Opinion

The Oracle: Critiquing Judges and Judgments: The Dividing Line (Pt. 3)

Published

2 years ago

April 14, 2023

Eric

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

In the last part of this intervention, we dealt with the following sub-topics: Self-Criticism by the Supreme Court; Legal and Contextual Frameworks (how Judges are gagged by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers; Laws prohibiting attacks on Judges and Appraising Relevant Laws and the Code of Conduct. In this part, we shall explore the following themes: Foreign Positions on Critiquing Judges focusing on the Unites States of America. Please read on.

FOREIGN POSITIONS ON CRITQUING JUDGES

POSITION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Going further afield, in the United States, (one of the oldest and largest democracies in the world), the situation is not much different from the above. Judgments and even judges do come under constant attack. I do not however subscribe to this. George W. Alger, writing over a century ago (in 1911) opined that “There exists today, no doubt a wholesome public opinion which protects our courts generally from the vilification and coarse libeling to which our legislative and executive officers are constantly exposed. To a certain extent, partisan platforms which protest against attacks upon the courts are healthy expressions of this public opinion. It is an encouraging feature of our democracy that at least in our attitude toward the courts, we have by general consent, decided to be civil. It is an attitude which today protects our courts from that criticism, unlimited either as to form or substance, which relentlessly pursues prominent members of co-ordinate branches of our government. It is a comparatively modern development of democracy”.

“This traditional American attitude to Judges and judgments appear to have shifted, to the extent, that over a century later, precisely in 2018, the Brennan Center for Justice, reacting to former President Trump’s criticism of Federal Judges, posited that: “Judicial rulings are criticized all the time and by all manner of people… indeed, past presidents have regularly complained about the court. This is as it should be. Judges aren’t immune from printed criticism. Like it or not, they are part of our political system. Their decisions can impact everything from how we fight terrorism to whom has the right to marry. Federal Judges in particular, have tremendous power – which they get to keep for life. That remarkable level of authority does not come with the right to never have one’s sensibilities offended by disparaging remarks”. The Centre then posted the question and answer: “ But, where, exactly, should we draw the line on criticism of the courts? Historical practice and some reflection about the role of courts in our constitutional system suggest several considerations. First, while it is quite common for officials to complain about an adverse ruling in the modern ara, it has never been considered appropriate to defy the ruling- or otherwise seek to undermine the court’s authority… Second, there is a difference between criticizing a ruling and personally attacking the Judge… of course. “Judges do sometimes behave illegally or unethically, in which case, personal criticism is fair, provided it has some actual basis. Other Judges have an off-bench habit of wading into political or other public debates… under these circumstances,(such Judges) open (themselves) up to return fire… Regardless, it is one thing to respond to a Judges political criticism and quite another to repeatedly question the personal integrity of Judges based solely on disagreement with their rulings. “There is also a difference between expressing disagreement after the fact and trying to pressure a judge to influence future decisions… more serious bullying- such a threatening impeachment for unpopular rulings – is clearing over the line. Third, it also matters who the Judge is U.S. Supreme Court Justices are at the top of the Federal judiciary, set binding precedents for the nation and are some of the most powerful people in the country. In contrast, trial Judges are closer to private citizens and lack the power, prominence and security details of members of the High Court. “They are less likely to experience an errant tweet as far more threatening than would a member of the Supreme Court. Finally, not all critics are the same. The President has a unique platform and with that comes unique responsibility. Personal attacks by the President can pose real safety risks, while even careless statements that suggest a court’s ruling should not be respected can do great harm to our system of government.” The message of the Brennan Center is clear: Go after the message; not the messenger. To drive this point home, Rule 30 and 31(1&2) provide that “a lawyer is an officer of the court; accordingly, he shall not do any act or conduct himself in any manner that may obstruct, delay or adversely affect the administration of justice”; “a lawyer shall always treat the court with respect, dignity and honour”; and also that “where the lawyer has a proper ground for complaint against a judicial officer, he shall make his complaint to the appropriate authorities.”
This is the way to go- a lawyer should make his “complaint to the appropriate authorities”. These authorities, it is respectfully submitted, refer to appealing such judgements to higher courts; asking for revision of such judgements as permitted by law; or channeling such complaints to an appropriate body such as the NJC. They do not include- and I emphasise this- personal media attacks on the very Judges that delivered the judgements. Such a step is ignoble, contemptible and dishonourable, especially considering the fact that such Judges are not in a position to reply, or defend themselves. Such must be avoided.

George Alger (“Criticising the Courts”), opines that in the U.S: “There exists today, a wholesome public opinion which protects our courts generally from vilification and coarse libeling to which our legislative and executive officers are constantly exposed. To a certain extend; party platforms which protest against attacks upon the courts are health expressions of this public opinion. It is an encouraging feature of our democracy that at least in our attitude towards the courts, we have, by general consent, decided to be civil. It is an attitude which today protects our courts from that criticism, unlimited either as to form a substance, which relentlessly pursues prominent members of coordinate branches of our government. It is a comparatively modern development of democracy. “The distinction made between the courts and other executive and legislative officers as to the form of criticism applicable to them did not exist at the time our government was founded, nor in the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of the Supreme Court. It was recognised neither by the public, nor by the great statesmen of the past” (Underline supplied for emphasis).

HOW JUDGES HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO VIRULENT CRITICISMS

It has been common place for Judges to be subjected to virulent and intemperate criticisms for doing their work. Teddy Roosevelt once said of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “I couldn’t carve out of a banana a Judge with more backbone than that”. Apparently, trying to pressure the Supreme Courts to influence a future decision, President Barrack Obama once raised Sime eyebrows when he weighed in concerning the Affordable Care Act litigation while it was still pending before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice of the US, John Roberts, in an appearance at a judicial conference in Colorado, could not understand why the public has turned against the US apex court. Hear him:“So obviously people can say what they want, and they are certainly free to criticise the Supreme Court and if they want to say that it’s legitimacy is in question, they are free to do so…. but I don’t understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the court.” It appears that unknown to Justice Roberts, the people are not questioning the court’s legitimacy simply because they disagree with opinions of the Supreme Court, but because they are worried that the Justices have broken from their usual adherence to precedent, offered dubious rationales and voted in what appears to be partisan lockstep. Polls had thus shown increased political polarisation in responses to the Supreme Court.

The most consequential rulings by the Republican-appointed majority favour longstanding GOP priorities. For example, on 24th June, 2020, the US Supreme Court overturned the 50 year old decision in Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). This created earth-quaking societal changes throughout America. The landmark decision dismantled 50 years of legal protection for abortion as a federal right and paved way for individual states to curtail or ban outright abortion rights. This judgement was made possible only because of the addition, in 2020, of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third appointee of former GOP President, Donald Trump. Trump had vowed to name only Supreme Justices who would reverse the 1973 precedent anchored on the Fourteenth Amendment, to the effect that a person may choose to have an abortion until a foetus becomes viable. This was based on the individual’s right to privacy. Roberta had dissented from the opinion overturning Roe; although he voted with the conservative majority to uphold the disputed Mississippi ban on abortions just after only 15 weeks. Roberts critiqued that the June decision amounted to “a serious jolt to the legal system”.

The Justices who dissented from Roe v Wade have since appeared at some events and criticised the decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation (No 19; decided on 24th June, 2022) 597 US (2022). At a 9th US Circuit Judicial conference in Big Sky, Montana, (broadcast on C-SPAN), liberal Justice Elena Kagan implicitly criticised the Dobbs decision. She observed that the court loses public trust when it discards precedent. She maintained that the court cannot presume that people will hold it in high regard; but rather, that a court must earn and retain its legitimacy “by acting like a court; by doing the kinds of things that do not seek to people as political or partisan.” She then warned, “if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy.”Justice Kagan also; at a live-streamed appearance, from the Temple Emanu-El Streicker Center in New York, struck a similar note, when she said: I think Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves- undermine their legitimacy- when they don’t act so much like courts and when they don’t do things that recognisably law and when they instead stray into places where it looks like they are an extension of the political process or where they are imposing their own personal preferences”.

Chief Justice Roberts, a 2005 appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, has since been busy trenchantly sending off public disaffection and defending the court’ a legitimacy and the entire Judiciary’s integrity. That was why in November 2018, in response to Trump’s denigration of a Judge as an “Obama Judge”, Justice Roberts fired back, “We do not have Obama Judges or Trump Judges, Bush Judges or Clinton Judges.” (To be continued).

FUNTIMES

“My mind don begin tell me say na INEC mark my WAEC, becos no be wetin I write I finally get”. –Anonymous.

THOUGHT FOR WEEK

“Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man’s growth without destroying his roots”. (Frank A. Clark).

Opinion

Onnoghen, Free at Last

Published

4 days 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

1 month 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

1 month 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!