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Okutepa, noted as follows:

“Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution makes the constitution supreme and binding on all persons and authorities, including Nigerian courts.

“Section 287(1) further stipulates that decisions of the Supreme Court must be enforced across Nigeria by all persons and courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.

“Judgments of the Supreme Court, whether rightly or wrongly decided, cannot be questioned or ignored by any courts or individuals in Nigeria; they can only be criticised.”

Also toeing the line of political banditry in the nation is the recklessness that has been exhibited by the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The body has been accused of also giving electoral victory to whomever expresses monetary and influential concern, especially the government of the day. The situation was further brought to light with the handling of the Edo State governorship election.

The situation of almost complete lawlessness that has pervaded the length and breadth of the nation’s political and economic sectors, have reduced the society to enclave enslaved by a group of individuals, who do not wish corporate existence, but selfish fulfillment of individual agenda.

In Rivers State, Governor Fubara appears to have called the bluff of the Bola Tinubu-led APC, the camp of Wike and all, who were bent on undermining his administration, but the question still stand, who will rescue Nigeria from political bandits as the situation is far from over.

Headline

Glo Splashes Millions of Naira on Partners at Luxurious Event in Lagos

Published

2 days ago

October 5, 2024

Eric

Globacom, Nigeria’s telecommunications and digital solutions services provider, on Thursday treated its business partners across the country to a luxurious ceremony in Lagos. The event was held at the Eko Hotel and Suites, Victoria Island.

At the event, Globacom honoured its top-performing partners that fulfilled all regional and national deliverable requirements with millions of naira in recognition of their outstanding work.

A total number of 71 partners were rewarded in two broad categories, with the winners receiving millions of naira in cash prizes. Category 1 comprised 22 Activation Award winners and 33 Divisional Recharge winners.

In Category 2, 16 partners were rewarded for outstanding performance at the national level. They included partners who performed excellently in Sponsored Data and Activation and those who won national awards in the Recharge category.

The event was held to “honour not just individual successes, but the collaborative spirit that drives innovation and growth”, according to a statement from Globacom. It added that each of the partners “continues to play crucial roles in Globacom’s mission to empower people and businesses, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in telecommunications”.

Globacom shared with them its current and future projections to grow the company and maintain a win-win partnership with the business partners and promised to constantly take their interest and that of other stakeholders into account in all of its plans and projections.

“We are excited about the future, of our continued partnership in serving our customers, fulfilling their needs and helping them achieve their ambitions. We count on you all to be by our side all the way”, the company reiterated to the business partners.

Globacom, which recently clocked 21st, noted that it has grown from being a telecommunications service provider to becoming a Digital and Technology Company, leading the drive into Nigeria’s digital future. It promised to continue to explore unlimited opportunities to serve the customers by investing heavily in the latest tools and technologies.

The company recently unveiled My-G which gives subscribers more data value and more freedom to explore their passions. It has also reinvigorated the Glo Cafe app to give subscribers total control and access to entertainment, gaming, data solutions and other VAS services on their mobile devices. Glo also enhanced the Berekete tariff plan to give unparalleled juicy benefits to subscribers, ensuring that every new business innovation, product and service bring Glo customers one step closer to their goals.

However, the partners had a terrific time being entertained, so the event wasn’t just about business presentations and prizes. Lilian Yeri Danceworld, an all-female dance company with a lot of versatile dance movements, was available to entertain the guests.

Celebrated musician, Flavour, also brightened up the evening with great music, adding color to bring the celebration to a close. Several guests joined him on the dance floor to enjoy his songs and flow along with his captivating performance.

Headline

Charles Osuji: Canada Celebrates a Legal Wizard

Published

7 days ago

September 30, 2024

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

From a very humble beginning in Imo State, South East Nigeria, Charles Osuji has not only found the golden fleece, but had nature give him a soft landing on posterity; the evidence of his prolific hard work.

Here’s the story of a man, who transcended boundaries and borders, challenges and huddles as well as barriers to take the legal profession by storm, hitting the highest echelon with panache in far away Calgary, Alberta in Canada. He graduated top of his class with honours from Imo State University in 2009, and called to the Nigerian bar from where he migrated to Canada. He was absorbed into the then Smith Law Office, where he had a successful articling before being admitted into the Alberta Bar in 2014. He became a partner in 2016, and moved to sole ownership in 2017.

Today, Canada celebrates a man of vision, impact, focus, determination and commitment to growth, just as Nigeria walks tall with pride at a total package of dignity, influence, affluence and candor exportable to the global world. His name is Dr. Charles Osuji, the Chief Executive Officer of one of Canada’s most thriving law firm, Osuji & Smith Lawyers. Osuji proved from day one to be a man, who knows what he wants, and it is no accident that he has achieved so much, and yet not rested on any oars. He sits comfortably as the owner of the largest black-owned law firm in Canada.

Osuji’s larger than life achievements have been encapsulated in what most authorities have said and written about him.

In a speech during the welcoming of The Boss Publisher, Chief Dele Momodu, in Calgary the week before, Barrister Juliet Omonigho, has this to say about Dr. Osuji

“Sir, let me tell you a bit about Dr. Charles Osuji; like Chief Dr. Momodu, he embarked on a journey fueled by vision and determination. Charles arrived in Canada and quickly rose through the ranks with sheer hard work, humility, and an unwavering commitment to excellence. In just a few short years, five years to be exact, he went from a young Nigerian boy in his twenties who, though graduated at the top of his class, seemed to have no prospects when he arrived in Canada, working three menial jobs to make ends meet, to finally getting an articling position after over 200 rejections! He bought the firm just three years after Articling and, in just five short years as managing partner, led it to become the largest black-owned law firm in Canada! His story is one of resilience, innovation, courage and the kind of tenacity that transforms dreams into reality.

“Osuji & Smith Lawyers, under Charles’ leadership, mirrors the journey of Ovation International. Both entities began with a vision, faced numerous challenges, achieved feats that had never been achieved before… and ultimately became symbols of success and excellence in their respective fields. Just as Chief Dr. Dele Momodu has become a beacon of pride for Africa in the global media landscape, Dr. Charles Osuji and his firm have become shining examples of what can be achieved by a young immigrant lawyer with no connections in Canada but through hard work and a commitment to uplifting others rise to national recognition in this country.

“Through the Foot in the Door Initiative, FIDI, an organization founded to empower internally trained lawyers Charles, our firm’s reach is international, giving incredible opportunities to internationally trained lawyers around the world to gain legal experience so they do not have to spend years writing hundreds of applications as he did before getting a foot in the door into a legal profession.

“As a director of the program, we get contacted by lawyers from around the world about the opportunity to be part of the initiative, and we say yes, which gives them the confidence to move to Canada to pursue their legal careers. The impact of the FIDI innovation is truly global.

“Our firm is so successful because Charles has assembled an incredible team of legal minds producing first-class work and the most dedicated and brilliant administrative staff. And collectively, we are all determined and dedicated to giving back. We are a full-service law firm with a diverse staff that speaks over 31 languages; by the way, Chief Momodu, we know you are a linguist who speaks several languages. Our ages range from twenties to seventies, and we serve a diverse Canada.

“As a result of Charles’ leadership, Nigeria is uplifting others regardless of race, ethnicity, or nationality. Over 200 FIDI students from different races have passed through our doors. Osuji & Smith has won landmark cases that established precedents, especially in employment law.

“Our firm has won over 105 awards across Canada, and Charles was recognized as one of Canada’s 25 most influential lawyers at age 35.

“Chief Dr. Momodu, you have led the way, setting an incredible example for a person like Dr. Charles Osuji—to rise to remarkable heights while keeping your focus on a larger mission: showcasing excellence, rewriting narratives, and creating opportunities for others. Your story continues to impact us even in the diaspora. It reminds us that with vision, determination, and the courage to stand for something greater than ourselves, there are no limits to what we can achieve.”

For a gentleman, who moved to Canada in 2011, it is quite impressive how he has climbed the ladders of success, and settled at the very height of greatness.

OF CHARLES OSUJI AND OSUJI & SMITH LAWYERS

By the age of 30, Charles Osuji, an internationally trained lawyer from Nigeria, bought a 37-year-old firm wherein he had served as an articling student not long before. Today, Osuji & Smith is a thriving small-sized firm that offers multi-generational and multi-cultural perspectives to its client base. The firm’s diverse staff includes lawyers who are educated or trained abroad, as well as individuals who can speak English, Igbo, Mandarin, Cantonese, Bengali, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, French, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. Professionals at Osuji & Smith can bring their diverse legal, financial and lived experiences to the table, which is what sets the firm apart from others.

Charles Osuji acts as a role model for young professionals and as a mentor to the associate lawyers, articling students and legal assistants at the firm. For these reasons, Three Best Rated has consistently named Osuji & Smith, beginning in 2017, as one of the top-rated employment and business firms in Calgary.

Also on the endless list of those, who have one or two things to say about Osuji is the site LEXPERT Business of Law, who wrote in 2021 as follows:

In 2011, Charles Osuji uprooted himself — and his developing legal career — to move to Calgary from Nigeria. An internationally trained lawyer, he came to Canada knowing he’d have to become re-accredited and develop a new network of personal and professional colleagues — but Osuji wasn’t daunted by these challenges. He joined what is now Osuji & Smith Lawyers in 2013 as an articling student, was called to the Alberta Bar in 2014, became partner at the firm in 2016 and then, at the age of 31, made another bold move: he became sole owner of the firm. At an age when most lawyers are still preoccupied with learning their craft, Osuji stands at the helm of a thriving and fast rising small-sized law firm as managing partner and CEO.

Osuji was recently named one of Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers; was recognized in both Canada and Avenue Calgary’s Top 40 Under 40 Award categoryies; won the Immigrant of Distinction — Achievement Under 35 Award from Immigrant Services Calgary; was recently recognized, and voted by his fellow lawyers across Canada, in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, 2022, for his outstanding professional excellence in private practice; and was a nominee for the Canadian Bar Association’s 2020 Douglas Miller Rising Star Award.

Osuji & Smith covers a number of areas of law including personal injury, immigration, civil litigation, business, wills and estate, real estate, family, and employment and labour. Clients, which represent a cross-section of Alberta businesses and individuals, benefit from the firm’s multi-generational and multi-cultural perspectives, and Osuji’s willingness to provide these different perspectives sets his firm apart in the Calgary market. He strives to bring an entrepreneurial, multi-cultural and holistic approach to the practice of law.

Osuji is dedicated to providing mentoring and leadership for his staff and is also “a volunteer extraordinaire.” He plays piano at his church, provides pro bono work such as with E-Fry and legal clinics and is a mentor for other newcomer professionals through the Calgary Region Immigrant Employment Counsel, where he participates in workshops and panel conversations as well as serves on the Board of Directors and as Secretary.

Despite his fast and furious rise in the Canadian legal community, Osuji remains humble, genuine and kind. His unique combination of high intellect, tireless work ethic and business acumen fuels this rising star, but Osuji remains grounded by his role as a model citizen for all young professionals.

A multi-award-winning lawyer across divides, Charles Osuji remains undaunted, churning out firsts after first.