Opinion
The Oracle: Critiquing Judges and Judgments: The Dividing Line (Pt. 5)

By Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
In the last outing, we discussed instances in which lawyers have been sanctioned in the United States for crossing the ethical line in criticism of judges. Today, we shall conclude it and, move on to the situation in the largest democracy in the world – India – with emphasis on contempt of court (what it is and what it is not, in that jurisdiction), concluding with fair criticism as a shield or subterfuge to attack the judiciary. Kindly, read on.
CASES IN WHICH LAWYERS HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED (continues)
In re Bank, 20-90010-am (2nd Cir., May 3, 2021), the court publicly reprimanded an Attorney whose conduct included responding to an appellate Judge’s questions during oral argument, by stating, “Are you serious, Judge?” He had also sarcastically commented, “I see that you read the briefs thoroughly”. The court rejected as unsupported and irrelevant, the lawyer’s defence that his contumacious comments were triggered by the Judges’ poor treatment of him.More serious and more likely to end in discipline are situations where lawyers directly accuse Judges of corruption, or politically motivated behavior. See, e.g., Matter of Dinhofer, 257 A.D.2d 326, 328 (N.Y. 1st Dept 1999) (three-month suspension was slammed on a lawyer for calling a Federal Judge “corrupt” during a telephone conference).
POSITION IN INDIA
Moving on to India, Vanya Verma writes that “while the Constitution of india recognizes the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2) states that laws can put reasonable restrictions on this right for a variety of reasons, including “in relation to contempt of court”. He then references another scholar (Sathe, 2001), as outlining “the historical inter-relationship between contempt of court and free expression” as follows:”since the early 1970s when the Supreme court found Keralas’ then Chief Minister, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, guilty of contempt of court for his critical comments on the judiciary as an institution, acrimony has existed between the Judiciary’s power to punish for contempt of court and citizen’s fundamental rights, freedom of speech and expression, the court has subjugated the most crucial of the fundamental rights- freedom of speech- to the Judiciary’s power to penalize for contempt of court. The freedom of speech had been trivialized by a broad contour of contempt of court. As a result, he advised, “Freedom of expression is the most fundamental of the fundamental rights, and constraints on it must be kept to a minimum”. Only the restrictions necessary to maintain the legitimacy of judicial institutions can be imposed under the legislation of contempt of court. The Judges are not required to be protected by the law. Only the Judiciary must be protected. A contempt notice issued without due diligence could put those in positions of public trust in jeopardy. The rule must be freedom, and the exception must be a constraint”
Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, every person (including municipal councilors) has the right to free speech and expression, which includes reasonable criticism of the law or any executive action. In India, freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed both in the legislature and in local bodies. This is why a lawmaker or a municipal councilor can legitimately voice out his opinions on what he considers to be in the public good. A reasonable exercise of one’s right to free speech and expression, which includes fair criticism, is not to be suppressed for any reason.
Indeed, Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides that a person is not punishable for contempt of court if he or she publishes a reasonable comment on the merits of a matter that has been heard and determined; or if a person publishes a fair comment on the merits of a matter that has already been heard and determined.
WHAT IS CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt is the power of the Court to safeguard its majesty and respect, as stated by Smita Chakraburtty (2017). This power is inherent, and it is recognised in the High Court’s and Supreme Court’s Constitutions. The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 regulates but does not limit this power.Both civil and criminal contempt is defined under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act. Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience to any court judgement, whereas criminal contempt can be invoked if an act tends to scandalise or lower the authority of the court or tends to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice.The effect on the judicial process and the authority of the courts are used to determine whether conduct is contemptuous. According to S P Sathe (1970), the intent of the accused in a contempt action is irrelevant. What matters is the impact of his act or the likelihood of it having an impact on the administration of justice. Any conduct that undermines the administration of justice, or otherwise interferes with or tends to corrupt it, must be avoided.
P Chandrasekhar (2002) went on to say that actual scandalization or lowering of the court’s authority is not required. It suffices if it has the potential to cause controversy or undermine the court’s authority.The Supreme Court of India has insisted that reasonable criticism of decisions is always permitted and that defaming a Judge is distinct from contempt of court. That was so held held in the case of Brahma Prakash Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh LAWS(SC)-1953-5-18Under to Section 5 of the Act, “fair criticism” or “fair comment” on the merits of a final decision does not constitute contempt. The judgement of what is “fair” is, however, left to the Judges’ decision.Before 2006, even the truth could not be used as a defence in a contempt case. According to Rahul Donde (2007), “truth has been included as a defence with the enactment of the Amendment Act of 2006, but with the restriction that it can be used as a defence only if it is in the “public interest.” The Judge has complete discretion over what constitutes public interest. The truth cannot be used as a defence unless the supposedly contemptuous behaviour was both genuine and in the public interest.
CRITICISM OF A COURT: WHEN IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT
Vanya Verna opines that it is the duty and obligation of lawyers to criticise the courts. He sees this as one of their most essential societal responsibilities. He insists that informed criticism of the courts and their rulings, is not only a right, but also an ethical obligation put on every member of the Bar.He lists two methods to criticise the Supreme Court in general. They are as follows:
Firstly, critic can present some fundamental principles and argue that the pattern of decisions or a particular decision is inconsistent with these principles. For example, he might argue that constitutional decisions should be based entirely on the document’s terms and the framers’ intent; that the Court should make decisions based on prevalent opinions about core values, or that antitrust rules should be read to promote allocative efficiency. Decisions that are contradictory to these initial principles may be labelled as incorrect or misguided by the critic. The critics who use this strategy base their arguments on documents, proceedings, and norms that are not related to the court.
Secondly, a critic can critique the court’s performance as an institution. This is the subject of the second type of criticism.He argues that the critic can argue that the court is too frequently divided; that it fails to sufficiently explain its rulings; or that it makes decisions that contradict one another. In other words, he could claim that the court is divided or that precedent is ignored. The duty on the part of lawyers is to identify and discuss incorrect actions by the courts, subject only to the condition that the criticism is motivated by a good-faith desire to improve the law and the legal system. Malicious or false statements about a Judge, or disruptive or contemptuous conduct in the courtroom, of course, cannot be tolerated.
FAIR CRITICISM AS A SHIELD TO CRITICIZE THE JUDICIARY
Fair criticism of the position stated in a judicial pronouncement, or even other types of judicial activity, is consistent with the public interest and public welfare that Judges are sworn to serve and uphold in such circumstances. As a result, awareness among Judges that they can or have erred in their judgements would provide much-needed fuel to the judicial system. Verna believes that another perspective, a new dimension, or insight must always be welcomed; and that a realization that would enhance the majesty of the rule of law will only be possible if the doors of self-assessment, in the light of the opinions of others, are kept open by Judges.
This is why in the case of Lalit Kalita and others v. Unknown, decided on 4th march 2008, it was held that the Judiciary is not overly sensitive to criticism. Indeed genuine criticism may be welcomed because it allows for self-reflection. After all, Judges are not infallible because they are people, and they frequently make mistakes unintentionally and as a result of their preconceptions. Thus, to Krishna Iyer, J. in Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, (1973) “if judges decay, the contempt authority would not save them”.
In the case of Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978), the court held that fair and reasonable criticism of a judgement that is a public document or a public act of a judge involved in the administration of justice is not considered contempt. It held that such reasonable and honest criticism should be encouraged because no one, including Judges, can claim infallibility. It held further that such criticism could reasonably claim that the judgement was erroneous; or that an error was made, both in terms of law and known facts.
However, alleging that the Judge had a predisposition to convict, or purposefully took a turn in the discussion of evidence, because he had already made up his mind to convict the accused; or has a wayward bent of mind; attributing motives; a lack of dispassionate and objective approach and analysis; and pre-judging of the issues. All these would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. A criticism must be measured by the criterion of whether it ridicules the administration of justice; or hinders it. For example, allegations of bias, predisposition, subtle prejudice, and prejudging the issues and that an investigation into the conduct of the judge will be conducted who delivered the judgment as he is to retire within a month; and a wild allegation that Judiciary has no guts, no honesty and is not powerful enough to punish wealthy people, all could bring the administration of justice into ridicule and disrepute. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR WEEK
“I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses”. (Johannes Kepler).
Opinion
President Trump’s Transformation of the Democratic System

By Magnus Onyibe
President Donald J. Trump is actively reshaping the global political landscape, navigating the tension between globalization and fragmentation to establish a new order in the United States and, by extension, the world.
Before delving further into this discussion, I must disclose that I am an unapologetic supporter of the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. My support stems from my belief that he is undeniably a catalyst for change.
Many, including Democratic presidential candidates in the 2024 elections,ex president Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have accused Trump of seeking to dismantle democracy. However, a more accurate assessment is that he is challenging the status quo in Washington through radical policy shifts. While Democrats frame his actions as a threat to democracy, I see this as a misleading narrative,because changing the dynamics of democracy does not equate killing it.
Despite the alarm raised by his opponents, American voters prioritized economic concerns—rising inflation, the high cost of living, soaring housing prices, and the influx of undocumented immigrants—over the warnings about imminent death of democracy. It was these pressing issues that motivated voters to support Trump’s return to the White House.
The more than 77 million Americans who voted for him did so because they believe he was on a mission to address what they see as a “woke” and financially struggling America. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “woke” refers to those who are socially aware but is often used pejoratively to describe individuals perceived as self-righteous or overly dogmatic in their advocacy.
True to his promises, Trump wasted no time in implementing his agenda. During his inauguration, he took a strong stance against “woke” ideology by affirming that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only two genders—male and female—a direct challenge to the LGBTQ+ community. He has since followed through on his pledges by signing a series of executive orders aimed at radically reshaping America.
So, from my perspective, Trump is simply fulfilling the commitments he made during his campaign. The backlash from those negatively affected by his policies is therefore unsurprising, yet it should not overshadow the fact that he is delivering the change that millions of Americans willingly voted for, believing it will restore the country’s greatness.
As someone who embraces change, I am excited to see a leader who challenges the status quo in public leadership finally take charge. That leader is Donald J. Trump, who has now assumed office in the White House, the seat of U.S. political power.
Given President Tinubu’s huge appettite for change which has wrought on Nigeria in the past 2O months,he may be said to be cut from the same cloth with Trump, literally speaking.
Mr. Trump as the leader of the free world- U.S, exerts enormous influence on global affairs, reinforcing the popular saying: when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. This is evident in Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on key trading partners—25% on Mexico, 25% on general goods plus 10% on Canadian oil, and 10% on China—primarily to curb illegal immigration and combat the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug ravaging American communities.
Before Trump even took office, his threats of tariff hikes caused global concern. However, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, urged caution: “I am concerned, but my approach is to stay calm. Let’s wait to see what policies are actually enacted before overreacting.”
Despite this advice, some countries affected by the new tariffs —especially Mexico and Canada—have already announced retaliatory tariffs, raising fears of an all-out trade war. Meanwhile, China has opted for a legal approach, filing complaints against the U.S. through the WTO.
As the head of the WTO, Dr. Okonjo-Iweala will play a crucial role in resolving this looming global trade conflict. Given her extensive experience—including her tenure at the World Bank and her ongoing second term as WTO chief—there is hope that she can help de-escalate tensions.
Anticipating the economic impact of the trade war, President Trump has urged Americans to brace for temporary hardships, acknowledging that tariffs might contribute to inflation. However, he remains confident that the outcome will ultimately benefit the country, declaring: “This will be the golden age of America. Will there be some pain? Yes. But we will make America great again, and it will be worth the price.”
This sentiment is reminiscent of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s remarks when he removed the long-standing fuel subsidy and floated the naira, leading to economic hardship for Nigerians. He reassured the nation, saying: “I understand that our people are suffering, but there can be no childbirth without pain. The joy of childbirth is the baby. Relief comes after the pain. Nigeria is being reborn.”
Remarkably,Trump’s policies signal a fundamental shift away from globalization—a concept introduced between 1870 and 1914 and later popularized in 1983 by economist Theodore Levitt in his essay titled “The Globalization of Markets.” The current global order, shaped by decades of economic integration, now faces disruption under Trump’s America First doctrine, which prioritizes national interests over international cooperation.
Interestingly, Trump’s long-held stance on tariffs is not new. In a resurfaced 1978 interview with Oprah Winfrey, he expressed similar views, making it clear that his current trade policies have been decades in the making.
While trade wars typically harm weaker economies (when elephants fight, the grass suffers), Africa might stand to benefit from this geopolitical shift. As tensions escalate among major trading partners—U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China—Africa, historically seen as merely a source of raw materials, could emerge as an alternative manufacturing hub.
For instance, Nigeria’s oil exports to the U.S. declined significantly under President Barack Obama, with Canada and Mexico becoming America’s top crude suppliers. However, if the trade war leads to disruptions in North American oil exports, Trump may turn back to Nigeria, currently the 8th largest supplier, to fill the gap.
So, rather than viewing Trump’s policies as purely negative, it may be worth considering the potential opportunities they create for Africa. As a matter of fact , instead of getting caught up in narratives of doom and gloom, could this be a moment for the continent to reposition itself as a key player in the evolving global trade landscape?
I would argue that it is time for the world to recognize that Africa is not a problem to be solved but a vital part of the global solution. Thats owed to the fact that the continent holds vast reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition that the world desperately seeks. Rather than being viewed merely as a supplier of raw materials, Africa should be seen as a prime destination for investment and industrial partnerships.
There is a well-known economic principle that a rising tide lifts all boats and yachts. In that spirit, industrialized nations like the U.S. and China must acknowledge that Africa—home to 54 countries and a population of approximately 1.5 billion, larger than China’s 1.3 billion and rivaling India’s 1.4 billion—is not a charity case but an investment opportunity.
As a long-time advocate for Africa’s economic resurgence, I have consistently argued that the continent needs trade, not aid. So, it is imperative that major global economies shift their perception of Africa from a passive recipient of aid to an active economic partner. Historically, Africa has been exploited—most notably through the partitioning of the continent at the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided African territories for their own benefit. As a result, Africa has remained marginalized in global trade, accounting for less than 3% of total global trade, despite having 18% of the world’s population.
To secure a greater share of global trade, Africa must be integrated into the evolving international economic order. Without disruptions to the existing system—such as those triggered by President Trump’s policies—meaningful change is unlikely. Given the resistance Africa has faced in its bid to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a fundamental shift in global power structures, like the one Trump is advocating, may be necessary for Africa to be taken seriously as a key player in international trade.
At this moment in history, the world may actually benefit from the tensions between defenders of the entrenched old order and leaders like Trump, who are determined to shake up the system. Since assuming office on January 20, 2025, Trump has been implementing the bold changes he promised during his campaign. In my assessment, the mandate given to him by American voters provides a unique opportunity to push for a rebalancing of global trade and governance.
Throughout history, transformative change has always required bold action. If astronauts had not pushed boundaries, Neil Armstrong would never have walked on the moon in 1969, a breakthrough that reshaped human understanding of the universe. Similarly, astronomer Galileo’s discoveries challenged the belief that the Earth was flat, while it is actually cylindrical paving the way for modern scientific thought. It is this same drive for progress that appears to be fueling Trump’s disruptive approach to governance.
Keyu Jin, a professor of economics and author of The New China Playbook, recently highlighted a growing shift in global trade patterns, noting that China and other nations have been diversifying their markets away from the U.S. even before the current tariff wars. Therefore,Trump’s policies are merely accelerating this trend. In Europe, for instance, we are seeing a rise in nationalist-leaning leaders, particularly in France and Germany, who are also prioritizing domestic interests over globalism.
This geopolitical realignment is further evident in the expansion of BRICS—a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which has recently welcomed new members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. As more countries join BRICS in an effort to counterbalance U.S. influence, and attempts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar in global trade may intensify. The general belief is that if America continues using tariffs as a tool to pressure its trading partners, it risks pushing them further toward alternative alliances, potentially diminishing its own economic influence. But would that really be the case?
For Africa, this shifting landscape presents an opportunity. If trade flows are redirected away from the U.S., Africa could gain a larger share of global commerce—but only if the continent positions itself strategically. With the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), headquartered in Ghana, Africa is already laying the groundwork to take advantage of this new world order.
While Trump’s critics have valid concerns about the potential risks of his sweeping policy changes—particularly the hardship caused by the deportation of undocumented immigrants and disruptions in U.S. aid to Africa( which was later restored) it is also worth considering the potential long-term benefits of a restructured global economy.
The changes unfolding in global trade could open up unprecedented opportunities for Africa. If the continent plays its cards right, it could emerge as a major beneficiary of the ongoing shake-up. So, instead of viewing Trump’s policies solely through the lens of crisis, perhaps it is time to explore how Africa can leverage this moment to secure a more equitable role in the global economy.
A US based Nigerian Professor Ndubuisi Ekekwe describes Trump’s leadership as a “tsunami-earthquake-storm” approach, highlighting the unprecedented nature of shutting down USAID. According to him, this move signals a clear message to the world—that America has no obligation to fund or influence other nations through soft power. However, he suggests that this could actually be a positive development if African leaders step up and take responsibility.
He further explains how foreign aid often distorts markets and hinders sustainable development. For instance, an entrepreneur might develop a viable product in healthcare, education, or agriculture, only for an aid agency to introduce a similar product for free. This forces local businesses to shut down, and once the aid funds disappear after a few years, communities are left worse off, having lost both the external support and the local solutions that were once in place.
Rather than panicking over these funding cuts, Professor Ekekwe urges African governments to seize the opportunity by creating systems to identify and assist citizens in need. He argues that without external interference, local businesses can step in to fill market gaps, and governments can provide targeted support to those who truly require it. He points out that Africa has a long history of self-reliance and should return to indigenous solutions rather than depending on unpredictable foreign aid.
This perspective aligns with the arguments earlier made by economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo in her ground breaking book “Dead Aid”, where she contends that Western aid has done more harm than good in Africa.
Considering Trump’s repeated assertion that his second term marks a “golden age” for America, it is possibly a golden age for Africa too as the continent could benefit—if it strategically positions itself to take advantage of the shifting global order being shaped by Trump’s policies.
Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007) sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.
Opinion
EFCC in the Eye of the Storm!

By Ayo Oyoze Baje
With comments such as ” embarrassing”, “shameful” and ” disturbing” trailing the recent revelations that not less than 27 officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC were reportedly dismissed for acts of misconduct and fraudulent activities in 2024 alone, the clarion call for full-fledged investigations into what really happened has become a necessity. This is compelling because the alleged acts of fraud span from Lagos to Kaduna Zonal Commands. And given the delicate duty hinged on the matching mandate of the EFCC he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands.
But sadly, according to the spokesperson of the federal government agency, Dele Oyewale as revealed on January 6, 2025 the EFCC has started investigating ” a trending $400, 000 claim of a yet – to – be – identified supposed staff of the agency against a sectional head”. But that was just a tip of the iceberg. Some two days later, precisely on January 8, of this year 10 officers of the Lagos Zonal Command were detained over the theft of operational items.
Listed amongst the missing items are gold bars valued at over N1 billion. That is in addition to some precious jewelry and cash of between $350,000 and $400,000. Though the agency is yet to speak on what took place at the Kaduna Zonal Command, an officer simply identified as Polycarp allegedly stole a humongous amount claimed to be over $30,000 in addition to other valuable items.Such an embarrassing situation certainly triggers some flaming questions.
For instance, how do we explain the scandalous scenario that an anti-graft agency of the stature of the EFCC could not provide adequate security for expensive exhibits, including gold and mouth-watering amounts of raw cash? How would any officer, trained to fight for and recover stolen materials and money blame the prevailing poverty and high cost of living in the country as the factors of temptation for his shameful and unpatriotic act? Good leaders do not give excuses for dereliction of duty. Not at all. Rather, they should muster the moral courage to rein in the insidious urge to attempt to convert what does not belong to one as his, for whatever reason. That brings us to the nitty-gritty of the Act which established the EFCC.
Propelled by the Establishment Act first enacted in 2002 and subsequently amended in 2004 the matching mandate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is to frontally combat both economic and financial crimes. To bolster its performance the Act enables the Commission to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize economic and financial crimes in their various shades. Good enough, the EFCC is also charged with the responsibility of executing the provisions of other laws and regulations that are related to economic and financial crimes.
In its distilled essence, these laws are embedded in Section 7(2) of the Establishment Act 2004. These include Money Laundering Act 1995, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 as well as Advanced Fee Fraud and other related Offence Act 1995. Not left out are the Failed Bank Act, 1994, the Criminal Code and the Terrorism Act 2011. But the recent revelations of odious acts of deliberate criminality carried out by officers of the EFCC run against the grains of the fight against corruption. They must therefore, be brought to the public sphere for proper scrutiny while the agency should beam a brighter searchlight into its inner structures to plug the widening loopholes.
Beginning with its recruitment process, it has become expedient for a more thorough assessment of the moral standards of any Nigerian citizen presenting himself for any of the available posts before he is employed there. Also significant is the need to guarantee the safety and security of all forms of exhibits -be it gold, jewelry or cash-preferably in bank vaults. Doing so will cut off any access to them.
From the point of view of security experts it amounts to unprofessional act not to have mechanisms firmly in place to ensure both safety and accountability of the exhibits. And if the EFCC decides to keep them within its purvey they should be well secured with multiple layers of protection provided. With such a guarantee it means that if the court finally decides in favour of the defendants, or those alleged to have stolen the recovered items they would be fully returned, without spurious claims of such to have been stolen by operatives of the EFCC. That brings us to what punishments should be meted out to the culprits.
Beyond their outright dismissal from office, they should be prosecuted and made to face the full wrath of the law. If perhaps, they have relocated outside the country the use of biometrics on record will be handy to trace and track them down.That would send the right punitive message and serve as a form of deterrence, to others with similar inclination to steal. But then, the question on the lips of concerned Nigerians is why all these acts of malfeasance are coming up at this point in time?
While some observers of the goings on at the EFCC have applauded the Chairman, Olanipekun Olukayode for mustering the leadership will to ensure probity and accountability in the operations others are not impressed by the method of night raids. Also, with the viral video of one Idris Okunaye, aka Bobrisky who claimed that some operatives of the agency collected N15 million from him to absolve him of the charge of money laundering, though later denied, the image of the EFCC is currently at stake.
But we urge Olukayode to continue with the internal cleaning up process, go ahead with the auditing of the recovered items on Zonal Command basis and ensure their security. He should review the night operations that have led to some deaths of the officials, strengthen oversight functions while doing away with problems traced to political interference.
As the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership has rightly demanded for the internal cleansing should be holistic and devoid of manipulations from the corridors of political power.
Indeed, to restore public confidence in the EFCC it must free itself from the antics, sentiments and threats from the executive arm of government at the state and federal government levels. That would also reinforce the standard of morality in the nation, which has been rubbished by the crass, crude and criminal culture of impunity. With some of those who have pilfered the national treasury dry still walking our streets as free men and women, it is hard to discourage our rudderless youths from all forms of fraudulent practices. But we cannot continue to tread that path of perfidy. Not at all.
Opinion
How Wike Benefitted from Dele Momodu’s Expertise and Conflict Resolution Skills

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba
ssbaba.pys@buk.edu.ng
Let me begin with this beautiful quote by Benjamin Franklin that “The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.” Indeed, some people lack the knowledge of their own ignorance. Earlier this morning, Aare Dele MOMODU posted multiple pictures of him and his friend, the former Governor of Rivers State as he used to do from time to time in his busy social media pages. Immediately I saw those pictures, it reminded me of how CHIEF DELE MOMODU contributed immensely to WIKE’S popularity by showcasing the then Governor’s projects, an event that marked the origin of his nickname “Mr Project” all over Nigeria.
I would always say that WIKE’s popularity in Nigeria especially in the North was not as a result of his failed attempt to cling his party’s presidential ticket during the May 2022 presidential primaries or the events that followed, rather as a result of how the OVATION MEDIA GROUP demonstrated to Nigerians, Africa and many parts of the world that a Governor like Wike actually existed in Nigeria due to the volume of projects he was able to put in place in Rivers State which probably overrode all history of governance at state level in Nigeria. Unfortunately, some ignorant people threw their usual tantrums under the comment section, saying that MOMODU betrayed WIKE, which in my humble opinion is the other way round. Follow me patiently as I make a few points to that effect in a jiffy, keeping in mind the fact that Governor WIKE’s multiple work in Rivers had been undervalued, under-reported, or, let’s say, eclipsed by politics until the OVATION media group intervened in late 2020.
Furthermore, in my own understanding, a journalist has to be fair and ready to listen to the other side of any story. Governor WIKE turned out to be amongst the top beneficiaries of this Momodu’s rare quality as a veteran journalist. Let me take a step back a bit to the best of my knowledge as a meticulous follower of Ovation Media Group. Momodu had interviewed MAZI NNAMDI KANU, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) weeks before, specifically on the 29th October, 2020 and his fans were very happy. It was the mother of all interviews because both the interviewer and respondent knew their onions. The brilliant Nnamdi Kanu himself tweeted the following day expressing his satisfaction with Momodu’s comportment and describing him as the Larry King of Africa, which was largely true in my opinion. In fact some called him the man with magic fingers because of his enormous wisdom and prolificness in writing.
Thereafter, many Nigerians at home and in diaspora, his fans and mentees including myself requested him to interview GOVERNOR NYESOM WIKE. In fact, when I called him about that, he said “Dr Baba, I will! I always believe a journalist must hear and ventilate the other side of any story…”. So willingly and by popular demand, DELE MOMODU made it happen.
A few days later, he announced the acceptance of the then Governor WIKE to join him for a chat on one of his Instagram live sessions. That was one of the must watched interviews that set all social media streets agog. The interview went well, and he answered very interesting questions as candidly and as boldly as he could, not mincing words about his sharp disagreement with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the IPOB he leads, while MOMODU maintained his usual neutrality as much as possible. Momodu also asked the Governor some important questions about his developmental projects because the session was not just about his altercation with Kanu.
Moving fast forward during the interview, Governor WIKE threw a challenge by immediately inviting the Ovation Media Group to visit Rivers and see things for themselves. He was confident that given the infrastructural development Rivers State had witnessed under his watch though unpopular, Ovation would require over two weeks to cover his projects. Momodu accepted his challenge and headed to Rivers, prepared as always, regardless of what was on ground. They were pleasantly surprised. Two weeks and counting, Ovation team was still in Rivers State. There was simply so much to be seen and it was as if the governor had captured them permanently. He was enjoying their stay in Rivers while the whole country was resonating wondering what the Ovation crew were revealing from Rivers state. That was in my best understanding what brought the Governor WIKE’S massive achievement in Rivers to limelight in Nigeria and beyond. They travelled extensively and traversed the length and breadth of Rivers State, given the Governor WIKE all the machineries he needed to brag and beat his chest about the massive development he brought to his own state.
The other face of the story was even more interesting because some people who are extremely loyal to Kanu got angry. They said Wike was lying. They said he was the one who ordered the killing and mass murder of the people in OYIGBO/OBIGBO. They immediately challenged Momodu to go to the town and see the level of destruction and devastation. Some immediately began to rain insults and abuse on the Momodu’s platforms. I still remember clearly some of the false accusations and allegations by the same people who were happy before. Indeed this is not new to any journalist who chose to deploy ethical standards and neutrality. This also reminds me of the atmosphere when CHIEF DELE MOMODU interviewed the former Nigeria minister of petroleum DIAZENI ALLISON MADUEKE in London.
Coming back to the main epistle, DELE MOMODU also accepted the challenge and decided to visit OBIGBO town in Rivers State, a place where all the media spaces in Nigeria have likened to GAZA, PALESTINE where killings and human rights abuse became the order of the day. Momodu’s visit to OBIGBO is also a different story on its own, yet very interesting because what came out of it was totally contrary to a place where everyone believes it was under military siege. Everyone was ready to see the possible bloodbath and devastation that he/she was reading about constantly on social media. It was showcased LIVE in all Momodu’s platforms as the visit was ongoing in OBIGBO town.
In going to OBIGBO, Momodu employed and deployed his vast experience in the last three decades in promoting peace in West Africa and visiting war torn areas. In a sense, he was returning to familiar turfs and terrain. There were times MOMODU had to come down from the car to walk around a bit and interact with the people based on requests, instructions and directions from the INSTAGRAM LIVE feeds. He felt comfortable and very much at home amongst the indigenes and residents of Obigbo and the people welcomed the Ovation crew and freely expressed themselves. He also asked directly from the people about the murders and wanted to know if killings were still ongoing. Everybody he spoke with confirmed what had happened, but they all said the situation was under control, contrary to what the media was falsely and unjustly promoting. Normalcy had been restored substantially, in the town. Markets were bristling with the usual hustle and bustle of a boisterous community and it was live for all viewers to see. Momodu also listened to the Local Government Chairman, Prince Gerald Oforji, and the Chiefs for their own version of the story.
To my surprise however, some people kept raining abuses during the live broadcasts despite Momodu’s open, transparent work and apparent selflessness. He remained unperturbed because obviously he was not out to impress anyone but to do his job as professionally as he knows best.
In my own understanding, that was how most Nigerians naturally exonerated Governor WIKE from the alleged massive killings in OBIGBO as some believed he masterminded everything like a Bollywood director.
Who now is the ultimate beneficiary of these Momodu trips and interventions? Who benefitted from Momodu’s uncommon conflict resolution skills?
-
News6 years ago
Nigerian Engineer Wins $500m Contract to Build Monorail Network in Iraq
-
Featured7 years ago
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Will Senate President, Bukola Saraki, Join Presidential Race?
-
Boss Picks7 years ago
World Exclusive: How Cabal, Corruption Stalled Mambilla Hydropower Project …The Abba Kyari, Fashola and Malami Connection Plus FG May Lose $2bn
-
Headline6 years ago
Rehabilitation Comment: Sanwo-Olu’s Support Group Replies Ambode (Video)
-
Headline6 years ago
Fashanu, Dolapo Awosika and Prophet Controversy: The Complete Story
-
Headline6 years ago
Pendulum: Can Atiku Abubakar Defeat Muhammadu Buhari in 2019?
-
Headline7 years ago
Pendulum: An Evening with Two Presidential Aspirants in Abuja
-
Headline6 years ago
2019: Parties’ Presidential Candidates Emerge (View Full List)