Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: The NASS: Manual or Electronic Rigging? (PT. 1)

Published

on

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

The National Assembly was thrust into chaos during the consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill on the 15th day of July, 2021. Both Houses of the National Assembly were presented with the duty of reviewing the Electoral Act of 2010 by the advent of the Electoral Amendment Bill. While the House of Representatives were unable to pass the Electoral Act Amendment Bill because of major contentious issues that emanated during the debate, the Senate, however, successfully passed the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (“the Bill”). While this amendment should have been an upgrade to the Electoral Act, 2010, the reverse seems to be the case. The Bill dragged Nigeria back into the past, when its Clause 52(3) stripped the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of the exclusive powers to conduct voting electronically.

The Senate’s ruling was divided between members of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and those of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on the practicability or otherwise of transmitting election results electronically. The debate on this sole issue rendered other provisions in the Bill less prominent, as it became the centre of attention. While all the supporters for Clause 52(3) of the Bill were members of the APC, members of the PDP expressed their reservations and voted otherwise. It is brow-raising that significant Bills and Laws passed in Nigeria seem to be debated more on a party-basis, rather than on the basis of merits. The decision of the Senate has received nationwide scrutiny for its unconstitutionality and as a Constitutional Lawyer who always seeks to contribute to Nigeria’s development, I cannot sit and watch from the side-lines as a spectator. It is on this basis that I offer my humble analysis of the Senate’s decision.

THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

The 1999 Constitution establishes INEC as a federal executive body tasked with regulating elections into different political offices in Nigeria. The Constitution broadly defines the scope of the Commission’s powers, functions and responsibilities, and provides for the appointment of the Chairman and other members of the Commission by the President, subject to the Senate’s confirmation. The functions of INEC include organising and supervising all elections to political offices; registering and monitoring the operation of political parties in accordance with the provision of the 1999 Constitution and Acts of National Assembly; conducting voter and civic education; promoting knowledge of sound democratic election processes; etc.

Notwithstanding the appointment of the Chairman and other members of the Commission by the President (Executive) subject to confirmation by the Senate (Legislature), INEC is an independent body. The word “independent” is forged into INEC’s name to emphasise the importance of its independence when carrying out its functions. Moreover, its mission statement reads, “to serve as an INDEPENDENT and effective EMB committed to the conduct of free, fair and credible elections for sustainable democracy in Nigeria” (underline supplied for emphasis). INEC is therefore empowered to carry out all its functions independently, free from external control and influence. Both the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2010, provide that INEC is the regulatory body in charge of operating the electoral system of voting in Nigeria.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF VOTING

The electoral system or voting system in Nigeria is a set of rules that determine how elections are conducted and how their results are determined; when elections occur; who is allowed to vote; who can stand as a candidate; how ballots are marked and cast; how they are counted; how they translate the election outcome; and other factors that can affect the result. The duty to operate Nigeria’s electoral system has been bestowed on INEC by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Section 78 of the 1999 Constitution provides, in clear and unambiguous words, thus:

“The registration of voters and the conduct of elections shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

ELETRONIC VOTING

Electronic voting (also known as e-voting) is voting that utilises electronic means in aiding the casting and counting of votes. It encompasses a range of internet services, from basic transmission of tabulated results to full-function online voting through common connectable household devices. E-voting may be limited to simple tasks such as marking a paper ballot, or comprehensive enough to include vote input, vote recording, data encryption and transmission to servers, and consolidation and tabulation of election results.

E-voting can be done either physically (through electronic voting machines located at polling stations which can be supervised by representatives of governmental or independent electoral authorities) or through remote means (such as the internet, where the voter submits his or her vote electronically to the election authorities, from any location. A functional e-voting system must perform most of these tasks while complying with a set of standards established by regulatory bodies, and must also be capable to deal successfully with strong requirements associated with accuracy, privacy, security, integrity, swiftness, auditability, accessibility and effectiveness. This regulatory body is provided by section 78 of the 1999 Constitution to be INEC.

TYPES OF ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS AND COUNTRIES THAT HAVE UTILISED THEM

Paper-based voting systems

Electronic voting systems for electorates have been in use since the 1960s, when the United States of America (USA) made use of punched card systems in its 1964 presidential election. Since then, different types of electronic systems have been utilised during elections. Paper-based voting systems originated as a system where votes are cast and counted by hand. But, electronic tabulation gave rise to systems paper cards or sheets could be marked by hand, but counted electronically. These systems include ballot marking devices, digital pen voting systems and punched card voting. The Johnson County of Iowa, USA, made use of these systems in 2010.

Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting system

A DRE voting machine records votes, processes data with computer software, and records voting data and ballot images. After the election, it produces a tabulation of the voting data stored in a removable memory component and as a printed copy. The system helps to transmit individual ballots and vote totals to a central location for consolidating and reporting results from polling units. This system was greatly used by the USA in 2004, where over 28.9% of its registered voters made use of the DRE voting system. In 2004, India adopted the DRE voting system in the form of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) to conduct elections to its parliament with 380 million voters casting their ballots using more than one million voting machines. DRE voting machines continue to be used in all elections in Brazil and India, and also on a large scale in Venezuela and the USA. It was however decommissioned in Netherlands after public concerns were raised.

Internet voting system

Internet voting can use remote locations (voting from any internet capable computer) or can use traditional polling locations with voting booths equipped with such internet capable computers. Internet voting systems have been used privately in many modern nations and publicly in the USA, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain and Estonia. In Switzerland, voters get their passwords to access the ballot through the postal service. Several voters in Estonia cast their vote via the Internet, as most of those on the electoral roll have access to an e-voting system.

Online voting system

Online voting is majorly used by the Japanese private sector, with smartphones being the mainstream used for online voting. This system of voting is also utilised in Australia, Estonia, Switzerland, Russia and the United States. The introduction of online voting in municipal elections in the Ontario, Canada, resulted in an average increase in turnout of around 3.5 percentage points, as it helped to induce some occasional voters to participate who would have abstained if online voting was not available. In the 2017 Estonian local elections, the internet voting system proved to be most cost-efficient system introduced compared to other voting systems.

Electronic Ballots

Electronic voting systems may use electronic ballot to store votes in computer memory. This voting system dissolves the risk of inadequate ballot papers and also removes the need for printing paper ballots, which are usually at a significant cost. The electronic ballots can be programmed to provide ballots in multiple languages for a single machine. This advantage with respect to different languages is unique to electronic voting. This was used in King County, Washington where the electronic ballot provided access to Chinese in the US Federal election. This is obviously useful in a diverse multi-ethnic country like Nigeria who boasts of over 374 ethnic groups eith different languages (according to Professor Onigu Otite). This would better inform voters (who are not well versed in English language) and encourage them to participate in the election process.

BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC VOTING

Electronic voting technology helps to speed the counting of votes, reduce the labour costs of workers who manually count votes and provides improved accessibility for voters. Ultimately, it helps to decrease expenses used in conducting elections. Results are reported and published faster. Voters save time and cost by being able to vote independently from their location, with no form of duress, panic voting or forced voting, which will likely overall voter turnout.

It is also more secure than ballot/physical voting. Here, cases of election malpractice often experienced in elections conducted in Nigeria – such as ballot boxes snatching and burning, shortage of ballot papers, over-crowding in polling units (especially in a time where Covid-19 is ravaging), disruption and discontinuation of voting by street thugs and even security agencies, having one person thumbprint on multiple ballot papers – will be significantly limited and ultimately avoided.

CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING

Critics of electronic voting argue that humans are not equipped to verify operations occurring with an electronic machine and therefore, the operations cannot be trusted. Cases have been recorded of machines making unpredictable, inconsistent errors. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the collated and tabulated results are authentic and accurate. This is further worsened by the fact that commercial voting machines results may be changed by the company providing the machine or any skilled hacker.

There is also the issue of cost. While e-voting may decrease expenses in the long run, it is very expensive to introduce. The installation of electronic voting systems are very high; so high that many governments do not invest in it. Many also critic electronic voting to be unnecessary believing that it is not a long-term solution. Afterall, it retains many problems associated with physical ballot voting.

Moreover, electronic voting is usually practicable in countries with technological growth and development. Countries with low technological advancement and low network/internet coverage will face issues with e-voting. People without internet access and/or the skills to make use of such e-voting means will be totally excluded from the voting process, which is a breach of their right to vote. It is this concern that electronic voting and transmission of votes would disenfranchise some Nigerians in areas with poor or no network coverage, that led members of the APC to recommend that for electronic transmission of results to be allowed during election, the national network coverage across Nigeria must be adjudged to be adequate by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and approved by the National Assembly.

THE SENATE’S RULING ON ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS

The Senate passed the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2021, after a clause-by-clause consideration of the report of the Committee on INEC. The Committee on INEC had reported that “INEC may transmit results of elections by electronic means where and when practicable”. Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi (APC, Niger) proposed an amendment to this recommendation on the basis that electronic transmission of results would disenfranchise some Nigerians in areas with poor or no network coverage. Senator Albert Bassey Akpan (PDP, Akwa Ibom) contended this proposal via a motion, which was unsuccessful after a voice vote. The approval of Senator Sabi’s amendment by Senate President, Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan, was met with chaos and uncomplimentary verbal exchanges amongst Senators.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe of PDP, Abia, then cited Order 73, calling for division and allowing Senators to contest the ruling of the Senate President. The Senators took turns to vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sabi and at the end, 52 Senators voted for Sabi’s amendment while 28 voted against it. All 52 Senators who voted for the amendment were from the APC ruling party, while the 28 who voted against were of PDP. There is no other parliamentary or legislative decision taken elsewhere in the world, where the divide is based solely on a political basis, rather than a merit basis.

Consequent upon the conclusion of the open voting, he Senate President thus approved the amendment which provided for electronic transmission of results during elections, but with a caveat that, “the national network coverage is adjudged to be adequate and secured by Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and approved by the National Assembly”.

To be continued…

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Onnoghen, Free at Last

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

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

Published

on

By

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

Continue Reading

Opinion

Mr. President: Affordable Fuel is Possible at Zero Subsidy

Published

on

By

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!

Continue Reading

Trending