The Oracle
The Oracle: Passport Seizures, Retention, Revocation and Deprivation: Legal and Human Rights Implications (Pt. 1)
Published
7 months agoon
By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
No document is more critical to free movement of people across international borders than that rectangular booklet commonly called a ‘passport’. Without it, a person is without an identity – at least outside his or her country of origin. Neither a driver’s licence, voter’s card or other means suffices in such circumstances and he or she is effectively stateless and a citizen of the world.
Unfortunately, such people have few, if any, legal and diplomatic protection and are often in a legal ‘no-man’s’ land, where they belong to no one and are on their own. A case in point is the curious story of a man who lived in Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, France, for 18 years (between 1988 and 2006). Mehran Karimi Nasseri had arrived at the airport without proper documentation and couldn’t get on a plane without a passport. If he left the airport to go into France, he would be arrested for not having ID papers.
While Mr Nasseri’s case is probably the most dramatic (it even attracted interest from famous Hollywood director, Steven Spielberg, who reportedly paid him $250,000 for the rights to his story) illustration of the value of a passport, it is by no means an isolated one. Countless people have found (and continue to find) themselves in the same legal limbo and black hole- sometimes, through no fault of theirs, but rather, as a result of State action in the form of passport seizures, retention, revocation and deprivation. So what exactly is a ‘passport’, and what are the implications of its denial, seizure or revocation under the law? Let’s find out . . .
MEANING OF ‘PASSPORT’
According to Black’s Law Dictionary Eighth edition, page 1156, ‘a passport is a formal document certifying a person’s identity and citizenship so that the person may travel to and from a foreign country’.
It is universally accepted evidence of a person’s identity and nationality (Burdick H. Brittin, International Law for Sea Going Officers, 4th edition, 1981, pg. 183). It does not (however) give its bearer the right to travel to another country, but it does request that other governments permit him to travel in their territories or within their jurisdictions (ibid). It also entitles him to the protection and assistance of his own diplomatic and consular officers abroad (ibid).
A similar definition is contained in Webster’s New Explorer Encyclopedic Dictionary, page 1335, thus:
“A formal document issued by an authorised official of a country to one of its citizens that is usually necessary for exits from and re-entry into the country, that allows the citizen to travel in a foreign country in accordance with visa requirements, and that requests protection for the citizen while abroad.”
Case law is replete with similar definitions (See, for example, R. v. Secretary of State ex parte Everett (1989) 1All E.R. 655; and Sawhney v. Asst Passport Officer (1967) 335 C.R. 252). However, the leading Nigerian judicial authority on the subject is the decision in the famous case of AGBAKOBA v THE DIRECTOR, SSS (1994) 6 NWLR Pt. 351 pg. 475 @ 495., where the Court of Appeal, Ayoola, JCA as he then was) opined that: “in so far as a passport is a certificate or identity and nationality and at the same time a request from one state to another to grant entry to the bearer, it stands to reason that a passport is normally an essential document in the exercise of a discretion by a foreign State, which at international law, it has in the reception of aliens into its territory. To that extent, a passport is normally an essential document for entry into foreign Countries.”
The issue went on appeal to the Supreme Court, where the apex Court affirmed the definition of the “passport” in Section 6 of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act thus: “Passport means a document of protection and authority to travel issued by the competent Nigerian officials to Nigerians wishing to travel outside Nigeria and includes, as defined in subsections (3) and (4) or section 1 of this Act, the following-
(a) A standard Nigerian passport;
(b) A Nigerian diplomatic or official passport;
(c) A Nigerian pilgrim’s passport or Seaman’s card of identification.
The court then, opined that:
“Being in possession of and producing such passport granted as stated above allows the citizen to leave the courts and travel to another country without hindrances. It affords him assistance and protection when travelling in such other country”.
In the same case (ibid), the apex court affirmed the following definition of ‘passport’ in Section 52(1) of the Immigration Act (Cap. I1, LFN, 2004), viz:
“Passport means with reference to the person producing it, a travel document furnished with a photograph of such person and issued to him by or on behalf of the county which he is a subject of a citizen and for a period which according to the laws of that country, has not expired, and includes any other similar document approved by the Minister establishing the nationality and identity of the person to whom it refers to the satisfaction of a immigration officer”.
PASSPORTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
The foregoing demonstrates the centrality of passports as instruments of international travel; without one, movement across national borders – legitimate movement – is virtually impossible (or, at least, it is problematic). This invariably leads to a consideration of the constitutional right of freedom of movement. This is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Specifically, Section 41(1) thereof provides that “every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom.”
It can be seen that this provision does not, in terms, prescribe the possession of a passport as a condition either for entry into Nigeria or exit therefrom. Nor does the immediate subsection (2) thereto, which, for ease of reference, is as follows:-
“(2)Nothing in subsection (1) this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society- (a) imposing restrictions on the residence or movement of any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a criminal offence in order to prevent him from leaving Nigeria; or
(b) providing for the removal of any person from Nigeria to any other country to-
(i) be tried outside Nigeria for any criminal offence, or
(II) to undergo imprisonment outside Nigeria in execution of the sentence of a court of law in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty: provided that there is reciprocal agreement between Nigeria and which other Country in relation to such matter”
Beyond the foregoing provisions, Section 45(1) of the Constitution adds a further layer of derogation to the right of freedom of movement by providing that nothing in that clause (i.e. Section 41, inter alia) shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in democratic society-
(a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or
(b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.
That being the case, the question is whether the provisions of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Immigration Act which prescribe the possession of a passport by a citizen of Nigeria as a condition to exercising his fundamental right to ingress and egress out of Nigeria are reasonably justifiable with the parameters or circumstances spelt out in the aforesaid provisions of Section 41(2) and 45(1) of the Constitution. Is the requirement of a passport under the law a valid derogation from the fundamental right of a citizen of Nigeria to move freely across our international borders? Are the provisions of such laws “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting the right and freedom of other persons” within the contemplation of Section(45) of the Constitution?
Before going further, it is pertinent to point out that the qualification prescribed by subsection (2) of section 41 are more or less replicated (or at least contemplated and can, therefore, be accommodated) within the stand-alone restrictions on the right, i.e. of freedom of movement, (amongst others) under section 45(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, we can safely concentrate on interrogating the legitimacy or validity of the requirements of passport vis-a-vis the right to freedom of movement under the Constitution.
As previously stated, the question is whether the possession of an international passport by a Nigerian citizen as a condition for entering or leaving Nigeria reasonably justifiable under any law? Is it a valid derogation from our right of free entry into Nigeria and free exit therefrom? Are there any concerns of, or risks to, public safety, public health, public morality, public order or defence involved, were such restrictions not in place? Can such concerns not be addressed by the scheme of national identification which is currently in place?
Are such concerns not more legitimate and valid in respect of non-Nigerians? Why should a Nigerian need a separate document (apart from his national ID card) in order to enter Nigeria? Why should the State be concerned about the requirements for entering other Sovereign States to the extent of appropriating to itself the right to seize, withhold or revoke a passport? Is it the passport that confers nationality or otherwise? Is a person a citizen of Nigeria only if he or she possesses a Nigerian passport? This conveniently leads us to the next question, which is…
Thought on the week
“No level of border security, no wall, doubling the size of the border patrol, all these things will not stop the illegal migration from countries as long as a 7-year-old is desperate enough to flee on her own and travel the entire length of Mexico because of the poverty and the violence in her country”. (Jeh Johnson).
Related
You may like
The Oracle
The Oracle: Blood on the Benue: Weeping for Beleaguered Nigeria
Published
2 days agoon
June 20, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
Yelwata in Benue state has been drenched in blood. Last October, I launched 50 books at the same time in Abuja to mark my birthday. One of the books is titled “Blood on the Niger and Benue: Nigeria’s Grim Insecurity Situation”. Everything said in that book has just bee reenacted in Yelwata, Benue State.
In the quiet hours of Friday night, June 13, 2025, the farming village of Yelwata in Guma Local Government Area of Benue State lay cloaked in the familiar darkness of rural Nigeria. There was no forewarning, no alarm. Only sleep. Then, like a storm without thunder, horror descended.
Armed men, suspected to be killer Fulani terrorist herders, emerged from the shadows and set upon the defenceless community with brutal precision. For more than two hours, they maimed, slaughtered, burned and razed. By the time the sun rose on Saturday morning, the landscape had transformed into a grotesque tapestry of charred ruins, still-smouldering debris and lifeless bodies sprawled across crimson soil. Over 200 people were reportedly confirmed dead at the scene and the toll would rise in the days that followed, with some reports placing the number of victims at over 300. Among the dead were children, pregnant women and elderly farmers, civilians caught in the indiscriminate cruelty of a calculated massacre. I most unequivocally condemn this horror, this man’s inhumanity to man. It must never happen again. NEVER!
Witnesses recounted how petrol was doused on thatched homes before they were set ablaze. Whole families perished in their sleep, trapped by flames and collapsing roofs. The night echoed with the crackling of the burning and the screams of the wounded and the orphaned. Survivors stumbled through the darkness, scorched and bleeding, in search of refuge. At the Benue State University Teaching Hospital in Makurdi, doctors worked frantically, overwhelmed by the influx of casualties. Medical personnel issued urgent calls for blood donations as the wards filled with the critically injured, many clinging to life with little more than hope.
In a land where yam festivals should flourish, the earth has instead flourished with drunk blood. A serene and prosperous village, producing large quantity of food is now a ghost community, no thanks to deadly attacks by killer herdsmen, who pose as innocent cattle rearers.
A PEOPLE LEFT FOR DEAD: THE HUMAN TOLL
What occurred in Yelwata cannot be dismissed as a “clash,” nor cloaked in the diplomatic cowardice of euphemisms that seek to sanitize horror. This was not a skirmish. It was not a misunderstanding. It was a massacre! A premeditated act of mass violence, executed with recklessness and impunity against a defenceless civilian population, in total defiance of laws and moral conscience. The people of Yelwata have become mourners in their own homeland, dressed in black, forever gathering the bones of the innocent. The village has been painted over with the sorrow of the grieving and the brushstrokes of trauma.
Among the victims was the family of Michael Ajah, a survivor now left hollowed by grief. Ajah lost twenty members of his family in a single night! Eleven perished in one house. Eight were killed in another. The others died in the chaos, scattered across a village that now exists only in ashes. His stores were burnt. His home was destroyed. Standing barefoot in the ruins, he described how he escaped only with the clothes on his back. “This is the only thing that I have now,” he said. “There is nothing else with me.” Bature Bartholomew, Joseph Kwagh and countless others suffered a similar fate.
Apparently, prior threats had been made, as they often are, but villagers had grown used to such messages. The community had seen warnings before. And in the past, some security forces had pushed back similar threats. The villagers believed it would be the same this time. They likened it to the story of the crying wolf. They were wrong.
Let the world hear it: the peaceful people of Yelwata were not victims of chance. They were targeted. They were hunted. And they were massacred.
DEAFENING SILENCE AND DEADLY INACTION BY GOVERNMENT
The massacre in Yelwata is not just a story of blood and loss. It is a harrowing indictment of leadership failure, systemic neglect and institutional cowardice. In the face of rising tensions and repeated warnings, those entrusted with the security of Benue State and Nigeria at large chose silence. Security forces knew the fragility of peace in Yelwata. They were not blind to the pattern. From Guma to Agatu, Logo to Turan, the script has played out over and over: villages burnt, families erased, justice deferred. Yet, no preventive measures were taken. No fortified presence. No aerial surveillance. Only the eerie stillness of a nation too used to the scent of scorched earth.
When the killers struck again, it was not a surprise. It was an inevitability made possible by deafening silence and deadly inaction. The people of Benue have cried themselves hoarse, year after year, massacre after massacre. But their grief has been met with bureaucratic apathy and public relations condolences. Governor Hyacinth Alia’s response to the massacre was not merely inadequate; it was an affront. His delay in visiting the scene, his refusal to speak, tweet, or even mourn publicly until after President Tinubu’s very belated visit, has been interpreted not just as incompetence but as possible complicity. In the face of over 200 dead, the Governor offered the nation a figure of 59, thus inimizing the scale of bloodshed and insulting the graves of the murdered. What even if it were one? Instead of naming the perpetrators, he set up an investigative panel that tactfully avoided attributing blame, as if the truth was inconvenient, as if justice might provoke too much discomfort.
When President Tinubu finally arrived in Benue, the expectations of a grieving people were clear: solidarity, seriousness, swift action and restitution. What they received instead was a grotesque display of political theatre. Placards bearing the President’s image lined the roads. Schoolchildren, soaked and shivering, were forced to line the streets under a heavy downpour, waving soggy banners while mass graves still steamed in the earth nearby. What should have been a moment of solemnity turned into an unofficial 2027 re-election rally, a tasteless spectacle that traded the blood of Yelwata for photo ops. This was not condolence. This was campaign optics.
This playbook is not new. On New Year’s Day in 2017, over 200 people were slaughtered in Benue for resisting the destruction of their crops by cattle. On December 25th, 2024, as Christians marked the birth of Jesus Christ, suspected armed herders invaded Ityuluv, Tse Azege and Innyiev Ya in Kwande Local Government, killing eleven people mid-celebration. The images are consistent: corpses laid out under church roofs, burning homes, the wails of mothers who will never again hold their children. Yet from the corridors of power, the same recycled rhetoric flows: “We condemn,” “We are investigating,” “We urge calm.” But no arrests. No convictions. No justice. Just the thud of fresh bodies hitting the ground.
Even the words of comfort are now hollow. President Tinubu’s lamentations, “Enough is enough… perpetrators must be arrested… communities must dialogue”, ring with irony. Dialogue with whom? With the men who crept through the rain to burn babies alive? With those who hacked entire bloodlines to death because they were asked not to graze on people’s farmland? Dialogue implies equal grievance. This is not war. This is terrorism. Pure and simple. And to place dialogue and reconciliation above accountability is to trample on the memory of the dead.
Dr. Daudu Ayu of Yelwata captured the fury of a betrayed people when he denounced the President’s framing of the massacre as a “conflict between warring communities.” There is no parity here. The Fulani attackers were not defending; they were invading. Their aim was clear: seize ancestral lands, decimate indigenous populations and spread fear as a weapon of conquest. To reduce this to “herder-farmer clashes” is to excuse genocide with semantics.
The numbers are staggering. Since 2009, Nigeria has lost millions of lives to insurgency and herder-farmer violence. Benue alone has absorbed blow after blow, turning its farmlands into open graveyards. The government’s failure to act, its refusal to label this terrorism for what it is, has emboldened the killers. Why would they stop when they face no consequence? Why retreat when their path is cleared by political hesitation and legal paralysis?
President Tinubu’s muted outrage and calculated ambiguity do not typify exemplary leadership. They are avoidance wrapped in grammar. His failure to draw a red line, to name the aggressors, to galvanize decisive military action, makes his ambition for a second term in 2027 more than politically distasteful; it makes it morally flawed. How do you govern the living if you preside over the slaughter of the forgotten?
Each delayed response, each muted condemnation, adds one more body to the pile. For years, as statistics ballooned into genocidal proportions, the government sermonized from podiums while the fields of Benue ran red. This latest atrocity in Yelwata is not the beginning of the story, but it must be the final warning. Because if Nigeria cannot protect its citizens, if the Constitution’s promise of security and welfare is conditional on tribe, location, or silence, then it is not a nation; it is a lie, a scam.
Enough, please. Condolences do not resurrect the dead. Nor do photo-ops rebuild homes. The people of Yelwata need more than pity; they demand justice. And if this government cannot deliver it, then it must step aside for one that will. The land of yams is now the land of tombs. And history will remember who stood up and who stood back while it all burned.
TERROR HAS A NAME! CALL IT BY ITS NAME!!
According to Fr. Remigius Ihyula, a long-time witness to these cycles of violence and trauma in Benue State, this is a coordinated effort to wipe indigenous Christian communities off the map. “These Fulani militias are not just killing, they’re clearing land to claim it,” he stated in what should have been a national alarm bell. “And they’re being allowed to do it.”
The silence that follows such clarity is complicity. These attackers do not crawl out of caves. They cross state lines. Emboldened, equipped and unchallenged. From neighboring Nasarawa. Armed groups are said to find safe haven in Lafia, the state capital; yet successive Nasarawa governors have refused to act. Not out of ignorance, but from calculation. What kind of leadership turns its face away while death marches across its borders in open daylight? What kind of democracy tolerates this level of carnage and calls itself whole?
And when the few voices brave enough to speak the truth rise, they are met with digital disinformation and diversion. Fr. Ihyula has strongly condemned attempts to scapegoat the Tiv people, refuting online rumors that Tiv militias orchestrated the massacre. “There were no Tiv fighters involved,” he said. “This is a deliberate attempt to muddy the truth and shield the real perpetrators.” In a country already fracturing under the weight of ethno-religious mistrust, such deflections are more than cowardly. They are dangerous.
David Onyillokwu Idah of the International Human Rights Commission gave name to what many have been too afraid to utter. “This is what the Nazis did to the Jews,” he warned. “It’s ethnic cleansing, step by step. First, they displace them. Then they come back and finish the job.” This is not sensationalism. It is a fact pattern. Entire villages emptied. Men and women slaughtered. Children hacked to pieces. Homes razed. Crops destroyed. Entire communities transformed into ghost towns with only ashes left to speak.
And where is the state? Where is the machinery of justice, the constitutional promise of safety, dignity and equal protection? Every law in Nigeria, beginning with the Constitution, affirms that the right to life is sacred. That the state has an inviolable duty to protect it. Yet in Yelwata, life was treated like expendable surplus. Background casualty in the theater of statecraft. Amnesty International has catalogued the horrors, calling attention to the government’s complete failure to stem the tide of violence. “Gunmen have been on a killing spree with utter impunity,” it reported, warning that the mass displacement of farmers would have ripple effects on food security and economic stability. Their statement, clinical yet urgent, highlighted not only a humanitarian disaster but also the erosion of constitutional order. “Without immediate action, many more lives may be lost.” The question is: does the government intend to act, or merely wait until there are no more villages left to bury?
POLICY OR HUMANITY FAILURE
What occurred in Yelwata is not only a breach of human dignity. It is a breach of law, of the very fabric that claims to hold Nigeria together. These are not mere attacks; they are crimes against humanity. Under international law, under the Rome Statute to which Nigeria is a signatory, a systematic attack directed against a civilian population qualifies as such. Ethnic cleansing, political protection of armed militias and the use of displacement as a weapon, all point towards a dangerous descent Nigeria cannot afford. This is not just Yelwata’s burden. This is a national stain.
The issue is no longer one of mere policy failure. It is a test of our collective humanity. It is the measure of whether we, as a people, as a nation under law, believe rural Nigerian lives matter. Because every time a tactical unit is deployed after the massacre, every time officials show up after the mass burial, every time condolences are uttered while killers remain nameless and free—it tells the people of Yelwata that their blood is cheap. That their lives are expendable. That they are alone.
But the Constitution says otherwise. Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), declares the security and welfare of the people to be the primary purpose of government. Section 33 guarantees the right to life. Section 34 guarantees the right to dignity. Yet in the fields of Yelwata, once alive with farming, festivals and laughter, there is now only ash, silence and death. These rights, on paper, are being buried beside the people they were meant to protect.
If Nigeria still believes in its own laws, in its own humanity, then Yelwata must not be forgotten. Their stories must outlive the silence. Their names must echo louder than the rain that hid the footsteps of their killers.
This is no longer a rural crisis. It is a national reckoning. And history is already watching.
FROM CRIES TO JUSTICE: WHAT MUST NOW BE DONE
The carnage in Yelwata, like so many before it, leaves behind more than scorched homes and mass graves. It leaves a nation at a crossroads. In the place of swift justice, we have seen a cycle of condolences without consequence. In the place of leadership, we have seen silence, sluggishness and in some quarters, chilling complicity. And so, once again, a grieving people are left to ask: must our cries be louder than gunfire before we are heard? Must the soil drink more blood before the state will act?
The Northern Senators Forum, in a rare and firm voice, echoed the frustration of a people brutalized beyond measure. Chairing the statement, Senator Abdulaziz Musa Yar’adua called upon President Tinubu to ensure that his visit to the ashes of Yelwata would not dissolve into a photo-op footnote. “What the people of Benue and indeed all Nigerians, deserve is lasting protection, not repeated mourning.” In a nation where impunity now travels in convoys, that statement carries the weight of a challenge, not a courtesy.
But lip service will no longer suffice. Nigerians are not beggars at the gate of justice. They are constitutional citizens entitled to life, dignity and safety. Yet these rights have been violated repeatedly in Benue State, a region that has endured more than its fair share of bloodletting. Rural communities have become theatres of unrelenting terror. Ungoverned spaces stalked by militias, abandoned by the state and forgotten by a government too slow to respond, too quick to excuse. Yelwata is but a metaphor of what goes on across the length and breadth of Nigeria.
This moment demands more than mourning. It demands reckoning. The Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency where there is a serious breakdown of public order and a clear and present danger is presented. That threshold has long been crossed. As Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Esq, rightly noted, what we are witnessing is not communal misunderstanding. It is a transnational siege. Militants from across the Cameroon border continue to pour in, slaughtering with impunity, while the federal and state governments grope in the dark of denial.
And where was the governor, the supposed shepherd of the people? Governor Hyacinth Alia, elected to protect lives, stood muted while bodies were piled. The faint whisper of his voice came days after, long after the wails of the bereaved had risen to the heavens, long after Pope Leo XIV. It is not enough to wear a cassock; one must wield courage. It is not enough to call for prayer; one must demand justice. And if political office now weighs heavier than his conscience can bear, perhaps the pulpit is where he truly belongs. The hood does not make the monk after all.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Immediate Deployment of Adequate Security Forces
The first and immediate line of intervention must be the swift deployment of sufficient, well-trained and fully-equipped security personnel to the affected communities. But this cannot be business as usual. Our military and other security agencies must stop operating in separated silos. What we need is joint intelligence gathering, joint operations and joint accountability. Anything less is a betrayal of the people already left exposed and bleeding.
2. Declaration of a State of Emergency in the Affected Areas
The Federal Government must now invoke its constitutional mandate under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a targeted state of emergency in the devastated areas. This should not be done as a mere political gimmick like in Rivers State but as a constitutional necessity. Such a declaration would allow for a unified, coordinated and rapid security response, free from the red tape that has too often cost lives. It would restore public order, unlock emergency relief and send a powerful message, not just to the perpetrators, but to the bereaved that Nigeria has not entirely lost its soul.
3. Establishment of a Judicial Commission of Inquiry
A robust, truly independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry must be established to thoroughly investigate these atrocities. It must dig deep; not just into who pulled the triggers, but into who enabled them, who funded them, who looked away. Justice must be more than ceremonial. It must be seen, heard and felt. Otherwise, we embolden the next set of killers.
4. Government Assistance to Victims and Survivors
The dead must not be buried with the silence of the state. Survivors must not be left to wander with grief as their only companion. The government must offer immediate and sustained relief, medical care, shelter, financial assistance, food, clothes, relocation support and psychosocial services. Compassion must walk hand in hand with justice. Not as charity, but as a right.
5. Tackling the Root Causes: Annexation and Occupation by the Fulani Herders; Poverty, Unemployment and Illiteracy
Peace is not built on military boots alone. It is built on dignity of the human person; opportunity and hope. The structural causes of this continuous violence must be tackled. First, the government must extirpate this sense of irredentist annexation and occupation of the land of the Natives all over Nigeria by fully armed Fulani herders. The grinding poverty, monumental unemployment and educational exclusion must be confronted and dealt with boldly. These are not background issues; they are the fuel that ignite the crises. A country that fails to invest in its people will eventually have to bury them.
6. Inclusive Dialogue with Traditional Rulers and Community Leaders
Security is not the exclusive preserve of the state. It must be co-owned by the people. Traditional rulers, faith-based leaders, youth groups and local stakeholders must be at the table, not as spectators but as partners. Their voices carry legitimacy and their cooperation carries weight. The road to peace must pass through the hearts of the people who live there.
Nigeria must abandon the lie that some lives are worth more than others. Whether in Lagos or Yelwata, the right to life is not negotiable.
Justice must rise. Not as a whisper but as a national roar. For each charred body in Yelwata cries out; not for pity, but for prosecution. Not for platitudes, but for policy. Not for remembrance, but for reform. Let the government stop sermonizing and start securing. Let the Presidency remember that it was elected to protect, not to pontificate. And let the nation rise to say: enough. Not one more grave before we act. Not one more child buried before we move.
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
I have decried this nightmare too many times. My voice is now hoarse from screaming into the void. And if I, one far removed from; a mere citizen and a conscience with pen and protest feel this ravaged, this worn, then what must be the state of mind of the grieving people of Yelwata, of Benue? What must it be to live in constant dread, to bury child after child, to rebuild only for fire to raze it again?
The people of Benue State deserve better. They deserve a government that does not look away, a system that does not delay and a nation that does not devalue their suffering. The Yelwata massacre was not just a tragic event. It was an indictment. A blistering exposure of governance gone cold and a security architecture collapsed under the weight of its own rot. It laid bare the double standards that govern Nigerian responses to violence: swifter when it affects the elite and sluggish, if not silent, when it happens in the farmlands of the forgotten.
This was not just a failure of one government. It was the betrayal of institutions. A brutal failure by Governor Hyacinth Alia, who watched from within the state without uttering a word while the ashes of his constituents cooled. A glaring failure by the Tinubu administration, that merely sent condolences before justice and optics before concrete action. A catastrophic failure by the Nigerian state itself, whose primary constitutional duty, to protect life and property, was abandoned the moment the first gunshots rang out in Yelwata.
This massacre cannot be allowed to happen again. Not under any guise. Not cloaked in politics. Not silenced by power. Not dulled by time.
We end not in quiet despair, but in thunderous resolve. This grief will not make us mute. This pain will not make us passive. The dead of Yelwata are not numbers to scroll past—they are names, families, futures. They are stories etched into our conscience.
And so we write and will monitor the implementation of our recommendations.
We will not stop until the soil of Yelwata no longer tastes of blood, but of justice. Until the lives lost become the spark for national reckoning. Until silence is replaced by outrage and condolences give way to action.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: How Trump’s Citizenship Policy Affects Nigeria (Pt. 1)
Published
2 weeks agoon
June 6, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
In the shimmering glow of the American Dream, the notion of birthright citizenship was like a golden key, unlocking doors to freedom, opportunity, and a future brimming with possibilities. For Nigerians and Africans who crossed the oceans hoping to carve out a better life, that key was often the very reason they believed their children’s futures could be shaped in the Land of Liberty. But then came President Trump’s executive order—a chilling gust of wind that threatened to snap that golden key in half. The dream, once untainted by doubt, suddenly became a mirage, casting shadows on the hopes of those who had put everything on the line to come to the United States. Children born on American soil could find themselves caught in the crossfire of an immigration war they had no part in.
AN OVER-VIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is aimed at ending birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States. This order obviously seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents, including those who are undocumented or in the country on temporary visas. This order contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America which was ratified in 1869. It provides that:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The constitutionality of President Trump’s order has since become the subject of many suits across America. Several Federal District Courts issued orders blocking enforcement of Trump’s Executive Order. They held that citizenship by birth is an unequivocal constitutional right and “one of the principles that makes the United States the great nation it is. The president cannot change, limit or qualify this constitutional right via Executive Orders. The Supreme Court will on May 15, 2025, hear arguments on Trump’s claim that there is no automatic guarantee to birth-right citizenship. Is Trump’s policy constitutional? Can he use an Executive Order to override the Constitution birthed since 1878?
THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ON NIGERIANS AND AFRICANS
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
United States nationality law outlines the criteria under which an individual acquires U.S. nationality. In the U.S., nationality is generally obtained through provisions in the Constitution, various laws, and international treaties. Citizenship, however, is established as a right by section 1 of the fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, not as a privilege, for individuals born within U.S. territory or its jurisdiction, as well as those who have been “naturalized.” Although the terms “citizen” and “national” are sometimes used interchangeably, “national” is a broader legal term, meaning a person can be a national without being a citizen. Citizenship, on the other hand, refers specifically to nationals who hold the status of being a citizen (Wikipedia ‘United States Nationality Law’ <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law> accessed on the 31st Jan 2025).
The move to end birthright citizenship has sparked significant legal debates. Many Nigerians in the diaspora argue that such executive orders conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on American soil. The contention is that an executive order alone is insufficient to amend this constitutional provision, leading to prolonged legal battles and uncertainty for affected families.
There is no denying that the executive order indeed is blatantly unconstitutional as stated by a Federal District Court judge in seattle, John C. Coughenour who issued a temporary restraining order halting the us president’s plan. This policy, if upheld, could also increase undocumented populations, as children of noncitizens would have no legal status. Even Nigerian parents residing legally in the U.S. Few weeks ago, three us citizens, one with cancer, were deported to Honduras alongside their mothers for being in the US illegally, but not yet citizens could face uncertainties regarding their U.S.-born children’s citizenship status.
This policy could deter Africans from migrating to the U.S., fearing instability in their children’s citizenship status. If upheld, the order could set a precedent affecting birthright citizenship interpretations in other countries, potentially influencing global migration patterns.
The president’s order, one of several issued in the opening hours of his presidency to curtail immigration, legal and illegal, declared that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants after Feb. 19 2025, would no longer be treated as citizens. The order would also extend to babies born to mothers who are in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers, if the father is a noncitizen.
In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits to block the executive order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent has long interpreted the amendment — which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — as applying to every baby born in the U.S., with a few narrow exceptions: children of accredited foreign diplomats, children born to noncitizens in U.S. territories occupied by an invading army, and, at one point, children born to Native Americans on reservations.
Judge Coughenour’s ruling marks the start of what is likely to be a prolonged legal battle between the new administration and the courts over President Trump’s ambitious second-term agenda, which aims to overhaul American institutions in ways that could be seen as violating legal precedents. Other executive orders, including efforts to remove job protections for career federal employees and speed up deportations, are also facing legal challenges.
Judge Coughenour’s decision was pointed: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?” After the hearing in Seattle, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown called the executive order “un-American,” though he cautioned that the battle is far from over.
In a status conference about the Maryland case, Joseph W. Mead, an attorney from Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection who represents four pregnant mothers and two nonprofit groups, argued that the courts should act quickly so the mothers can know the legal status of their future children. “Mothers today now have to fear that their children will not be granted the U.S. citizenship they’re entitled to,” he said (Mike Baker, Mattathias Schwartz ‘Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Plan to End Birthright Citizenship’ <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/us/politics/judge-blocks-birthright-citizenship.html> accessed on the 31 Jan 2025.).
Another concern is the economic reality that many African immigrants face, even after obtaining American citizenship. While the U.S. is often seen as a land of opportunities, many Nigerians and Africans find it difficult to break into the job market due to systemic racism, credential disparities, and the challenges of navigating the American labour market. Even with citizenship, the discrimination and biases that many African immigrants face often limit career growth and financial stability. For many, the promise of economic prosperity remains unfulfilled.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
In addition to the legal and psychological implications, Trump’s executive orders also had socio-economic consequences for Nigerian and African families. Many African immigrants who went to the United States to provide a better life for their children now faced heightened financial and emotional strains due to uncertainty surrounding their children’s citizenship status. In many cases, parents who had worked tirelessly to support their families were left to navigate a legal landscape that made it harder for them to secure stable futures for their children. This uncertainty extended to the children themselves, who, in some cases, had to grapple with a feeling of displacement and alienation in a country where they had been born but could not always be guaranteed full protection under the law. Discrimination reign supreme.
While the U.S. has long served as a magnet for African professionals—particularly from Nigeria, where education and employment opportunities are often limited—Trump’s executive order raised a more urgent concern: the future of the African brain trust. The order not only created a hostile environment for those hoping to secure a better life for their families but also led many to question whether the long-term impact would be a “brain drain” of a different kind. Would Nigerian and Africans, disillusioned by an unwelcoming America, begin to reconsider their plans for raising a family on American soil and return home instead?
There is also systematic discrimination in employment and society. Despite being among the most educated immigrant groups in the United States, Nigerian and other African immigrants often encounter systemic challenges. A study published in the Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics found that Nigerian immigrants experience both racial and workplace discrimination, which negatively impacts their overall satisfaction with life in the United States Esther Jack-Vickers).
SUSPENSION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMEMES
Trump complained about international agreements and initiatives “that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives”, saying they “steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people”.
Trump’s executive order freezes disbursement of all US foreign development assistance for 90 days pending a review of “programmematic efficiencies” and ensuring that disbursements are “aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States”, arguing “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values”.
Under the executive order, all department and agency heads with responsibility for the US foreign development assistance programmemes shall immediately pause new obligations and disbursement of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organisations, international organisations and contractors.
(To be continued)
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The criteria for serving one’s country should be competence, courage and willingness to serve. When we deny people the chance to serve because of their sexual orientation, we deprive them of their rights of citizenship, and we deprive our armed forces the service of willing and capable Americans”. -Dianne Feinstein.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: The ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol and Need for Urgent Review (Pt. 2)
Published
3 weeks agoon
May 30, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
CHALLENGES BEDEVILLING THE ECOWAS PROTOCOL ON TRANSHUMANCE (continues)
The inaugural installment of this treatise dealt with historical background of transhumance and its contemporary challenges. Thereafter, it examined the ECOWAS Protocol and challenges vis-avis transhumance, starting with free movement and national security. This week’s installment continues with that theme, with a focus on farmer-herder conflicts; its stain on the economy and environment and its negative impact on modern livestock practices, later we will make a case for reviewing the protocol on transhumance; challenging the dynamics of security; climate change and land security; national sovereignty and regional integration; promoting ranching and alternative livelihoods. This will be followed by suggested strategic solutions such as balancing regional integration and national security-including strengthening border security and management systems; enhancing intelligence sharing and security cooperation within the sub-region and strengthening extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. Read on.
1. FARMER-HERDER CONFLICTS
The ECOWAS Protocol does not account for changing demographics, land use patterns and climate change, leading to violent clashes between farmers and herders. Invariably, it is herders armed with AK-47 rifles that usually graze on farmers’ farmlands and wherever challenged, they unleash mayhem, kill, rape and overrun such communities. In Nigeria, these conflicts have resulted in thousands of deaths and internal displacements, particularly in the Middle Belt (Benue, Plateau, Taraba). ECOWAS lacks enforcement mechanisms to regulate transhumance effectively.
In the past, land in Nigeria was owned mostly by communities. Usually, the head of each community and these pastoralists have a well-defined mechanism of ensuring that conflicts are minimized to the barest minimum. Under the extant Land Use Act of Nigeria, it is provided that all the land in each state is owned by the Governor who holds it in trust for the people of Nigeria. The Governor gives a holder of an interest in land a “Right of Occupancy” as evident in a document called “Certificate of Occupancy”. See the cases of Adisa v. Oyinwola & Ors (2000) LPELR-186(SC) and Omatha Investments & Property LTD v. Awosanya (2023) LPELR – 60685 (CA).
Most Governors, unfortunately, have no clue about pastoralism and the challenges of these herders. Some of them do not have any land reserved for grazing or farming in their states and have therefore enacted laws proscribing open grazing. The arguments is that these laws target herders without taking into consideration the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) regarding freedom of movement and the ECOWAS Protocol on Transhumance. The Farm Settlement Schemes established while Nigeria was practising regionalism have since died under the watch of these Governors. Even in states where there are grazing reserves or policies to that effect, such policies have largely failed due to poor implementation and lack of funding.
2. ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRAIN
Another challenge of the ECOWAS Protocol on transhumance is that it is mostly unregulated. I doubt if any of the signatories to the protocol have a database of the herders in their countries and where they are. This is an institutional failure of the government. Unfortunately, unregulated grazing leads to massive crop destruction, huge economic losses for farmers, and environmental degradation (e.g., deforestation, soil erosion), etc.
3. UNDERMINING MODERN LIVESTOCK PRACTICES
The ECOWAS Protocol perpetuates open grazing which is increasingly unsustainable due to urbanization and shrinking grazing reserves. Nigeria and other West African nations must now embark on policies that encourage ranching and sedentarization of pastoralists.
THE CASE FOR REVIEWING THE ECOWAS PROTOCOL ON TRANSHUMANCE
4. Changing Security Dynamics
The rise of jihadist groups (e.g., ISWAP, Ansaru) and armed banditry linked to transhumance necessitates stricter regulations. A lecturer at the Taraba State University, Prof. John Ajai, shared such view (https://punchng.com/taraba-varsity-lecturer-writes-tinubu-calls-for-ban-on-open-grazing/> Accessed on 2nd May, 2025.). In his recent letter to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. He said “unregulated cross-border movements have enabled not just pastoralists but heavily armed groups to enter Nigerian territories under the guise of transhumance”. He argued that the ECOWAS protocol, initially aimed at facilitating peaceful pastoral mobility across West Africa, has been “hijacked by criminal networks and insurgents,” leading to the displacement of indigenous communities and the destruction of livelihoods in states such as Benue, Plateau, and Nasarawa. Citing a USAID-funded report, Ajai noted that between 2015 and 2019, Nigeria recorded “approximately 7,000 deaths and an estimated $13bn in annual economic losses” due to conflicts linked to pastoral activities.
Nigeria must advocate for a revised Protocol that mandates biometric registration of pastoralists and tracking of livestock movements across the length and breadth of Nigeria.
5. Climate Change and Land Scarcity
Desertification and shrinking Lake Chad have reduced grazing lands, increasing competition for resources. The Protocol should integrate climate adaptation strategies, such as designated grazing corridors and water management policies.
6. National Sovereignty vs. Regional Integration
While ECOWAS promotes free movement, member states must prioritize domestic security. A revised Protocol is required to allow countries impose temporary restrictions on transhumance during periods of crises and national emergencies.
7. Promoting Ranching and Alternative Livelihoods
The Protocol should incentivize ranching and feedlot systems, reducing reliance on open grazing. ECOWAS could establish a fund to support pastoralists in transitioning from pastoralism to modern livestock practices.
STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS: BALANCING REGIONAL INTEGRATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Addressing the menace of criminal infiltration under the ECOWAS Protocol requires a multifaceted and collaborative approach that balances Nigeria’s commitment to regional integration with the imperative of safeguarding national security. The following strategic solutions warrant serious consideration:
1. Strengthening Border Security and Management Systems.
a. Increased Investment in Technology: Deploying advanced biometric identification systems at all major border crossings to accurately verify the identities of entrants and cross-reference them against national and regional criminal databases. Implementing surveillance technologies, including CCTV, drones, and ground sensors, to monitor border areas effectively. Investing in vehicle and cargo scanning equipment to detect the movement of illicit goods and weapons.
b. Enhanced Training and Capacity Building for Border Personnel: Providing comprehensive training to immigration, customs, and security personnel on modern border management techniques, including profiling, document fraud detection, intelligence gathering, and human rights. Increasing the number of trained personnel deployed to border areas to ensure adequate coverage.
c. Integrated Border Management Strategy: Developing and implementing a national integrated border management strategy that fosters seamless coordination and information sharing among all relevant security agencies operating at the borders. Establishing joint operation centers and protocols for inter-agency collaboration.
d. Community Engagement in Border Security: Fostering partnerships with border communities through awareness programs and intelligence networks to enhance local vigilance and reporting of suspicious activities.
2. Enhancing Intelligence Sharing and Security Cooperation within ECOWAS:
a. Establishment of a Robust Regional Criminal Intelligence Database: Actively participating in and advocating for the establishment of a centralized, real-time, and secure ECOWAS-wide criminal intelligence database accessible to authorized security agencies in all member states. This database should include biometric data, criminal records, and information on suspected terrorist groups and organized criminal networks.
b. Strengthening Joint Intelligence Operations: Establishing and expanding joint intelligence units with neighboring ECOWAS countries to conduct coordinated analysis, share information on cross-border threats, and plan joint operations.
c. Regular Security Summits and Information Exchange Forums: Organizing regular high-level meetings and technical workshops among security chiefs and intelligence agencies of ECOWAS member states to discuss emerging threats, share best practices, and coordinate security strategies.
d. Full Implementation and Utilization of West Africa Police Information System (WAPIS): Ensuring the full and effective implementation and utilization of the West Africa Police Information System (WAPIS) to facilitate the exchange of critical crime-related data among law enforcement agencies in the region.
3. Strengthening Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties: Reviewing and strengthening existing extradition treaties and mutual legal assistance agreements among ECOWAS member states to streamline the process of apprehending and prosecuting cross-border criminals.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The ECOWAS Protocol on Transhumance, though initially well-intentioned, is now outdated and ill-equipped to address emergent contemporary security and environmental challenges. Nigeria must lead efforts to immediately review the Protocol, incorporating:
• Stricter regulations on cross-border pastoral movements.
• Promotion of ranching and livestock modernization.
• Enhanced regional cooperation on counter-terrorism and conflict resolution.
• Climate adaptation strategies for sustainable pastoralism.
Without urgent reforms, transhumance-related conflicts will continue to destabilize Nigeria and the wider West African region. It is a no-win situation. (The end).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
Almost half of the population of the world lives in rural regions and mostly in a state of poverty. Such inequalities in human development have been one of the primary reasons for unrest and, in some parts of the world, even violence. (A. P. J. Abdul Kalam).
Related


Adeleke Rejoices with Oluwo of Iwo, Oba Akanbi at 58

Adding Value: How Choice Affects Your Life by Henry Ukazu

Oyo Tops List of Out-of-School Girls in SouthWest – NGO

Otti Plans Recruitment of 4000 Extra Teachers for Abia Schools

Again, Gunmen Attack Plateau Communities, Kill 13, Raze Houses

Trump Gives Iran Two Weeks Ultimatum to Negotiate or Face Imminent Strike

Coalition Group Floats New Party, ADA, Seeks INEC Registration

Just In: Drama in Senate As Invaders Take Maze Away

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

The Great Gani Fawehinmi: His Life, His Legacies & His Frustrations

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
-
News7 years ago
Just In: Drama in Senate As Invaders Take Maze Away
-
News7 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
-
Headline7 years ago
Rehabilitation Comment: Sanwo-Olu’s Support Group Replies Ambode (Video)
-
Headline7 years ago
Fashanu, Dolapo Awosika and Prophet Controversy: The Complete Story
-
Boss Picks7 years ago
The Great Gani Fawehinmi: His Life, His Legacies & His Frustrations
-
Headline7 years ago
Pendulum: Can Atiku Abubakar Defeat Muhammadu Buhari in 2019?