By Emmanuel Owabor

There is no other family in the history of Africa in which there are five generations of graduates from Oxbridge-level universities.

From 1893 when Rev. Emmanuel Adelabi Kayode (Chief Femi Fani-Kayode’s great grandfather) graduated with honors with a Master of Arts degree in theology from Durham University, to 1922 when Justice Victor Adedapo Kayode (Chief Femi Fani-Kayode’s grandfather) graduated from Cambridge University with a law degree, to 1943 when Chief Remi Fani-Kayode (Chief Femi Fani-Kayode’s father) graduated from Cambridge University with a law degree, to 1984 when Chief Femi Fani-Kayode himself graduated from Cambridge University with a law degree, no family in Nigeria or indeed Africa and few in the world have had four generations of graduates from these elite institutions from such an early age.

The fifth generation of Oxbridge-level graduates was led by Chief Femi Fani-Kayode’s eldest daughter, Miss Folake Fani-Kayode, who graduated with a degree from Durham University in 2009 (like her great, great grandfather, Rev. Emmanuel Adelabi Kayode had done, 116 years earlier.

Since then numerous other children of Chief Femi Fani-Kayode have graduated from top British and western Universities.

This represents an extraordinary legacy of first class education from the best Universities the world for five uninterrupted generations.

No other Nigerian or African family has achieved this and very few even in the Western world.

Emmanuel Owabor is a Director of Content Service, a Public Policy Expert and a Public Affairs commentator of many years. He can be reached via owabor.e@gmail.com.

By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

“Effective leadership is not a singular attribute but a systemic outcome. It is forged by institutions stronger than individuals, upheld by accountability with enforceable consequences, and sustained by a society that demands integrity as the non-negotiable price of power. The path to renewal—from national to global—requires us to architect systems that make ethical and competent leadership not an exception, but an inevitable product of the structure itself” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

Introduction: Understanding the Leadership Deficit

Leadership deficiencies in the modern era represent a critical impediment to sustainable development, social cohesion, and global stability. These shortcomings—characterized by eroded public trust, systemic corruption, short-term policymaking, and a lack of inclusive vision—are not isolated failures but symptoms of deeper structural and ethical flaws within governance systems. Crafting effective solutions requires a clear-eyed, unbiased analysis that moves beyond regional stereotypes to address universal challenges while respecting specific contextual realities. This document presents a comprehensive, actionable framework designed to rebuild effective leadership at the national, continental, and global levels, adhering strictly to principles of meritocracy, accountability, and transparency.

I. Foundational Pillars for Systemic Reform

Any lasting solution must be built upon a bedrock of core principles. These pillars are universal prerequisites for ethical and effective governance.

1.      Institutional Integrity Over Personality: Systems must be stronger than individuals. Governance should rely on robust, transparent, and rules-based institutions that function predictably regardless of incumbents, thereby minimizing personal discretion and its attendant risks of abuse.

2.      Uncompromising Accountability with Enforceable Sanctions: Accountability cannot be theoretical. It requires independent oversight bodies with real investigative and prosecutorial powers, a judiciary insulated from political interference, and clear consequences for misconduct, including loss of position and legal prosecution.

3.      Meritocracy as the Primary Selection Criterion: Leadership selection must transition from patronage, nepotism, and identity politics to demonstrable competence, proven performance, and relevant expertise. This necessitates transparent recruitment and promotion processes based on objective criteria.

4.      Participatory and Deliberative Governance: Effective leaders leverage the collective intelligence of their populace. This demands institutionalized channels for continuous citizen engagement—beyond periodic elections—such as citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, and formal consultation processes with civil society.

II. Context-Specific Strategies and Interventions

A. For Nigeria: Catalyzing National Rebirth Through Institutional Reconstruction
Nigeria’s path requires a dual focus: dismantling obstructive legacies while constructing resilient, citizen-centric institutions.

·         Constitutional and Electoral Overhaul: Reform must address foundational structures. This includes a credible review of the federal system to optimize the balance of power, the introduction of enforceable campaign finance laws to limit monetized politics, and the implementation of fully electronic, transparent electoral processes with real-time result transmission audited by civil society. Strengthening the independence of key bodies like INEC, the judiciary, and anti-corruption agencies through sustainable funding and insulated appointments is non-negotiable.

·         Genuine Fiscal Federalism and Subnational Empowerment: The current over-centralization stifles innovation. Empowering states and local governments with greater fiscal autonomy and responsibility for service delivery would foster healthy competition, allow policy experimentation tailored to local contexts, and reduce the intense, often violent, competition for federal resources.

·         Holistic Security Sector Reform: Addressing insecurity requires more than hardware. A comprehensive strategy must include community-policing models, merit-based reform of promotion structures, significant investment in intelligence capabilities, and, crucially, parallel programs to address the root causes: youth unemployment, economic inequality, and environmental degradation.

·         Investing in the Civic Infrastructure: A functioning democracy requires an informed and engaged citizenry. This mandates a national, non-partisan civic education curriculum and robust support for a free, responsible, and financially sustainable press. Protecting journalists and whistleblowers is essential for maintaining transparency.

B. For Africa: Leveraging Continental Solidarity for Governance Enhancement
Africa’s prospects are tied to its ability to act collectively, using regional and continental frameworks to elevate governance standards.

·         Operationalizing the African Governance Architecture: The African Union’s mechanisms, particularly the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), must transition from voluntary review to a system with meaningful incentives and consequences. Compliance with APRM recommendations could be linked to preferential access to continental infrastructure funding or trade benefits under the AfCFTA.

·         The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) as a Governance Catalyst: Beyond economics, the AfCFTA can drive better governance. By creating powerful cross-border commercial interests, it builds domestic constituencies that demand policy predictability, dispute resolution mechanisms, and regulatory transparency—all hallmarks of sound leadership.

·         Pan-African Human Capital Development: Strategic investment in continental human capital is paramount. This includes expanding regional centers of excellence in STEM and public administration, fostering academic and professional mobility, and deliberately cultivating a new generation of technocrats and leaders through programs like the African Leadership University.

·         Consistent Application of Democratic Norms: Regional Economic Communities (RECs) must enforce their own democratic charters uniformly. This requires establishing clear, automatic protocols for responding to unconstitutional changes of government, including graduated sanctions, rather than ad-hoc diplomatic responses influenced by political alliances.

C. For the Global System: Rebuilding Equitable and Effective Multilateralism
Global leadership crises often stem from outdated international structures that lack legitimacy and enforceability.

·         Reforming Archaic Multilateral Institutions: The reform of the United Nations Security Council to reflect 21st-century geopolitical realities is essential for its legitimacy. Similarly, the governance structures of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank must be updated to give emerging economies a greater voice in decision-making.

·         Combating Transnational Corruption and Illicit Finance: Leadership deficiencies are often funded from abroad. A binding international legal framework is needed to enhance financial transparency, harmonize anti-money laundering laws, and expedite the repatriation of stolen assets. This requires wealthy nations to rigorously police their own financial centers and professional enablers.

·         Fostering Climate Justice and Leadership: Effective global climate action demands leadership rooted in equity. Developed nations must fulfill and be held accountable for commitments on climate finance, technology transfer, and adaptation support. Leadership here means honoring historical responsibilities.

·         Establishing Norms for the Digital Age: The technological frontier requires new governance. A global digital compact is needed to establish norms against cyber-attacks on civilian infrastructure, the use of surveillance for political repression, and the cross-border spread of algorithmic disinformation that undermines democratic processes.

III. Universal Enablers for Transformative Leadership

Certain interventions are universally applicable and critical for cultivating a new leadership ethos across all contexts.

·         Strategic Leadership Development Pipelines: Nations and institutions should invest in non-partisan, advanced leadership academies. These would equip promising individuals from diverse sectors with skills in ethical decision-making, complex systems management, strategic foresight, and collaborative governance, creating a reservoir of prepared talent.

·         Redefining Success Metrics: Moving beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the primary scorecard, governments should adopt and be assessed on holistic indices that measure human development, environmental sustainability, inequality gaps, and citizen satisfaction. International incentives, like preferential financing, could be aligned with performance on these multidimensional metrics.

·         Creating a Protective Ecosystem for Accountability: Robust, legally enforced protections for whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and anti-corruption officials are fundamental. This may include secure reporting channels, legal aid, and, where necessary, international relocation support for those under threat.

·         Harnessing Technology for Inclusive Governance: Digital tools should be leveraged to deepen democracy. This includes secure platforms for citizen feedback on legislation, open-data portals for public spending, and digital civic assemblies that allow for informed deliberation on key national issues, complementing representative institutions.

Conclusion: The Collective Imperative for Renewal

Addressing leadership deficiencies is not a passive exercise but an active, continuous project of societal commitment. It requires the deliberate construction of systems that incentivize integrity and penalize malfeasance. For Nigeria, it is the arduous task of rebuilding a social contract through impartial institutions. For Africa, it is the strategic use of collective action to elevate governance standards continent-wide. For the world, it is the courageous redesign of international systems to foster genuine cooperation and justice. Ultimately, the quality of leadership is a direct reflection of the standards a society upholds and enforces. By implementing this multilayered framework—demanding accountability, rewarding merit, and empowering citizens—a new paradigm of leadership can emerge, transforming it from a recurrent source of crisis into the most reliable engine for human progress and shared prosperity.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

By Abubakar D. Sani, Esq

INTRODUCTION

News of the decision of a British Tribunal in respect of a property situate in London, the UK’s capital, whose ownership was disputed has gained much publicity since it was delivered in the second week of September 2025. For legal reasons, the charges brought against prominent lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, based on same is the most that can be said of it as no arraignment was made before Hon. Justice Kekemeke of the High court of the FCT, Abuja, sitting in Maitama.

Accordingly, this intervention will be limited to interrogating the common, but false belief (even in legal circles), that the Tribunal somehow indicted him with conclusive ‘guilt’. I intend to argue that this belief is not correct; and that, on the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth. For the sake of context, therefore, it is necessary to refer to relevant portions of the decision of Judge Paton (the name of the Tribunal’s presiding officer), which completely exonerated Chief Ozekhome, but which his detractors have always conveniently suppressed.

WHAT DID THE TRIBUNAL SAY?

Not a few naysayers, smart-alecs, emergency analysts and self-appointed pundits have been quick to latch on to some passages in the judgement of the Tribunal which disagreed with Ozekhome’s testimony to justify their crucifixion of Chief Ozekhome – even without hearing his side of the story or his version of events. This is a pity, of course, especially for the supposedly learned senior lawyers among them who, by ignoring the age-old principle of fair hearing famously captured as audi alterem partem (hear the other side) have unwittingly betrayed patent bias, malice, malevolence and utter lack of bona fides as the major, if not exclusive, motivator of their view-points and opinions. I have particularly watched about five of such senior lawyers shop from one platform to another, with malicious analysis to achieve nothing, but reputational damage. They know themselves.

Before proceeding to those portions, it is important to acknowledge that the Tribunal conducted a review of the evidence placed before it. The proceedings afforded all parties the opportunity to present their respective cases. The learned Judge carefully evaluated the testimonies, documentary exhibits and surrounding circumstances and rendered a reasoned decision based on the materials before the Tribunal.

It is also not in doubt that the Tribunal made certain critical observations in the course of assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the plausibility of their explanations. Such evaluative comments are a normal and inevitable feature of judicial fact-finding, particularly in property tribunals in contested proceedings involving complex transactions and disputed narratives. They do not amount to indictment.

It is precisely the improper isolation and mischaracterization of some of these observations that have given rise to the present misconception that the Tribunal somehow pronounced a verdict of guilt on Chief Ozekhome. It is therefore necessary to place the relevant excerpts in their proper legal and factual context, so as to demonstrate how the self-same tribunal exonerated Ozekhome.

“Paragraph 98: Once one steps back from that material, and considers the Respondent’s own direct personal knowledge of relevant matters relating to this property, this only commences in 2019. That is, he confirmed, when he was first introduced to Mr. Tali Shani – he thought in about January of that year. He did not therefore know him in 1993, or at any time before January 2019. He could not therefore have any direct knowledge of the circumstances of the purchase of this property, or its management prior to 2019. He had, however, known the late General Useni for over 20 years prior to his death, as both his lawyer and friend.

“Paragraph 103: Such of the Respondent’s written evidence had been about the very recent management of the property, and in particular his dispute over its management (and collection of rents) with one Nicholas Ekhorutowen, who provided no evidence in this case. The Respondent confirmed in oral evidence that it was upon the execution of the powers of attorney that he came into possession of the various pre registration title and conveyancing documents which formed part of his disclosure. These had been handed over to him by the next witness who gave evidence, Mr. Akeem Johnson.

“Paragraph 168: Unlike the fictitious “Ms. Tali Shani”, a man going by the name of Mr. Tali Shani exists and gave evidence before me in that name. A certified copy of an official Nigerian passport was produced both to the Land Registry and this Tribunal, stating that Mr. Tali Shani was born on 2nd April 1973. I do not have the evidence, or any sufficient basis, to find that this document – unlike the various poor and pitiful forgeries on the side of the “Applicant” – is forged, and I do not do so.

“Paragraph 200: First, I find that General Useni, since he was in truth the sole legal and beneficial owner of this property (albeit registered in a false name), must in some way have been connected to this transfer, and to have directed it. He was clearly close to, and on good terms with, the Respondent. There is no question of this being some sort of attempt by the Respondent to steal the general’s property without his knowledge.

“Paragraph 201: As to precisely why General Useni chose to direct this transfer to the Respondent, I do not need to (and indeed cannot) make detailed findings. I consider that it is highly possible that it was in satisfaction of some debt or favour owed. The Respondent initially angrily denied the allegation (made in the various statements filed on behalf of the “Applicant”) that this was a form of repayment of a loan of 54 million Naira made during the general’s unsuccessful election campaign. In his oral evidence, both he and his son then appeared to accept that the general had owed the Respondent some money, but that it had been fully paid off. The general himself, when asked about this, said that he “did not know how much money he owed” the Respondent.

“Paragraph 202: I do not, however, need to find precisely whether (and if so, how much) money was owed. The transfer may have been made out of friendship and generosity, or in recognition of some other service or favour. The one finding I do make, however, is that it was the decision of General Useni to transfer the property to the Respondent.”

It must be emphasised that even where a court finds that a witness has given inconsistent, fluctuating, or implausible testimony, as some have latched on, such a finding does not, without more, translate into civil or criminal liability. At best, it affects the weight and credibility to be attached to such evidence. It does not constitute proof of fraud, conspiracy, or criminal intent. See MANU v. STATE (2025) LPELR-81120(CA) and IKENNE vs. THE STATE (2018) LPELR-446­95 (SC)

Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s engagement with the evidence, certain passages had been selectively extracted and sensationalised by critics. On the ipssisima verba (precise wordings) of the Tribunal, only the above paragraphs which are always suppressed clearly stand out in support of Chief Ozekhome’s case, as the others were more like opinions.

Some paragraphs in the judgement in particular, appear to have been carefully selected as “weapons” in Chief Ozekhome’s enemies’ armoury, as they are most bandied about in the public space. The assumption appears to be that such findings are conclusive of his guilt in a civil property dispute. This is unfortunate, as the presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our adversarial criminal jurisprudence. It is a fundamental right guaranteed under section 36 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter which, regrettably, appear to have been more observed in the breach in his case.

More fundamentally, the selective reliance on few passages that disagreed with his evidence or testimony and that of Mr. Tali Shani, ignore the above wider and more decisive findings of the Tribunal itself. A holistic reading of the judgment reveals that the Tribunal was far more concerned with exposing an elaborate scheme of impersonation, forgery, and deception orchestrated in the name of a fictitious Applicant, Ms Tali Shani, and not Mr. Tali Shani (Ozekhome’s witness), who is a living human being. These findings, which have been largely ignored in public discourse, demonstrate that the gravamen of the Tribunal’s decision lay not in any indictment of Chief Ozekhome, but in the collapse of a fraudulent claim against him, which was founded on false identity and fabricated documents.

The Tribunal carefully distinguished a fake “Ms” Tali Shani (the Applicant), who said she was General Useni’s mistress and owner of the property, and the real owner, Mr Tali Shani, who was Chief Ozekhome’s witness before the Tribunal. It was the Tribunal’s finding that she was nothing but a phantom creation and therefore rejected her false claim to the property (par. 123). It also rejected the evidence of her so called cousin (Anakwe Obasi) and purported son (Ayodele Obasi) (par. 124).

The Tribunal further found that it was the Applicant and her cohorts that engaged in diverse fraud with documents such as a fraudulent witness statement purportedly from General Useni; all alleged identity documents; fabricated medical correspondence; the statement of case and witness statements; a fake death certificate; and a purported burial notice. (Paragraph 125). Why are these people not concerned with Barrister Mohammed Edewor, Nicholas Ekhoromtomwen, Ayodele Damola, and Anakwe Obasi? Why mob-lynching Chief Ozekhome?

The Tribunal found that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. It therefore struck out the Applicant’s claim (Paragraphs 130–165). The Tribunal significantly found that Mr Tali Shani exists as a human being and had testified before it in June, 2024. It accepted a certified Nigerian passport he produced, and accepted its authenticity and validity (Paragraph 168). Can any objective person hold that Ozekhome forged any passport as widely reported by his haters when the maker exists?

Having examined the factual findings of the Tribunal and their proper context, the next critical issue is the legal status and probative value of such findings. The central question, therefore, is whether the observations and conclusions of a foreign tribunal, made in the course of civil proceedings, are sufficient in law to establish civil or criminal liability against a person in subsequent proceedings.

STATUS OF JUDGEMENTS UNDER THE LAW

The relevant statutory provisions in Nigeria are sections 59, 60, 61, 173 and 174 of the Evidence Act 2011, provide as follows, respectively:

Section 59: “The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognisance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact, evidence of which is admissible when the question is whether such court ought to take cognisance of such suit or to hold such trial”;
Section 60(I): “A final judgment, order or decree of a competent court, in the exercise of probate. Matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character. or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is admissible when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such legal persons to an) such thing, is relevant (2) Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof (a)that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; (b) that any legal character. to which it declares any such person to be entitled. accrued to that person at the time when such judgment order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; (c) that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and (d) that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment. order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property”;

Section 61: “Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 60 are admissible if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state”

Section 173: “Every judgment is conclusive proof, as against parties and privies. of facts directly in issue in the case, actually decided by the court. and appearing from the judgment itself to be the ground on which it was based; unless evidence was admitted in the action in which the judgment was delivered which is excluded in the action in which that judgment is intended to be proved”.;

Section 174(1): “If a judgment is not pleaded by way of estoppel it is as between parties and privies deemed to be a relevant fact, whenever any matter, which was or might have been decided in the action in which it was given, is in issue, or is deemed to be relevant to the issue in any subsequent proceeding”;

(2):”Such judgment is conclusive proof of the facts which it decides, or might have decided, if the party who gives evidence of it had no opportunity of pleading it as an estoppel”.
It can be seen that the decision of the Tribunal falls under the purview of section 61 of the Evidence Act, as the provisions of sections 59 and 60 and of sections 173 and 174 thereof, are clearly inapplicable to it. In other words, even though some Judge Paton’s findings in respect of Chief Ozekhome’s testimony at the Tribunal relate to matters of public nature (i.e., the provenance and status of No. 79 Randall Avenue, Neasden, London, U.K and the validity of his application for its transfer to him) none of those comments or even findings is in any way conclusive of whatever they may assert or state (to use the language of section 60 of the Evidence Act).

In this regard, see the case of DIKE V NZEKA (1986) 4 NWLR pt.34 pg. 144 @ 159 where the Supreme Court construed similar provisions in section 51 of the old Evidence Act, 1948. I agree with Tar Hon, SAN (S. T. Hon’s Law of Evidence in Nigeria, 3rd edition, page 1041) that the phrase ‘public nature’ in the provision is satisfied where the judgement is clearly one in rem as opposed to in personam. It is pertinent to say a few words about both concepts, as they differ widely in terms of scope. The former determines the legal status of property, a person, a particular subject matter, or object, against the whole world, and is binding on all persons, whether they were parties to the suit or not. See OGBORU V IBORI (2005) 13 NWLR pt. 942 pg. 319 @407-408 per I. T. Muhammed, JCA (as he then was).

This was amplified by the apex court in OGBORU V UDUAGHAN (2012) LLJR -SC, where it held, per Adekeye, JSC that: “A judgment in rem maybe defined as the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a person or thing as distinct from the particular interest of a party to the litigation. Apart from the application of the term to persons, it must affect the “res” in the way of condemnation forfeiture, declaration, status or title”.

By contrast, “Judgments ‘in personam’ or ‘inter partes’, as the name suggests, are those which determine the rights of parties as between one another to or in the subject matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind whatever or a liquidated or unliquidated demand but which do not affect the status of either things or persons or make any disposition of property or declare or determine any interest in it except as between the parties (to the litigation). See HOYSTEAD V TAXATION COMMISSIONERS (1926) A. C. 155. These include all judgments which are not judgments in rem. None of such judgments at all affects any interest which third parties may have in the subject matter. As judgment inter partes, though binding between the parties and their privies, they do not affect the rights of third parties. See CASTRIQUE V IMRIE 141 E. R. 1062; (1870) L. R. 4H. L. 414”.

Suffice it to say that the decision of the London Property Tribunal was, in substance, one affecting proprietary rights in rem, in the sense that it determined the status and registrability of the property in dispute. However, it did not determine any civil or criminal liability, nor did it pronounce on the personal culpability of any party. The implication of this is that, even though the decision was in respect of a matter of a public nature, it was, nonetheless, not conclusive as far as proof of the status of the property, or – more importantly – Chief Ozekhome’s role in relation to it. Indeed, the property involved was not held to have been traced to the owner (General Useni) as having ever tried or convicted for owning same. I submit that the foregoing is the best case scenario in terms of the value of Judge Paton’s said decision, because under section 62 of the Evidence Act, (depending, of course, on its construction), it will fare even worse, as it provides that judgments “other than those mentioned in sections 59. 60 and 61 are inadmissible unless the judgment, etc is a fact in issue or is admissible under some other provision of this or any other Act”.

CONCLUSION

Some people’s usual proclivity to rush to judgment and condemn unheard any person (especially a high profile figure like Chief Ozekhome), has exposed him to the worst kind of unfair pedestrian analysis, malice, mud-slinging and outright name-calling especially by those who, by virtue of their training, ought to know better, and, therefore, be more circumspect, restrained and guarded in their utterances. This is all the more so because, no court of competent jurisdiction has tried or pronounced him guilty. It is quite unfortunate how some select lawyers are baying for his blood.

The decision of the London Tribunal remains what it is: a civil determination on attempted transfer of a property based on the evidence before it. It is not, and cannot be, a substitute for civil or criminal adjudication by a competent court. The presumption of innocence under Nigerian laws remains inviolable. Any attempt by commentators to usurp that judicial function through premature verdicts is not only improper, but inimical to the fair administration of justice.