Opinion
Emefiele and Bawa – Victims of Executive Lawlessness
Published
2 years agoon
By
Eric

By Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
Politics and Law have been an age-long issue of discourse in governance and leadership. These are pivotal points revolving around every national question. The essence of law is to prescribe laid down standards, rules and regulations for controlling affairs within the State. Intricate in this discourse is the modern idea of the doctrine of separation of powers found in one of the most important eighteenth-century (1748) works on political science, the Baron de Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws (1748), which states that:
“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates … [or] if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”
In Nigeria, constitutional powers under the 1999 Constitution, as altered, are shared amongst the three arms of government. While the Legislature makes law (section 4), the Executive implements the laws (section 5); and the Judiciary interprets them (section 6).
In a democratic setting, mutual respect within the arms of government is very sacrosanct. No arm of government is allowed to suppress, diminish, intimidate, or make nonsense of the other in all ramifications.
The executive has for too long been a bane on the legislature; but same cannot be compared to the affront it displays against the Judiciary, and the ordinary Nigerians. Little wonder, Alexander Hamilton noted thus: ” …The Judiciary Branch may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of it’s judgements.”
However, I have never been a disciple and adherer of the above quote, for I believe that even in silence, the Judiciary remains the shield of all – including the Executive and the Legislature.
The rule of law in Nigeria has suffered so much aberration, the most – being the brazen disobedience to Court orders.
In the Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu SC (1986) 2 LLER 2; All NLR 233, Hon. Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais JSC (as he then was), on the dangers inherent in disregard for rule of law by the government, had this to say; “If Governments treat court order with levity and contempt the confidence of the citizen in the courts will be seriously eroded and the effect of that will be the beginning of anarchy in replacement of the rule of law. If anyone should be wary of orders of court it is the authorities; for they, more than anyone else, need the application of the rule of law in order to govern properly and effectively.”
In the same vein, Lord Atkins in LIVERSIDGE vs. ANDERSON (1942) AC 206, opined thus:
“Amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which recent authority, we are now fighting that judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law”.
So many instances abound to show the persistent disobedience of Court orders by the executive arm of government. The executive branch has since become like wizards and witches, operating in a dark coven – witch-hunting some targeted persons in blatant disregard to whatever orders a court may have made. The recent travails of the former Executive Chairman of the EFCC, Abdulrasheed Bawa and the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), are not far from executive witch-hunt, bordering on palpable executive lawlessness and rascality. It is indeed pitiable that after all the ills perpetrated by the Buhari-led administration, only these two have been singled out to become EXECUTIVE VICTIMS.
ABDULRASHEED BAWA: WHAT IS HIS OFFENCE?
On February 24, 2021, former civilian dictator and ethnic warlord, President Muhammadu Buhari, appointed the 43 years old Bawa (born April 30, 1980) as the Executive Chairman of the EFCC, to replace the then suspended former chairman, Ibrahim Magu. The young man appeared to have taken to a higher notch, the ante of graft agency governance structure, by reducing media trial, political hype and the “name-and-shame” mantra glorified by Buhari and his Propaganda maestro, Lai Mohammed (who would make Hitler’s Goebel green with envy from his second World War cold grave of the Nazi Germany third Reich (1933-1945). Or, so we thought, until 14th June, 2023, when the new strong man and Sheriff in town, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, came in view. On that Ceasar’s “Ides of March”, Bawa was promptly picked up by Nigeria’s usually hooded secret Police, the Department of State Security Service (DSS). The DSS gave its reason as an invitation relating to “some investigative activities concerning him”. I thought under the National Securities Agency Act, 1986, the DSS is only responsible for national security matters. Do these include economic crimes for which the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, was promulgated, with Bawa heading it? I do not know. Or, do you?
Nearly two months later, Bawa remains kept in captivity, in the DSS gulag. I thought section 35 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides for only one day (24 hours) incarceration when there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometers from the Police Station; and where there is no court within a 40-kilometers radius from the station, the time is a period of 2 days (48 hours); or any longer period which the court considers reasonable given the particular circumstances of the case. See the case of AMOS & ORS V. DANIEL & ORS (2023) LPELR – 60454 (CA). The DSS, through its Director of Information, Willie Bassey, cited “weighty allegations of abuse of office levelled against him”, as the reason for Bawa’s continued captivity. This continued detention without trial is barbaric, atrocious and unconscionable, to say the least. Are we still living in the early caveman Australopithecus era? I do not know. Or, do you?
Till date, the DSS has not told Nigerians what Bawa’s specific offences are (if any), or the level of “investigation”. Investigation? Mtchew! Even if he committed some infractions of the law, can illegality beget legality? Can two wrongs make a right? Can the DSS continue to be the accuser, arrester, detainer, investigator, prosecutor and the Judge? What is going on here? The last time I checked, even amongst mad people, there is orderliness. DSS, for God’s sake, and for the sake of decency and our constitutional democracy, release Bawa immediately and forthwith. Haba!
GODWIN EMEFIELE – DID HE COMMIT MURDER?
Emefiele’s sad tale has further amplified the saying that, “…he who sups with devil, should have a very long spoon.” The meaning of this quote, varies, but i resolve it in this circumstance to mean, he who dines with the devil should maintain a long distance. Mr Godwin Emefiele, one of the longest serving Governors of the CBN, a refined and brilliant banker, Economist and politician at heart, is simply an “Executive Victim”, or victim of executive lawlessness and rascality. as a result of the unpalatable “feast” he had with the Buhari government. I wish he had had the opportunity to read my “Buharocracy.”- How Buharocracy put Nigeria in throes, by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN.<https://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+Buharocracy+put+Nigeria+in+throes%2C+By+Mike+Ozekhome.-a0752354217>; How Buharocracy put Nigeria in throes.<https://sunnewsonline.com/how-buharocracy-put-nigeria-in-throes-2/>; How Buhari put Nigeria in throes.<https://sunnewsonline.com/how-buharocracy-put-nigeria-in-throes-3/>;Buharocracy: Know ye the Concept.<https://mikeozekhomeschambers.com/buharocracy-know-ye-the-concept-part-4/>. If he had, he probably would have done things differently.
THE MANY YET UNSUBSTANTIATED “SINS” OF EMEFIELE IN CIRCULATION
A flip through many publications of media outlets, shows how Nigerians are so hard on and crazy about Emefiele, majorly because of the hardship some monetary policies he introduced have subjected Nigerians to.
Amongst others, Emefiele has been serially accused of plunging the nation’s currency to a zero level. The Naira which was exchangeable at about N190 against US dollar before Buhari’s arrival, now exchanges for N800.00. that he was allowing unscrupulous elements with access to the import and export window (people who profit robustly from currency arbitrage and round-tripping). He was also accused of attempting to succeed Buhari, irrespective of his occupation of a very vital and juicy office such as the CBN Governor. They accused him of releasing only $17 million, and abandoning $53 million in unpaid debt; of failure to curb inflation despite the amount of trillions spent (the surge in inflation hit 22% in 2023). The most daring to Nigerians was the Naira Currency Swap/printing. N22 trillion was reportedly spent on reprinting which allegedly threatened the corporate existence of Nigeria, and sent so many to early graves. May their Souls rest in perfect peace, Amen.
All these and many more are the scares on Emefiele. I have still not heard anyone accuse Emefiele of stealing trillions of Naira like many of Buhari’s acolytes. I did not hear that he was involved in any coup attempt, or in kidnapping, armed banditry, or armed robbery. I am yet to hear that Emefiele committed murder. Even in these capital offences, a Judge can still grant bail to an accused person under certain circumstances as provided for in section 161 of the ACJA. See the cases of ABACHA V. THE STATE & ORS (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 761) 638 and NWAKANMA V. STATE OF LAGOS (2020) LPELR-50107 (CA). So, the questions still remain unanswered: were all these acts complained about in Emefiele’s own accord alone? Could Emefiele have taken these decisions alone without former President Buhari’s backing? Can someone clap with one palm? Why punish the messenger and save the principal sender? Is this not selective justice? Is it because of where he comes from? Could this have happened to a Northerner given the same extenuating circumstances? I do not know. Or, do you?
THE TRAVAILS OF EMEFIELE: EARLY ALLEGATIONS AND COURT INTERVENTION
On December 19, 2022, Hon. Justice Tsoho, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, declined an application by the DSS to arrest and detain Emefiele. This was as a result of the allegation leveled on Emefiele in respect of alleged terrorism financing and economic crimes. Emefiele, was accused of funding “unknown gunmen” and members of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), by the State Security Service (SSS).
The learned Justice noted that, there was no concrete evidence to substantiate the claims that Emefiele was involved in the alleged crimes. The application was dismissed on the grounds of lack of evidence. The secret Police had no confidence in their own investigation. In other words, it was a mere witch-hunt, the beginning of a long story. Methinks so, don’t you?
Again, on December 29, 2022, Hon. Justice M. A. Hassan, of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, issued an order restraining the DSS from arresting Emefiele.
The Incorporated Trustees of Forum for Accountability and Good Leadership, as Applicants, had filed an application against the DSS and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), as Respondents, to restrain the arrest of Emefiele by the two operative agencies.
The Court ruled that the “continuous harassment” of Emefiele over “trumped-up allegations of terrorism financing and fraudulent practices” was unwarranted and oppressive, as there were no evidence to substantiate the allegations of terrorism.
THE JUDICIAL COURT AND PUBLIC COURT
At the FCT High Court, EFCC in a counter affidavit, denied having any business with Emefiele, as he was not under their investigation. In fact, they alluded to the fact that, the continuous harassment of Emefiele was illegal as it was without legal basis.
Meanwhile, Emefiele travelled outside Nigeria before the 2022 Christmas, for his annual vacation, with the imprimatur of his Boss, Buhari. He returned in mid January.
Due to the ugly developments around Emefiele’s crisis, the Presidential Campaign Council of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) alleged that some politicians were behind the travails of the now suspended CBN governor.
The leadership of the party said those who were “after” Emefiele should be careful of its implications on the country’s economy: “This is especially on the backdrop of apprehensions that inordinately ambitious politicians that run activities with bullion vans and raw cash are out to destroy the nation’s financial institutions, particularly, the CBN, for their selfish political interests.”
At the peak of these, the Mass Interest Project, a coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs), raised an alarm that the life of Emefiele was under threat. It was alleged that the threat to his life was linked to politicians who were against the new CBN cash policy.
The Emefiele saga raised so much dust and ruckus in the polity that drew the interest of many ethnic organisations. The Southern and Middle Belt Leader’s Forum (SMBLF), while calling for the sack of Yusuf Bichi, the DSS Boss, asked, “What is the evidence that the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mr Godwin Emefiele, is involved in “terrorism financing”? If the allegations against the CBN governor are genuine, why didn’t the DSS present its findings to the president for consideration and necessary action?”
THE TINUBU – EMEFIELE MEETING, HIS ARREST AND CONTINUING PERSECUTION
The then INEC President – elect, in the course of his inaugural speech on May 29, 2023, made an announcement that fuel subsidies were no longer sustainable in Nigeria. Subsequently, on June 9, 2023, he had a meeting with Mr Mele Kyari, the GCEO of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), and Godwin Emefiele, the CBN Boss.
Immediately the meeting was over, the suspension of Emefiele was announced. What followed on June 10, 2023, was unverified news about his arrest by the Secret Police and DSS. At first, the DSS denied his arrest; but within a couple of hours, its spokesperson, Peter Afunanya, tweeted thus, “The Department of State Services (DSS) hereby confirms that Mr Godwin Emefiele, the suspended Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), is now in its custody for some investigative reasons.”
Afunanya did not provide details of when and how Mr Emefiele was arrested and where he was being kept. It was however gathered that, the banker was picked up from his home in Lagos and then flown to Abuja, guarded by a detachment of operatives. Thereafter, he was driven to the SSS’ headquarters in the Asokoro District of the nation’s capital. Seeing a whole CBN Governor in chains being led like a common criminal is indeed a national disgrace and scandal. I was greatly embarrassed as a Nigerian.
EMEFIELE HEADS BACK TO COURT
Consequently, Emefiele instituted a rights action against the DSS. Delivering judgement, Justice Muazu, held that Emefiele’s continued detention without trial, amounts to a gross violation of his fundamental human rights; but however, that Emefiele failed to prove that his arrest, detention and investigation were unlawful since they were based on a valid court order. Justice Muazu said:
“Detention, no matter how small, can amount to a breach of fundamental rights.
“Though I am in sympathy with the applicant (Emefiele), but my sentiment will not go far to deliver judgement by granting all the reliefs sought by the applicant.
“The applicant has not shown that his arrest, detention and investigation were unlawful. “However, I am concerned that the application is not without merit. The applicant is entitled to fair hearing.
“At this point, the continued detention of the applicant cannot be justified in the absence of any charge against him.
“Consequently, I hereby make an order, directing the respondents to within one week, charge the applicant to court or release him on administrative bail.”
Yet again, following another application, Justice Kawu also made an order setting aside any purported warrant of arrest obtained or procured by the Respondents, especially the DSS, for the arrest of Emefiele in connection with the allegations of terrorism financing, fraudulent practices, money laundering, threat to national security, before any court.
The court further granted an injunction restraining the respondents, particularly the DSS from arresting, detaining, or interfering with Mr. Emefiele’s personal liberty and freedom of movement; and that he is released from detention.
THE SUDDEN NEW CHARGES AGAINST EMEFIELE: AN AFTERTHOUGHT?
Like a Fandango, the DSS subsequently switched the charges levied against Emefiele to mere illegal possession of unlawful arms. He was accused of illegally possessing a single-barrel shotgun (JOJEFF MAGNUM 8371) without license. On Tuesday, July 25, Emefiele pleaded not guilty to a two-count charge filed against him, before a Federal High Court in Lagos State.
The bail application by Emefiele succeeded, irrespective of the opposition of the Federal government.
In his ruling, Justice Nicholas Oweibo, the presiding Judge, said the charges against Emefiele are bailable. He granted Emefiele bail.
The presiding Judge however ruled that the surety must have landed property within the jurisdiction of the court and must depose to an affidavit of means. Emefiele was also asked to deposit his international passport with the court registry.
The Judge also ruled that the CBN governor should be remanded in the correctional centre, pending perfection of his bail conditions. The case was then adjourned to November 14, 2023 for continuation.
THE GANSTERISM OF THE DSS IN A LAWLESS ERA
The operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS), re-arrested Emefiele, in the premises of the Federal High Court, Lagos, few hours after he was granted bail by Justice Nicholas Oweibo. The days of the locusts are here once again!
The attempt at re-arrest caused a cacophony when Emefiele came out of the courtroom, led by a Squadron Commander from the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS). The NCoS was promptly intercepted by DSS operatives, which caused the retreat of Emefiele back into the courtroom.
This happened while Emefiele’s lawyers were busy perfecting his bail conditions. Ruckus ensued when a DSS personnel engaged in fisticuffs over who should take custody of the former CBN governor. It became a fight, as the DSS officers beat up the NCoS Squadron Commander, when he made an attempt to resist DSS from taking Emefiele away from him. He was thoroughly manhandled, his clothes torn.
The situation became so messy and ugly that both the DSS personnel and the NCoS officers corked their guns and were ready to shoot, as court workers and journalists scampered for safety. However, the NCoS retreated following immediate direction from the Controller-General of the NCoS in Abuja. Supposing they had shot live bullets and Judges, litigants, members of the public and operatives of the DSS and NCoS got killed, what next? I do not know. Or, do you?
All this madness took place after the learned trial Judge had directed that custody of Emefiele should be in the correctional centre and not with the DSS. Many Nigerians appreciated this serious situation, but made a mockery of the whole system. Others however trivialized it by concluding that Emefiele’s custody was important because “them know say anywhere him lap, joy go touch boys”. Nigerians!!!
EARLIER CHARGES
The earlier allegations against Emefiele but which were never pursued revolved around some legislations. Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. These have to do with terrorism financing, which under various sections carries sentences ranging from fine to life imprisonment and 20 years imprisonment; and up to winding up a company that is involved.
On the other hand, the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act, in section 3, and section 428 of the Criminal Code Act, provides for punishment for illegal possession of firearms to a fine and less than 10 years imprisonment.
THE RE-ARREST CULTURE BY NIGERIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
One of the commonplace routines by law enforcement agencies in Nigeria, which is gradually snowballing into an established culture is the act of arresting an accused person immediately after being granted bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This may be seen as a practice to prevent the defendant from disappearing into thin air. But, is this the whole truth behind these sharp, illegal and unethical practices? I answer in the negative, No! What about you?
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
Truth is that these unwholesome acts arise due to the ineffective and inefficient machinery, investigative measures and mechanisms prevailing in the various agencies.
It is pitiable that our criminal investigative departments have since imbibed the culture of lack of diligence and dexterity, resulting to illegal practices and violations of the fundamental rights of citizens. This makes mockery of constitutional safeguards. The culture of arrest before investigation runs contrary to so many fundamental principles of human rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice. Odemwingie Uwaifo JSC (as then was), in Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR 606 at 681, said, “In a proper investigation procedure, it is unlawful to arrest unless there is sufficient evidence upon which to charge and caution a suspect. It is completely wrong to arrest, let alone caution a suspect, before the police look for evidence implicating him.”
In NDLEA & Ors v. Bwala (2022) LPELR-56566(CA), on whether arrest and detention before investigation is unconstitutional, Justice FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, JCA (Pp 26 – 27 Paras F – C), held: “It has been settled in a line of judicial authorities that it is unlawful to arrest a person until there is sufficient evidence to charge and caution him and that it is unconstitutional to arrest a person pending investigation. In other words, it is unlawful to arrest a person when investigation of the alleged crime is still on and there is no prima facie evidence that the suspect has committed the offence or reasonable suspicion that he has done so. Arrest and detention before investigation is unconstitutional. See FAWEHINMI VS. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (2002) 7 NWLR (PT. 767)606, DURUAKU VS. NWOKE (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1483) 417 AND OGOR VS. ROLAND & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1983) 1 NCR 343.”
EMEFIELE’S RE-ARREST AFTER THE COURT ORDERED HIS RELEASE: THE LEGAL REGIME
It was gathered that, after Emefiele was granted bail on terms, and his lawyers were perfecting the bail conditions, upon stepping out of the Court room, he was apprehended and arrested again for fresh charges by men of the DSS. Like they always do, he may now be charged with an entirely fresh set of offences, even without prior investigation of same. What kind of piecemeal prosecution (sorry, persecution) is this? Is this how to run a country governed by constitutional safeguards? I believe not. Or, do you think so?
In Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 50) 1779 at 1801, on the Rule of Law—Supremacy of Law and the need for government to conduct its affairs with regards to the law, the Supreme Court, per Andrews Atutu Obaseki, JSC (as he then was), had this to say: “The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. It means also that government should be conducted within the frame-work of recognized rules and principles which restrict discretionary power which Coke colourfully spoke of as ‘golden and straight method of law as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion’ (see 4 Inst. 41). More relevant to the case in hand, the rule of law means that disputes as to the legality of acts of government are to be decided by judges who are wholly independent of the executive. See Wade on Administrative Law 5th Edition p. 22-27.
That is the position in this country where the judiciary has been made independent of the executive by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended by Decree No. 1 of 1984 and No. 17 of 1985. The judiciary cannot shirk its sacred responsibility to the nation to maintain the rule of law. It is both in the interest of the government and all persons in Nigeria. The law should be even handed between the government and citizens.”
In UBA PLC & Ors v. Durunna (2015) LPELR-25625(CA), Frederick Ozoakpono Oho, JCA, said, “…this practice of making arrests first before looking for evidence in a manner of speaking is like placing the “cart before the horse” instead of doing it the other way round…”
The subsequent re-arrest and detention of Emefiele is in utter disobedience of the Court order granting bail to Emefiele. For how long, shall we continue to tolerate law enforcement agencies that thrive on the imprimatur of executive lawlessness? For how long? Why can they not learn to obey court orders under our tripartite separation of powers, doctrine popularized in 1748 by leading French Philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu?
In AKINYEMI v. SOYANWO & ANOR (2006) LPELR-363(SC), on whether an order of court must be obeyed, FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JSC, at Pp 15 – 15 Paras C – E, had this to say: “It is a settled principle of law that every party to a suit, and indeed every citizen, has an obligation to obey the subsisting Court decision or order in the suit unless and until it is set aside. And the party’s obligation to obey the decision is without regard to his perception about the irregularity or illegality of the decision as long as it subsists. See Alhaji Audu Shugaba v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (1999) 11NWLR (Pt. 627) 459 at 477 where this principle was re-enacted. See Odogwu v. Odogwu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) 539; Nigerian Army v. Gloria Mowarin (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 235) 345.”
In OKEKE V. IGP & Ors (2022) LPELR-58476(CA), pronouncing on whether the Police can deprive citizens of their liberty while the case against them is still being investigated, CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JCA at Pp 9 – 9 Paras D – E, echoed:
“The law does not give the Police unbridled power to deprive citizens of their liberty while the case against them is still being investigated. See EVANGELIST BAYO JOHNSON V. E. A. LUFADEJU & ANOR (2002) 8 NWLR (PT. 768) PG 192 at 218 B – C.”
CONCLUSION
It is clear to me that Mr. Godwin Emefiele’s rights have been grossly and wantonly violated with impunity under the thin guise of investigation. What manner of investigation? The order of the Court granting him bail has since been rendered futile by his subsequent re-arrest and detention. The DSS’ wanton acts of brigandage throws us back into the ignoble Hobbessian State of Nature, where life was short, solitary, nasty and brutish. So disgusting. So shameful. So horrific.
Godwin Emefiele’s offences (and Bawa’s, if any), as already charged, are bailable (see sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution as amended). As regards Bawa’s alleged offences, we still do not even know till date. By the way, who is afraid of Emefiele? And who is afraid of Bawa? And why? I do not know. Or, do you? Both Emefiele and Bawa have presumption of innocence enuring in their favour (section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended). See DAUDA V. FRN (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1616) 169 and NKIE v. FRN (2014) LPELR-22877 (SC). Two options are available here to this wobbly and fumbling government that is fast donning the garb of military (sorry, civilian) dictatorship and absolutism: charge Emefiele and Bawa to court; or RELEASE them promptly and unconditionally. Please, sirs/mas, let my people go. Let Emefiele and Bawa go (Exodus 8:1).
Related
You may like
Opinion
AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head
Published
2 days agoon
March 11, 2025By
Eric

By Ayo Oyoze Baje
“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN
When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”
public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!
Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.
The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.
That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.
The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?
It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.
So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.
Related
Opinion
The Trump-Vance Approach to Zelensky and the Emergence of a New World Order
Published
5 days agoon
March 9, 2025By
Eric

By Magnus Onyibe
During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.
As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.
In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:
“It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”
Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:
“Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”
However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:
“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”
Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:
“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”
Trump went further, saying:
“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”
By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.
The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.
However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.
This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.
Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.
With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.
Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.
The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.
Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.
Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.
For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.
Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.
Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.
Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.
Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.
The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.
A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.
Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.
For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.
A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.
Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.
The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.
Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.
Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”
At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.
However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.
Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.
Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.
Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.
Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.
Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.
Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, 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, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.
Related
Opinion
On the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Grave Injustice and a Desperate Smear Campaign
Published
5 days agoon
March 9, 2025By
Eric

By Senator Ojudu Babafemi
The decision of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for raising allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is deeply troubling and unjustifiable. While I take no position on the veracity of her claim, the fundamental principle of fairness demands that Akpabio should not have presided over a case in which he was personally implicated. It was his duty to step aside and allow his deputy to handle the matter impartially. By failing to do so, he compromised the integrity of the Senate and reinforced the perception of institutional bias against women who dare to speak up.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to be dismissed lightly. I had the opportunity to interact with her in an official capacity while serving in the presidency, and I can attest that she is a woman of immense strength, intelligence, and purpose. She is not frivolous, nor is she someone who can be easily intimidated. Her journey in Kogi State has been marked by monumental struggles and persecution, yet she has remained unwavering in her commitment to her people. Her grassroots connection is undeniable, and her dedication to uplifting her constituency is evident in her relentless advocacy.
Beyond the unjust suspension, what is even more disgraceful is the rash of hired protesters in both Abuja and Akwa Ibom, clearly orchestrated to malign her. These so-called protests are glaringly artificial, a poorly executed charade that insults the intelligence of Nigerians. It is evident to the world that these are not spontaneous expressions of public sentiment but paid theatrics aimed at discrediting a strong woman who refuses to be silenced. The fact that such desperate measures are being deployed only signals that someone has something to hide. This playbook is cheap, nauseating, and frankly, an embarrassment to any society that claims to uphold democratic values.
But history has shown that truth and justice always prevail. This suspension is nothing more than a temporary setback. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will emerge from this even stronger, her resilience further cementing her place as a formidable politician and conscientious public servant. Meanwhile, those orchestrating this smear campaign will find their names recorded in the book of infamy—a stark reminder of those who stood on the wrong side of history.
Nigeria deserves a legislative chamber where justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Senate must correct this grave injustice and ensure that no lawmaker, especially a woman, faces persecution for speaking out.
Related


Court Bars Public Viewing of Movie, ‘Gang of Lagos’

Suspension: Natasha Sues Akpabio, Others for Contempt

Constituents Begin Moves to Recall Rivers Assembly Speaker, Martins Amaewhule

Nothing Will Happen If Fubara is Impeached, Wike Brags

Despite Being Locked Out, I’ll Re-present Budget, Fubara Declares

Rivers Assembly Denies Fubara Entry into Premises to Re-present 2025 Budget

Egbetokun Reaffirms Ban on Parade of Suspects

Nigerian Engineer Wins $500m Contract to Build Monorail Network in Iraq

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Will Senate President, Bukola Saraki, Join Presidential Race?

World Exclusive: How Cabal, Corruption Stalled Mambilla Hydropower Project …The Abba Kyari, Fashola and Malami Connection Plus FG May Lose $2bn

Rehabilitation Comment: Sanwo-Olu’s Support Group Replies Ambode (Video)

Fashanu, Dolapo Awosika and Prophet Controversy: The Complete Story

Pendulum: Can Atiku Abubakar Defeat Muhammadu Buhari in 2019?

Pendulum: An Evening with Two Presidential Aspirants in Abuja

Who are the early favorites to win the NFL rushing title?

Boxing continues to knock itself out with bewildering, incorrect decisions

Steph Curry finally got the contract he deserves from the Warriors

Phillies’ Aaron Altherr makes mind-boggling barehanded play

The tremendous importance of owning a perfect piece of clothing
Trending
-
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)