Opinion

Emefiele and Bawa – Victims of Executive Lawlessness

Published

2 years ago

August 14, 2023

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).

Opinion

Reimagining the African Leadership Paradigm: A Comprehensive Blueprint

Published

3 days ago

January 10, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

“To lead Africa forward is to move from transactional authority to transformational stewardship—where institutions outlive individuals, data informs vision, and service is the only valid currency of governance” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

The narrative of African leadership in the 21st century stands at a critical intersection of profound potential and persistent paradox. The continent, pulsating with the world’s youngest demographic and endowed with immense natural wealth, nonetheless contends with systemic challenges that stifle its ascent. This divergence between capacity and outcome signals not merely a failure of policy, but a deeper crisis of leadership philosophy and practice. As the global order undergoes seismic shifts, the imperative for African nations to fundamentally re-strategize their approach to governance has transitioned from an intellectual exercise to an existential necessity. Nigeria, by virtue of its demographic heft, economic scale, and cultural influence, serves as the continent’s most significant crucible for this transformation. The journey of Nigerian leadership from its current state to its potential apex offers a blueprint not only for its own 200 million citizens but for an entire continent in search of a new compass.

Deconstructing the Legacy Model: A Diagnosis of Systemic Failure

To construct a resilient future, we must first undertake an unflinching diagnosis of the present. The prevailing leadership archetype across much of Africa, with clear manifestations in Nigeria’s political economy, is built upon a foundation that has proven tragically unfit for purpose. This model is characterized by several interlocking dysfunctions:

· The Primacy of Transactional Politics Over Transformational Vision: Governance has too often been reduced to a complex system of transactions—votes exchanged for short-term patronage, positions awarded for loyalty over competence, and resource allocation serving political expediency rather than national strategy. This erodes public trust and makes long-term, cohesive planning impossible.

· The Tyranny of the Short-Term Electoral Cycle: Leadership decisions are frequently held hostage to the next election, sacrificing strategic investments in education, infrastructure, and industrialization on the altar of immediate, visible—yet fleeting—gains. This creates a perpetual cycle of reactive governance, preventing the execution of decade-spanning national projects.

· Administrative Silos and Bureaucratic Inertia: Government ministries and agencies often operate as isolated fiefdoms, with limited inter-departmental collaboration. This siloed approach fragments policy implementation, leads to contradictory initiatives, and renders the state apparatus inefficient and unresponsive to complex, cross-sectoral challenges like climate change, public health, and national security.

· The Demographic Disconnect: Africa’s most potent asset is its youth. Yet, a vast governance gap separates a dynamic, digitally-native, and globally-aware generation from political structures that remain opaque, paternalistic, and slow to adapt. This disconnect fuels alienation, brain drain, and social unrest.

· The Weakness of Institutions and the Cult of Personality: When the strength of a state is vested in individuals rather than institutions, it creates systemic vulnerability. Independent judiciaries, professional civil services, and credible electoral commissions are weakened, leading to arbitrariness in the application of law, erosion of meritocracy, and a deep-seated crisis of public confidence.

The tangible outcomes of this flawed model are the headlines that define the continent’s challenges: infrastructure deficits that strangle commerce, public education and healthcare systems in states of distress, jobless economic growth, multifaceted security threats, and the chronic hemorrhage of human capital. To re-strategize leadership is to directly address these outputs by redesigning the very system that produces them.

Pillars of a Reformed Leadership Architecture: A Holistic Framework

The new leadership paradigm must be constructed not as a minor adjustment, but as a holistic architectural endeavor. It requires foundational pillars that are interdependent, mutually reinforcing, and built to endure beyond political transitions.

1. The Philosophical Core: Embracing Servant-Leadership and Ethical Stewardship
The most profound change must be internal—a recalibration of the leader’s fundamental purpose. The concept of the leader as a benevolent “strongman” must give way to the model of the servant-leader. This philosophy, rooted in both timeless African communal values (ubuntu) and modern ethical governance, posits that the true leader exists to serve the people, not vice versa. It is characterized by deep empathy, radical accountability, active listening, and a commitment to empowering others. Success is measured not by the leader’s personal accumulation of power or wealth, but by the tangible flourishing, security, and expanded opportunities of the citizenry. This ethos fosters trust, the essential currency of effective governance.

2. Strategic Foresight and Evidence-Based Governance
Leadership must be an exercise in building the future, not just administering the present. This requires the collaborative development of a clear, compelling, and inclusive national vision—a strategic narrative that aligns the energies of government, private sector, and civil society. For Nigeria, frameworks like Nigeria’s Agenda 2050 and the National Development Plan must be de-politicized and treated as binding national covenants. Furthermore, in the age of big data, governance must transition from intuition-driven to evidence-based. This necessitates significant investment in data collection, analytics, and policy-informing research. Whether designing social safety nets, deploying security resources, or planning agricultural subsidies, decisions must be illuminated by rigorous data, ensuring efficiency, transparency, and measurable impact.

3. Institutional Fortification: Building the Enduring Pillars of State
A nation’s longevity and stability are directly proportional to the strength and independence of its institutions. Re-strategizing leadership demands an unwavering commitment to institutional architecture:

· An Impervious Judiciary: The rule of law must be absolute, with a judicial system insulated from political and financial influence, guaranteeing justice for the powerful and the marginalized alike.

· Electoral Integrity as Sacred Trust: Democratic legitimacy springs from credible elections. Investing in independent electoral commissions, transparent technology, and robust legal frameworks is non-negotiable for political stability.

· A Re-professionalized Civil Service: The bureaucracy must be transformed into a merit-driven, technologically adept, and well-remunerated engine of state, shielded from the spoils system and empowered to implement policy effectively.

· Robust, Transparent Accountability Ecosystems: Anti-corruption agencies require genuine operational independence, adequate funding, and protection. Complementing this, transparent public procurement platforms and mandatory asset declarations for public officials must become normalized practice.

4. Collaborative and Distributed Leadership: The Power of the Collective
The monolithic state cannot solve wicked problems alone. The modern leader must be a convener-in-chief, architecting platforms for sustained collaboration. This involves actively fostering a triple-helix partnership:

· The Public Sector sets the vision, regulates, and provides enabling infrastructure.

· The Private Sector drives investment, innovation, scale, and job creation.

· Academia and Civil Society contribute research, grassroots intelligence, independent oversight, and specialized implementation capacity.
This model distributes responsibility, leverages diverse expertise, and fosters innovative solutions—from public-private partnerships in infrastructure to tech-driven civic engagement platforms.

5. Human Capital Supremacy: The Ultimate Strategic Investment
A nation’s most valuable asset walks on two feet. Re-strategized leadership places a supreme, non-negotiable priority on developing human potential. For Nigeria and Africa, this demands a generational project:

· Revolutionizing Education: Curricula must be overhauled to foster critical thinking, digital literacy, STEM proficiency, and entrepreneurial mindset—skills for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Investment in teacher training and educational infrastructure is paramount.

· Building a Preventive, Resilient Health System: Focus must shift from curative care in central hospitals to robust, accessible primary healthcare. A healthy population is a productive population, forming the basis of economic resilience.

· Creating an Enabling Environment for Talent: Beyond education and health, leadership must provide the ecosystem where talent can thrive: reliable electricity, ubiquitous broadband, access to venture capital, and a regulatory environment that encourages innovation and protects intellectual property. The goal is to make the domestic environment more attractive than the diaspora for the continent’s best minds.

6. Assertive, Strategic Engagement in Global Affairs
African leadership must shed any vestiges of a supplicant mentality and adopt a posture of strategic agency. This means actively shaping continental and global agendas:

· Leveraging the AfCFTA: Moving beyond signing agreements to actively dismantling non-tariff barriers, harmonizing standards, and investing in cross-border infrastructure to turn the agreement into a real engine of intra-African trade and industrialization.

· Diplomacy for Value Creation: Foreign policy should be strategically deployed to attract sustainable foreign direct investment, secure technology transfer agreements, and build partnerships based on mutual benefit, not aid dependency.

· Advocacy for Structural Reform: African leaders must collectively and persistently advocate for reforms in global financial institutions and multilateral forums to ensure a more equitable international system.

The Nigerian Imperative: From National Challenges to a National Charter

Applying this framework to Nigeria requires translating universal principles into specific, context-driven actions:

· Integrated Security as a Foundational Priority: Security strategy must be comprehensive, blending advanced intelligence capabilities, professionalized security forces, with parallel investments in community policing, youth employment programs in high-risk areas, and accelerated development to address the root causes of instability.

· A Determined Pursuit of Economic Complexity: Leadership must orchestrate a decisive shift from rent-seeking in the oil sector to value creation across diversified sectors: commercialized agriculture, light and advanced manufacturing, a thriving creative industry, and a dominant digital services sector.

· Constitutional and Governance Re-engineering: To harness its diversity, Nigeria requires a sincere national conversation on restructuring. This likely entails moving towards a more authentic federalism with greater fiscal autonomy for states, devolution of powers, and mechanisms that ensure equitable resource distribution and inclusive political representation.

· Pioneering a Just Energy Transition: Nigeria must craft a unique energy pathway—strategically utilizing its gas resources for domestic industrialization and power generation, while simultaneously positioning itself as a regional hub for renewable energy technology, investment, and innovation.

Conclusion: A Collective Endeavor of Audacious Hope

Re-strategizing leadership in Africa and in Nigeria is not an event, but a generational process. It is not the abandonment of culture but its evolution—melding the deep African traditions of community, consensus, and elder wisdom with the modern imperatives of transparency, innovation, and individual rights. This task extends far beyond the political class. It is a summons to a new generation of leaders in every sphere: the tech entrepreneur in Yaba, the reform-minded civil servant in Abuja, the agri-preneur in Kebbi, the investigative journalist in Lagos, and the community activist in the Niger Delta.

Ultimately, this is an endeavor of audacious hope. It is the conscious choice to build systems stronger than individuals, institutions more enduring than terms of office, and a national identity richer than our ethnic sum. Nigeria possesses all the requisite raw materials for greatness: human brilliance, cultural richness, and natural bounty. The final, indispensable ingredient is a leadership strategy worthy of its people. The blueprint is now detailed; the call to action is urgent. The future awaits not our complaints, but our constructive and courageous labor. Let the work begin in earnest.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His work addresses complex institutional challenges, with a specialized focus on West African security dynamics, conflict resolution, and sustainable development.

Opinion

Rivers State: Two Monkeys Burn the Village to Prove They Are Loyal to Jagaban

Published

6 days ago

January 7, 2026

Eric

By Sly Edaghese

Teaser

Rivers State is not collapsing by accident. It is being offered as a sacrifice. Two men, driven by fear of irrelevance and hunger for protection, have chosen spectacle over stewardship—setting fire to a whole people’s future just to prove who kneels better before power.

There comes a point when a political tragedy degenerates into farce, and the farce mutates into a curse. Rivers State has crossed that point. What is unfolding there is not governance, not even conflict—it is ritual madness, a grotesque contest in which two men are willing to burn an entire state just to be noticed by one man sitting far away in Abuja.

This is not ambition.

This is desperation wearing designer jacket.

At the center of this inferno stand two performers who have mistaken power for immortality and loyalty for slavery. One is a former god. The other is a former servant. Both are now reduced to naked dancers in a marketplace, grinding their teeth and tearing flesh to entertain Jagaban.

The first is Nyesom Wike—once feared, once untouchable, now frantic. A man whose political identity has collapsed into noise, threats, and recycled bravado. His ministerial appointment was never a validation of statesmanship; it was a severance package for betrayal. Tinubu did not elevate Wike because he admired him—he tolerated him because he was useful. And usefulness, in politics, is key, but it has an expiry date.

Wike governed Rivers State not as a public trust but as a private estate. He did not build institutions; he built dependencies. He did not groom leaders; he bred loyalists. Before leaving office, he salted the land with his men—lawmakers, commissioners, council chairmen—so that even in absence, Rivers State would still answer to his shadow. His obsession was simple and sick: if I cannot rule it, no one else must.

Enter Siminalayi Fubara—a man selected, not tested; installed, not trusted by the people but trusted by his maker. Fubara was meant to be an invisible power in a visible office—a breathing signature, a ceremonial governor whose only real duty was obedience.

But power has a way of awakening even the most timid occupant.

Fubara wanted to act like a governor. That single desire triggered a full-scale political assassination attempt—not with bullets, but with institutions twisted into weapons. A state of emergency was declared with obscene haste. The governor was suspended like a naughty schoolboy. His budget was butchered. His local government elections were annulled and replaced with a pre-arranged outcome favorable to his tormentor. Lawmakers who defected and lost their seats by constitutional law were resurrected like political zombies and crowned legitimate.

This was not law.

This was organized humiliation.

And when degradation alone failed, Wike went further—dragging Fubara into a room to sign an agreement that belonged more to a slave plantation than a democratic republic.

One clause alone exposed the rot:
👉 Fubara must never seek a second term.

In plain language: you may warm the chair, but you will never own it.

Then came the most revealing act of all—Wike leaked the agreement himself. A man so intoxicated by dominance that he thought publicizing oppression would strengthen his grip.

That leak was not strategy; it was confession. It told Nigerians that this was never about peace, order, or party discipline—it was about absolute control over another human being.

But history has a cruel sense of humor.

While Wike strutted like a victorious warlord and his loyal lawmakers sharpened new knives, Fubara did something dangerous: he adapted. He studied power where it truly resides. He learned Tinubu’s language—the language of survival, alignment, and betrayal without apology. Then he did what Nigerian politics rewards most:

He crossed over.

Not quietly. Not shamefully. But theatrically. He defected to the APC, raised a party card numbered 001 and crowned himself leader of the party in Rivers State. He pledged to deliver the same Rivers people to Tinubu just as Wike also has pledged.

That moment was not boldness.

It was cold-blooded realism.

And in one stroke, Wike’s myth collapsed.

The once-feared enforcer became a shouting relic—touring local governments like a prophet nobody believes anymore, issuing warnings that land on deaf ears, reminding Nigerians of favors that no longer matter. He threatened APC officials, cursed betrayal, and swore eternal vengeance. But vengeance without access is just noise.

Today, the humiliation is complete.

Fubara enters rooms Wike waits outside.

Presidential aides shake hands with the new alignment.

The old king rants in press conferences, sounding increasingly like a man arguing with a locked door.

And yet, the darkest truth remains: neither of these men cares about Rivers State.

One is fighting to remain relevant.

The other is fighting to remain protected.

The people—the markets, the schools, the roads, the civil servants—are expendable extras in a drama scripted far above their heads.

Some say Tinubu designed this blood sport—unable to discard Wike outright, he simply unleashed his creation against him. Whether genius or negligence, the effect is the same: Rivers State is being eaten alive by ambition.

This is what happens when politics loses shame.

This is what happens when loyalty replaces competence.

This is what happens when leaders treat states like bargaining chips and citizens like ashes.

Two monkeys are burning the village—not to save it, not to rule it—but to prove who can scream loudest while it burns.

And Jagaban watches, hands folded.

But when the fire dies down, when the music stops, when the applause fades, there will be nothing left to govern—only ruins, regret, and two exhausted dancers staring at the ashes, finally realizing that power does not clap forever.

Sly Edaghese sent in this piece from Wisconsin, USA.

Opinion

What Will Be the End of Wike?

Published

6 days ago

January 7, 2026

Eric

By Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq.

Every student of politics should now be interested in what will be the end of Wike. Wike is one of those names that mean different things to different people within Nigeria’s political culture. To his admirers, he is courage and capacity, to his critics, he is disruption and excess, and to neutral observers like me, he is simply a fascinating case study in the mechanics of power.

In many ways, he was instrumental to the emergence of President Tinubu, and he has long sat like a lord over the politics of Rivers, having pushed aside nearly every person who once mattered in that space. He waged war against his party, the PDP, and drove it to the edge. Wike waged war against his successor and reduced him to submission. He fights anyone who stands in his way.

He is powerful, loved by many, and deeply irritating to many others. Yet for all his strength, one suspects that Wike does not enjoy peace of mind, because before he is done with one fight, another fight is already forming. From Rivers to Ibadan, Abuja to Imo, and across the country, he is the only right man in his own way. He is constantly in motion, constantly in battle, and constantly singing “agreement is agreement,” while forgetting that politics is merely negotiation and renegotiation.

To his credit, Wike may often be the smartest political planner in every room. He reads everybody’s next move and still creates a countermove. In that self image, Governor Fubara was meant to remain on a leash, manageable through pressure, inducement, and the suggestion that any disobedience would be framed as betrayal of the President and the new federal order.

But politics has a way of punishing anyone who believes control is permanent. The moment Fubara joined the APC, the battlefield shifted, and old tricks began to lose their edge. Whether by real alignment, perceived alignment, or even the mere possibility of a different alignment, once Fubara was no longer boxed into the corner Wike designed for him, Wike’s entire method required review. The fight may remain, but the terrain has changed. When terrain changes, power must either adapt or harden into miscalculation.

It is within this context that the gradually brewing crisis deserves careful attention, because what is emerging is not merely another loud exchange, but a visible clash with vital stakeholders within the Tinubu government and the wider ruling party environment. There is now a fixed showdown with the APC National Secretary, a man who is himself not allergic to confrontation, and who understands that a fight, if properly timed, can yield political advantage, institutional relevance, and bargaining power. When such a figure publicly demands that Nyesom Wike should resign as a minister in Tinubu’s cabinet, it is not a joke, It is about who is permitted to exercise influence, in what space, and on what terms. It is also about the anxiety that follows every coalition built on convenience rather than shared identity, because convenience has no constitution and gratitude is not a structure.

Wike embodies that anxiety in its most dramatic form. He is a man inside government, but not fully inside the party that controls government. He is a man whose usefulness to a winning project is undeniable, yet whose political style constantly reminds the winners that he is not naturally theirs. In every ruling party, there is a crucial difference between allies and stakeholders. Allies help you win, and stakeholders own the structure that decides who gets what after victory. Wike’s problem is that he has operated like both. His support for Tinubu, and his capacity to complicate the opposition’s arithmetic, gave him relevance at the centre. That relevance always tempts a man to behave like a co-owner.

Wike has built his political life on the logic of territorial command. He defines the space, polices the gate, punishes disloyalty, rewards submission, and keeps opponents permanently uncertain. That method is brutally effective when a man truly owns and controls the structure, because it produces fear, and fear produces compliance. This is why Wike insists on controlling the Rivers equation, even when that insistence conflicts with the preferences of the national centre.

The APC leadership is not reacting only to words. It is reacting to what the words represent. When a minister speaks as though a state chapter of the ruling party should be treated like a guest in that state’s politics, the party reads it as an attempt to subordinate its internal structure to an external will. Even where the party has tolerated Wike because of what he helped deliver, it cannot tolerate a situation where its own officials begin to look over their shoulders for permission from a man who is not formally one of them. Once a party believes its chain of command is being bypassed, it will choose institutional survival over interpersonal loyalty every time.

Wike’s predicament is the classic risk of power without full institutional belonging. Informal influence can be louder than formal power, but it is also more fragile because it depends on continuous tolerance from those who control formal instruments. These instruments include party hierarchy, candidate selection, and the legitimacy that comes with membership.

An outsider ally can be celebrated while he is useful, but the coalition that celebrates him can begin to step away the moment his methods create more cost than value. The cost is not only electoral, it can also be organisational. A ruling party approaching the next political cycle becomes sensitive to discipline, structure, and coherence. If the leadership suspects that one person’s shadow is creating factions, confusing loyalties, or humiliating party officials, it will attempt to cut that shadow down. It may not do so because it hates the person, but because it fears the disorder and the precedent.

So the question returns with greater urgency, what will be the end of Wike? If it comes, it may not come with fireworks. Strongmen often do not fall through one decisive attack. They are slowly redesigned out of relevance. The end can look like isolation, with quiet withdrawal of access, gradual loss of influence over appointments, and the emergence of new centres of power within the same territory he once treated as private estate. It can look like neutralisation, with Wike remaining in office, but watching the political value of the office drain because the presidency and the party no longer need his battles. It can look like forced realignment, with him compelled to fully submit to the ruling party structure, sacrificing the freedom of being an independent ally, or losing the cover that federal power provides.

Yet it is also possible that his story does not end in collapse, because Wike is not a novice. The same instinct that made him influential can also help him survive if he adapts. But adaptation would require a difficult shift. It would require a move from territorial warfare to coalition management. It would require a move from ruling by fear to ruling by accommodation. It would require a move from being merely feared to being structurally useful without becoming structurally threatening. Wike may be running out of time.

Pelumi Olajengbesi is a Legal Practitioner and Senior Partner at Law Corridor