Opinion

The State of the Nation and the People’s Constitution

Published

3 years ago

August 16, 2021

Eric

By Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, FCI Arb (UK)

1. Introduction

This topic raises two fundamental issues, namely: the state of the nation which examines contemporary issues agitating the minds of Nigerians, and how those issues can be addressed in the context of a peoples Constitution that satisfies the wishes and aspirations of the people. I therefore wish to proceed by providing a synopsis of some of the major contemporary issues of concern in the nation and thereafter examine how the constitution can be made to address the challenges and accommodate the diverse interests in the polity.

2. The State of the Nation and Contemporary Challenges of the Nigerian State

The Nigerian State is presently plagued by a myriad of issues which have the potential of shaking the very foundation upon which the state is built. While, for want of time and space, it may not be possible to interrogate each and every issue, I consider it pertinent to mention the following:

(i) The Structure of the State and Devolution of Powers
One of the contemporary issues that have raised agitations from different sections of the country is the perceived lopsidedness in the power sharing arrangement between the various tiers of government especially between the federal and state governments. It is contended that the sphere of the federal government is too large to the extent that it negates the federal principle of unity in diversity. Nigerians desire a federation where the constituent units (States) of the federation enjoy the autonomy of dealing with issues that are peculiar to them and controlling their development priorities. Arising from this feeling of a lopsided power sharing arrangement are the calls for restructuring of the federation; devolution of powers from the central to the state’s governments in areas such as control of the police and the attendant need for State Police to address the serious challenge of insecurity plaguing Nigeria; control of resources within the country and generally, the granting of greater autonomy to the states in the political, social and economic spheres. There is the need for the constitution to be framed in such a manner as to accommodate these diverse views.

(ii) Resource Control Agitations
Proponents of resource control draw inferences from the provisions sections 134 and 140 of the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions, respectively to contend that the constituent units of the federation once enjoyed greater control over their resources than what obtained under the 1979 Constitution and the current1999 Constitutions. Agitators in this regard readily point to a time when the regions controlled almost 50 per cent of the resources within their regions and contributed to the running of the central government. They recall that the regions at this stage of the nation’s history, enjoyed greater development in accordance with their priorities, diversities and peculiarities. They thus contend that the over concentration of resources at the centre (a carryover from military rule) has weakened the states and rendered them ineffective as federating units. The 13 per cent derivation principle in the Constitution is also considered by proponents of resource control, especially from mineral bearing communities to be inadequate.

This has come for these issues to be examined holistically with a view to addressing these challenges. Arising from such feelings are the calls for fiscal federalism, changes in the revenue sharing formula, demand for greater equity stake for oil-bearing communities in the Petroleum Industry Bill, etc. They contend that it is only a people’s constitution that can assuage them by addressing these concerns.

(iii) Political Marginalisation
The growing feelings of marginalization across the country have their roots in the perception that certain sections of the country are being unduly favoured at the expense of others in the allocation of resources, political patronage and government support using common resources, which ought to be enjoyed, by all sections of the country. There is therefore a palpable feeling of lack of inclusiveness in governance and unfair distribution of political patronage and resources of the federation. This has become so pronounced as to justify the perception that it is only when the political leadership hails from a particular state or geopolitical zone that the socio-political and economic prosperity of the State or geopolitical zone would be guaranteed. This has manifested in the calls for an Igbo president, southwest president, northern president, president from the middle-belt, south-south president, and wide spread condemnation of perceived lopsided political appointments, (Ministers and heads of the various MDAs) in Nigeria.

The cries of political marginalisation are not limited to geopolitical considerations, but extend also to the religious divide within the country, especially between Christians and Muslims. This is more so as the federal character principle in the Constitution has not been able to address these concerns to the satisfaction of all either on account of poor implementation or abuse to the detriment of other sections of the country. Thus, it is not uncommon to hear of a Christian or Muslim president in the conversations on where the political leadership of the country should come from. These demands based on ethnicity and religion have the potential of overshadowing the need for merit in the system. The calls for rotational presidency between the North and South or amongst the 6 geopolitical zones of the country, multiple vice Presidency, Christian/Moslem tickets etc. are examples of how deeply these issues have eaten into the fabric of the society. The country is therefore in search of some form of political engineering that will ensure that these diverse views are accommodated in the constitution.

(iv) Separatist Agitations
The logical fallout from the pervading feeling of marginalisation in the polity are separatist agitations, which have given rise to movements of various types calling for the separation of their enclaves from the Nigerian state as presently constituted. These groups express the feeling that they are not being fairly treated in the federation and strongly assert that time has come for them to take their collective destiny in their hands by creating their own republics. Thus, we now have increased calls for Biafra and Oduduwa republics, amongst others to be carved out of Nigeria. While the right to self-determination is a universally acknowledged right, section 2(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides that “Nigeria shall be one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign State “. The question arises as to what extent the constitution has provided for the enjoyment of the right to self-determination with this seemingly iron cast provision. How can the feelings of these separatist agitators be accommodated within the existing constitutional framework? The recent arrest of Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Adeyemo (Igboho) on account of their pursuit of separatist agenda has brought these issues to the fore.

3. Towards Addressing Nigeria’s Contemporary Challenges
Nigerians have proffered different solutions to our national challenges/questions which include but are not limited to poor governance, insecurity, a poor democratic culture, weak institutions, mismanagement of the nation’s diversity, marginalisation, etc,. There is a need to develop a constitutional framework that adequately addresses these concerns in a manner that offers sufficient comfort to the various segments of the country. I believe this can be achieved through the process of making a people’s constitution and enthronement of good governance in the polity.

(i) The People’s Constitution
A large segment of the Nigerian population holds the view that much of the nation’s malaise stems from the Constitution. They posit that had a people’s constitution been in place, such a constitution would have addressed all the challenges being experienced in the country. They readily assert that the 1999 Constitution is neither autochthonous (i.e home grown)), nor produced by the people themselves. They see it as having been imposed on the people by the military. The proponents of this view refer to the preamble to the constitution which states that “We the People of the Federal republic of Nigeria having firmly and solemnly resolved…” as fraudulent, since the ‘people’ were not consulted by the military before the constitution was enacted. They also point to the absence of a Constituent Assembly made up of elected representatives of the people or a referendum that could have validated the constitution.

A peoples’ Constitution also refers to the ownership of the Constitution. This means that the populace must identify with it and as a prelude to doing so, it follows that they must understand it. It should not be a document seen as belonging to ‘’government’’ as it were. What then should be the process of forging such a constitution; a process led constitution etc. In some climes, it begins with the language of the constitution. It is written in the indigenous language of the people. For example, the original language of the Tanzanian Constitution is Swahili which all Tanzanians see as theirs. South Africa’s Constitution is translated into the indigenous languages in the country. Admittedly, the diversity of languages in Nigeria makes this well-nigh impossible here! Ultimately, a people’s constitution must be the product of serious dialogue about the foundations of the state (which are rather shaky as shown by the agitations already discussed) and negotiations about the terms for going forward (the nature and structure etc).
To deal with some of what can rightly be termed contemporary issues relating to the state of the nation, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, convoked a Constitutional Conference in 2014 to deliberate on the Constitution with a view to distilling areas of common agreement that would form the basis of a new constitution or amendment to the existing constitution. However, the report of the conference could not be fully implemented before the end of his tenure. The National Assembly (7th, 8th and 9th Assemblies) also initiated moves to amend the constitution to reflect the wishes and aspirations of the people with varying degrees of success. The 1st -4th Alteration to the Constitution has shown that with the requisite political will, the elected representatives of the people can play an important role in the evolution of a people’s constitution. However, the amendments so far undertaken appear to fall short of the expectations of the people as calls for devolution of powers, fiscal federalism, state police, etc still flourish. This has led to renewed calls for a holistic review of the constitution and enactment of a people’s constitution as a panacea for dealing with our urgent concerns such as political marginalisation (by means of such formulae as rotational presidency or multiple vice presidency among others) to allay the fears of the minority groups and ethnic nationalities who feel that the present arrangement does not guarantee them access to political offices needed to advance the interest of their people within the federation.

The pertinent question that arises is how to ensure that a people’s constitution is enacted. This in turn spawns’ other questions. Will the mere convoking of a sovereign national conference to discuss all the contending issues in the federation suffice? What should be the role of the National Assembly in the constitution- making process? Do we still need to convoke a Sovereign National Conference with an elected National Assembly in place? Closely related to this issue is the question as to whether a constitution made by the National Assembly needs to be subjected to a referendum to ascertain that it emanates from the people? Furthermore, having come together to make the peoples constitution, should the Constitution contain provisions for dealing with the separatist agitations of the people who may no longer wish to be part of the federation? These are pertinent questions that Nigerians must answer in our quest to evolve a people’s constitution.

(ii) Good governance
Apart from the constitution (whether autochthonous or not), there are Nigerians who hinge the nation’s challenges on the lack of good governance. To this school of thought, separatist agitators, resource control agitations, political marginalisation etc, are mere symptoms of lack of good governance. They contend that if Nigeria had good governance, all these agitations would disappear. They draw examples from some advanced democracies where successive presidents have sometimes come from one family without a care from the people. To this school of thought, our priority should be to enthrone good governance in the polity. For them, this is the panacea for dealing with the myriad of problems besetting the country.
This leads logically to the real indices of good governance. There is no denying the serious problems of grinding poverty and its many manifestations such as inadequate shelter or even homelessness, food insecurity; serious levels of unemployment. In addition, the phenomenon of ‘out of school children that is rampant in some parts of the country means there is a whole ‘army’ of potential criminals out there. All of these factors contribute to the insecurity in the land. Further in the matter of education, the very obvious drop in the standard and quality of education in the land bodes no one any good.

The Nigerian Constitution does provide some kind of blueprint for good governance that seeks to address some of these concerns in the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter 2. It is however limited by its non-justiciability. A peoples’ Constitution should rethink this. The South African Constitution merges them with the Bill of Rights. The relevance of these provisions as well as the priority to be accorded them is underscored by the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations and their target date of 2030. The 17 goals set for the nations of the world (including Nigeria) capture the expectations of the citizens of every country from their governments and in sum approximate to good governance. There is a need for the legislature and the Executive to take them seriously.
Ghana’s Constitution mandates the Executive to report annually to the Legislature on what has been done to further the attainment of the Fundamental Objectives. Nigeria’s Executive and Legislature can be constitutionally compelled to do the same. There is no doubt that financial constraints will make it difficult for the State to meet these Objectives easily. An incremental approach to attaining them is therefore a way out. This means that proper planning with adequate timelines will be embarked upon for the purpose and these would be reported upon appropriately.

(iii) The Leadership Recruitment process
Closely related to the problem of the absence of good governance is the leadership recruitment process, which many Nigerians contend is less than satisfactory. It is argued that if the leadership process is more inclusive and people oriented, the right kind of political leadership that will be accountable to the people will emerge. It is also argued that such leadership will govern well and, in the process, reduce the prevailing tension in the country. Specific issues to address in this regard are elections and the law governing them. The credibility and independence of the electoral umpire to take proper charge of elections must be guaranteed to ensure the transparency and credibility of elections. Any attempt at stifling the electoral umpire and fettering its discretion in the exercise of its power to organize and manage elections will not be in the best interests of the people. A peoples Constitution should be able to meet this requirement.

4. Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be appreciated that the myriad of problems facing the country requires delicate political engineering. This can be achieved through a combination of a constitution that works for the people (able to accommodate all the competing interests and diversities) and good governance on the part of the political leadership. This is because enacting a people’s constitution alone will not suffice. Nigerians must also embark on a process of recruiting the right political leaders who will work towards making a people’s constitution capable of enthroning good governance, transparency and accountability in the polity. Social justice and equity in the distribution of political offices and resources remain potent factors that a peoples’ constitution should provide for Nigeria. This will eliminate or reduce to the barest minimum, the present separatist agitations in the country.

Opinion

Onnoghen, Free at Last

Published

4 weeks ago

November 12, 2024

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, CON, OFR, LL.D.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed” (Martin Luther King, Jnr). Justice Walter Onnoghen who was unfairly disgraced out of office presumably as a crook by former dictator President, General Muhammadu Buhari, has just demonstrated this apophthegum through three appeals, namely CA/A/375/2019; CA/A/37/SC/2019 and CA/373C/2019. He valiantly fought for his freedom through these three appeals against his April 18, 2019 outrageous conviction which was schemed by Buhari and his kitchen cabinet to humiliate Onnoghen out of the Bench so as to make CJN, his preferred candidate (Justice Tanko Mohammed), CJN (rtd.) on the eve of the 2019 presidential election. Buhari knew he had performed dismally and would be rejected at the polls by angry and hungry Nigerians. So he went Judge-shopping. The rest as they say is history. The legal saga of Justice Walter Onnoghen is not just the story of one man’s acquittal, but a larger commentary on the poor state of Nigeria’s judiciary and the ever-present tensions between political power wielders and judicial independence. It is a story fit for a Grammy Award movie. His acquittal on 4th November, 2024, by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, marked a significant chapter in Nigeria’s legal history, casting a powerful shadow of doubt and curious spotlight on the principles of separation of power, due process, the sanctity of judicial independence and the perils inherent in political intervention. The appeal that restored Justice Onnoghen’s hard-earned reputation and returned his assets to him is also a profound testament to the importance of procedural integrity and jurisdictional boundaries in any democratic society.

I had the opportunity in the nineties to appear before the brilliant Judex while he was a High Court Judge of the Cross River State Judiciary, Calabar. I know he was a man of integrity and character. During the infamous Onnoghen’s trial by ordeal, I made many interventions. In one, I said:

“A strong judiciary is one of the irreducible fundamental platforms for any meaningful constitutional democracy. If you terrorise, intimidate, harass and humiliate the judiciary, using strong hand and brute force, it is a stage set for bidding democracy farewell”- Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailytrust.com/ozekhome-charges-judiciary-to-shut-down-courts-over-onnoghen/). (13th January, 2019).

In a world where the judiciary stands as the final arbiter of justice, Justice Onnoghen’s story is one of a victim who faced unprecedented tribulations, endured a long agonising path to redemption. He ultimately emerged victorious. The appeal process that culminated in his acquittal is a reminder that justice may sometimes be delayed, but it can never be forever denied.

HOW THE APPEAL COURT ACQUITED ONNOGHEN
The verdict by the Court of Appeal represented a turning point in a legal drama that had captivated Nigerians and raised profound questions about the nature and quality of justice in the country. On the 4th of November, 2024, a three-member panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed ruled in favour of the ex-CJN, Walter Onnoghen, acquitting him of the charges initially levied in 2019 by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in 2019. This decision not only vacated the earlier conviction but also ordered the unfreezing of all his bank accounts, thus restoring his financial freedom that had been denied him since the controversial trial began.

I have been overwhelmingly vindicated in all my angst and ventilations against the victimhood suffered by Onnoghen. Hear me:

“The CJN can be removed from office either if he has been convicted or if under section 291 of the constitution, the Senate affirms a request by the President to remove him by two-third majority vote” – Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.pulse.ng/news/politics/mike-ozekhome-reacts-to-allegations-against-cjn-onnoghen/zdx9del). (12th January, 2019).

The acquittal judgement was predicated on a legal principle central to the Nigerian jurisprudence which articulates around jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal asserted that the CCT had no authority in the first instance to try and convict Justice Onnoghen having not passed through the National Judicial Council (NJC). This oversight, the appellate court argued, rendered the entire proceedings null and void. This requirement had been emphasized in Nigerian case law with decisions such as FRN v. NGANJIWA (2022) LPELR-58066(SC) and OPENE v. NJC & ORS (2011) LPELR-4795(CA), which clearly emphasise that judicial officers must first be vetted by the NJC before facing any criminal trial by a tribunal or court. This process is designed to protect the judiciary and its judexes from strong-hand politicians and political interference, thus ensuring that judges are treated with the respect, dignity and due process that their offices richly deserve. I had angrily queried:
“…Our system of justice being Anglo-Saxon based, which is accusatorial, meaning that the innocence of a person is presumed. It is different from the criminal justice system of the French model which is inquisitorial, wherein the guilt of an accused person is presumed. This doctrine has been encapsulated in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, that the person’s innocence is presumed until he has been proven guilty. Assuming for example that Senator Bukola Saraki had been forced to resign his office when charges were brought against him before the same Code of Conduct Tribunal almost three years ago, what would have happened and what would have been his fate when the Supreme Court eventually discharged and acquitted him of the charge, following judgements and earlier order of the Court of Appeal and the Code of Conduct Tribunal itself? If you ask me, I sense serious political undertones oozing from this so-called imminent arraignment of the noble CJN. Question, when did they discover the alleged offence for which they now want to charge him on Monday? Was it just yesterday, was it last week, two weeks or six months ago? The CJN has been in office now for well over one year, how come that this misconduct or whatever offence that he is being alleged, was not seen up to now? How come, that it is just less than 40 days to the 2019 Presidential election, when the CJN is going to play the major role in constituting the Presidential election petition tribunal, that he is being moved against? Who is afraid of the Judiciary? Who is afraid of Justice Onnoghen and his impartiality and straightforwardness? How come we are reducing governance in Nigeria to one of impunity, one of despotism and one of absolutism. Don’t this people know that the world is laughing at us? Did we not see how Dino Melaye was yanked out from police hospital and taken to DSS quarters when he had no business or case with the DSS and DSS had no case against him. Did they not see Dino Melaye, a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sleeping in the open yesterday? Do they go on social media and do they watch international televisions? Do they know how the whole world is deriding us in this country? That governance has been reduced to mere witch-hunt, very opaque, very unaccountable, very un-transparent and very very fascist! Can’t they see that?”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.pulse.ng/news/politics/mike-ozekhome-reacts-to-allegations-against-cjn-onnoghen/zdx9del). (12th January, 2019).

My intervention as far back as 2019 served as a reality-check, pointing out that removing a Chief Justice can never be a whimsical decision; it is bound by the checks and balances that keep our justice system watered. My then reference to “impunity, despotism, and absolutism” hit like a huge hammer, evoking the imagery of a judiciary under siege of political transaintionists. By drawing parallels with then Senators Saraki and Dino Melaye’s own public tribulations, I attempted to paint a vivid picture of a prostrate justice system afflicted by power jackbootism.

Justice Onnoghen’s acquittal is a clear victory for judicial integrity, independence and an affirmation that the judiciary cannot be used as a pawn on political chessboards. The ruling also reinforces the fact that procedural lapses, especially in matters bordering on citizens right and high-ranking judicial officers, are unacceptable and grossly violate the principle of fair trial. As the Bible counsels in Proverbs 31:9, “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This verse captures the essence of due process, emphasizing that justice must be dispensed with fairness and respect for established procedures. I did not mince words then in condemning the executive lawlessness unleashed on Onnoghen:
“It must be pointed out that this latest step by the CCT… appears to be teleguided by the dictatorial Executive, especially the presidency” – Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailypost.ng/2019/02/13/ozekhome-gives-nine-reasons-cct-arrest-order-onnoghen-cannot-stand/). (14th February, 2019).

The ugly circumstances surrounding Justice Onnoghen’s initial trial and conviction by the CCT underscore the potential dangers when procedural norms are bypassed. My passionate critique of the dastardly role played by the Buhari-led administration from 2015 to 2023 as regards Onnoghen’s trial by ordeal revealed the high stakes which were at play. By overstepping the NJC, I had warned then that unchecked executive power could encroach upon the independence of the judiciary which will ultimately undermine the very foundation of democracy.

THE PRECEDENT OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Justice Walter Onnoghen’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal is not just a victory for one individual, but a landmark affirmation of a fundamental principle of law, that jurisdiction is the bedrock of any valid legal proceeding. Without proper jurisdiction, any judgement rendered is, as many legal scholars have agreed on, will merely be an exercise in futility. This principle is enshrined in our legal jurisprudence to protect the sanctity of judicial offices and prevent arbitrary persecution. The Court of Appeal’s decision to vacate Justice Walter Onnoghen’s conviction reaffirmed this core legal tenet, sending a clear message that the judiciary is not a toothless bulldog and tool to be wielded by the executive or any other arm of government.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” – Martin Luther King Jr. The Nigerian legal framework, supported by landmark cases such as FRN v. NGANJIWA (Supra) and OPENE v. NJC & ORS (Supra), outlines that the NJC must first investigate and make recommendations regarding any allegations against judicial officers before any trial can commence at the CCT. This process serves as a bulwark against arbitrary trials, ensuring that judges are not subjected to undue pressure or political intimidation. I had also then warned about the dangers posed whenever these procedural safeguards are disregarded: “The CCT was unrelenting: it discarded its earlier precedents; ignored court rulings barring it from trying Onnoghen. It was the case of the falcon not hearing the falconer”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.thecable.ng/ozekhome-onnoghen-resigned-because-the-cabal-had-sealed-his-fate/). (6th April, 2019).

Thus, five years ago (2019), I was nothing short of prophetic. I had foreseen the critical blunders and overreaches that would compromise the integrity of the judiciary in the Onnoghen saga. My warnings were very clear then about the dangerous precedent that was being set in bypassing due process and using the judiciary as a tool for political manoeuvring. As events have now unfolded, my observations then have proven me to be a visionary critic who critiques (not criticises) a justice system that was then on the brink. I had cautioned against the erosion of judicial independence in the face of executive influence. I had given nine reasons why the CCT’s arrest order on and trial of Justice Onnoghen could not stand. See:
(https://dailypost.ng/2019/02/13/ozekhome-gives-nine-reasons-cct-arrest-order-onnoghen-cannot-stand/).

My list was not just a check-list of procedural irregularities; it was also an indictment of a system seemingly hijacked by political buccaneers. Each point landed like a blow, revealing layers of oversight that were by-passed; up to the requirement for humane treatment under the ACJA that was ignored. I meticulously built my case, demonstrating that Onnoghen’s trials were not just about one man, but about the sanctity of the judicial process itself. It was persecution, not prosecution.

My vivid metaphor of the then CJN being “mob-lynched,” painted a grotesque picture of a judiciary cornered by hidoues forces intent on humiliation rather than achieving justice.

Justice Onnoghen’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal thus serves as a reaffirmation of judicial independence, reminding all branches of government that the rule of law cannot be compromised for political expediency. As the Bible says in Psalm 82:3, “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.” These words resonate deeply in the context of Onnoghen’s trial, encapsulating the judiciary’s duty to protect the innocent from unwarranted persecution and uphold the principles of justice.

POLITICAL UNDERTONES AND THE QUEST FOR JUDICIAL AUTONOMY
Justice Walter Onnoghen’s journey from indictment to acquittal reflects a deeper narrative about the political undertones that permeated his trial. His suspension by then President Muhammadu Buhari which took place only weeks before the 2019 presidential election, had raised significant concerns about the timing and motivations behind the charges. Many saw it as an attempt to influence the judiciary ahead of a critical election, a sentiment I shared and eloquently captured in “Onnoghen… knew that his fate had been pre-determined by the cabal, signed, sealed and delivered”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.thecable.ng/ozekhome-onnoghen-resigned-because-the-cabal-had-sealed-his-fate/). (6th April, 2019)

The timing of the charges, as well as the swiftness with which Onnoghen was brought to trial, laid validation to public perception that Justice Onnoghen was merely targeted for his position and influence within the judiciary. Like I put it then, “Many facts bear this simple deduction out. The petitioner, an NGO, actually committed the Freudian slip by anchoring its petition on ‘bearing in mind the imminence of the 2019 general elections’” – Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailytrust.com/ozekhome-charges-judiciary-to-shut-down-courts-over-onnoghen/). (13th January, 2019).

The Bible, in Proverbs 21:15, declares, “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” The acquittal of Justice Onnoghen, in this light, is therefore not just a personal victory but a broader triumph for all who value justice and integrity.

Like I noted then, “Justice Onnoghen’s removal was also an attempt by the executive arm of government to have a firm control of the nation’s judiciary”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailypost.ng/2019/02/13/ozekhome-gives-nine-reasons-cct-arrest-order-onnoghen-cannot-stand/). (13th February, 2019).

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, Justice Walter Onnoghen’s acquittal is a landmark victory for judicial independence and a testament to the enduring principles of justice and due process. His journey from indictment to acquittal serves as a potent reminder that the rule of law must remain inviolable, even in the face of political pressures.
Onnoghen’s case will remain a watershed moment in Nigeria’s legal history, a vivid reminder that the judiciary’s role is to safeguard the rule of law, protect citizens’ rights and ensure that democracy even when faced with formidable forces of political influence, triumphs. It should be able to skillfully navigate through the ever present interplay of centripetal and centrifugal forces.

As Nigeria continues to evolve as a work-in-progress, Justice Onnoghen’s exoneration stands as a powerful reminder to us all that, in the words of Proverbs 21:3, “To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” Congratulations, Milord. Enjoy your hard won-back integrity, honour and dignity.

Opinion

Masquerade of Excellence: Celebrating Prof Mike Ozekhome’s Remarkable Journey @ 67

Published

2 months ago

October 14, 2024

Eric

By CDS Omon-Irabor Esq

Chief Prof. Dr. Mike A.A. Ozekhome SAN,
the only masquerade that dances in the farm without cutting a single reed of the yam tendrils.

The Gadfly is climbing the 67th rung on the ladder. From the hills of Agenebode down to the plains of the Iviukwe, the celestials, the principalities and the gods of Weppa and Wano Kingdoms are celebrating this colossus, who came in disguise as a little rough village boy; but very comely and handsome, his divine intelligence surpasses those of his peers.

Taking a sudden flight through primary and secondary schools casaded him into the land of Oduduwa. He anchored his life voyage at the ancestral home of the Yorubas, Ile-ife. Here his projenitors believed to have a temporary abode before sending the last born of the Ogisos Ile-ife (I ran and I became rich, Benin translation). Omonoyan (wrongly called Oromiyan) was sent to go to the land of Igodomigodo where today Chief Mike Ozekhome holds the title of Enobakhare of Benin Kingdom.

This great man had all his trappings, equipped himself and became a lawyer, taking abode in the Delphic Oracle (that is what we called the Chambers of Chief Gani Fawehim). There he became the Aristostle, tampering with the Apologia left at the eye of euroba.

He journeyed on, for no destiny, no chance, no faith, nor circumstance could hinder, control or circumvent the firm resolve of a determined soul in Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome as epitomised or postulated.

The great learned Senior Advocate of the masses grudges on, defending the most vulnerable and giving voice to the voiceless and muscle to the powerless.

The Okporokpo of Oleh kingdom, Delta State; the Aimotekpe of Okpeland, the Agbamofin of Ijanikinland, Lagos; the Ohamadike1 of Obibi Ochasi, Imo State; the Ada Idaha of Efik land and the great Akpakpa Vighi Vighi of Edo Land, the land of my ancestors, I salute you for it is morning yet.

There is no space here,for my ink is running dry; but before I drop, I remember your words to me while I was in the dock of the Warri High Court on the 12th day of July, 2013, “Omon, you look worried; mind you, those who think that they can cover the shinning sun with their palms will soon find the heat unbearable”.

Those who stopped you from becoming our Governor in 2003 indirectly made you Governor of all Governors.

In all these odyssey you traversed, behind the dìm unknown standeth God, watching over you, His own.

Obokhian, amonghon, iyare iyare, mooooooh.

CDS Omon-Irabor Esq writes from the hill and the cave of Ebudinland

Opinion

Mr. President: Affordable Fuel is Possible at Zero Subsidy

Published

2 months ago

October 12, 2024

Eric

By Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde

Yesterday evening, I listened attentively to a panel of experts and stakeholders on the BBC program Ra’ayi Riga, anchored by Umaima Sani Abdulmumin. The program ended with a big doubt in my mind regarding a matter purported to be a provision of OPEC and crucial to the price of petrol in Nigeria.

Tyranny

I could not fathom how particularly the representatives of NNPC and IPMAN stressed that Nigerians will be at the mercy of two variables: the international market and the price of the US Dollar in Nigeria. They said OPEC agreement compels member countries to sell allocated domestic crude at international rate even if refined locally. One of them even said the Iran-Israel conflict can cause domestic price of petrol in Nigeria to rise.

So we should expect higher fuel prices anytime the rate of the dollar appreciates in Nigeria and also when, for any reason, there is a rise in the cost of crude in the international market. It is the rule, according to them. Our fate, they claim, is sealed, regardless of our OPEC membership and Dangote refinery. Nigerians will no longer have a stable fuel price.

Trust me, in Nigeria, the equation will be simultaneous. At any given moment, a reason will be found to use either or both parameters to increase pump price. The target of government is to extract more revenue from citizens while the businessmen in Dangote, Major Marketers, NNPCL and IPMAN continue to feed their greed for endless profit with our blood.

One would wonder why OPEC would be so oppressive in inflicting such tyranny on the citizens of its members. Senator Ndume, who was in the panel, said if he cannot understand why, how would they expect a commoner sitting under the tree to do so?

The truth

The truth is that there is no provision like that in OPEC agreements. In fact, the very idea of domestic crude quota arose in realization that citizens of member countries may need to enjoy cheaper oil than the international market price. That is why those citizens have been enjoying cheaper fuel for the past five decades in different countries. Many still do. Why not Nigerians?

If you ask ChatGPT whether OPEC agreement compels member countries to sell crude for domestic consumption at international market price only, this is the answer you get:

“OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) does not directly compel member countries to sell crude oil for domestic consumption at international market prices. OPEC’s primary role is to coordinate and unify petroleum policies among member countries to stabilize oil markets and secure a steady supply of oil.

“However, OPEC’s production quotas, agreements on output levels, and policies can indirectly influence domestic oil pricing. In practice, many OPEC members choose to sell crude oil domestically at subsidized rates or prices lower than the international market. This decision is made at the discretion of individual member countries, often as part of national energy policies aimed at supporting domestic economies and industries. Nonetheless, these policies may vary from one member country to another depending on domestic priorities and economic strategies.

“There is no formal OPEC rule that requires domestic sales to match international prices, though it can be influenced by international agreements and market pressures.”

The Truth

The truth is that the President and Minister of Petroleum can sell our 445,000 barrels a day to Dangote at even N50,000/barrel after taking into consideration the cost of extraction and OPEC will not raise any eyebrow. Dangote can charge the cost of refining, add his profit and sell to NNPCL and IPMAN at, say, N300/litre. On their part the marketers will add their cost of transportation, storage, profit, etc., and sell it to Nigerians at N400/litre. And—boom—we all will be happy.

It is entirely the discretion of the President and his government. So whoever wants to sell our locally produced fuel by that simultaneous equation is on his own. There is no OPEC in the equation.

The Squeeze

Also, among those who would fight against Nigerians enjoying affordable fuel rates are the IMF, World Bank and the West generally. They want the government to squeeze us the more such that we can service our debts and collect more loans from the Shylock. The age long philosophy is: our poverty, their wealth; our pain, their joy.

Added to these are local liberal economists who believe in high taxation, claiming that the blood money will be used to develop our infrastructure, health, education, etc. It is just the same old bunkum selling since 1986 at the debut of Naira devaluation while our infrastructure, hospitals and schools continue to deteriorate in rebuttal of that thesis.

A Call

I call on the President to consider the low income status of our citizen. Only affordable fuel price will hold together our social fabric, ensure our prosperity and guarantee our security. It is zero subsidy because we are not buying it from anyone. It is our oil.

The President must keep in mind that the IMF and oil magnates are not his partners in 2027. He is on his own. They will be there to outlive him and work with the next President. Let this sink into his psyche. Tam!