The Oracle
The Oracle: Hon Justice Uwaifo: The Legendary Oracle As a Jurist
Published
2 months agoon
By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
THE GENESIS OF A LEGAL TITAN
There are those whose lives shine as beacons of character and integrity; people whose dedication to the attainment of justice and service to mankind transcend the bounds of the ordinary. They touch the lives of others and leave an indelible badge of honour in the sands of time. Their incisive wisdom echoes the words of the Bible in Proverbs 22:1, “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favour is better than silver or gold.” Such individuals are rare and their legacy is invariably etched in the hearts of all who witnessed their steadfastness and unyielding commitment to the principles that uphold society. One such rare breed of a homo sapien, an oracle of a Jurist,a giant among his peers and a towering pillar of the Judiciary, is the Hon. Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo (JSC, Rtd; CON). We shall hereafter simply call him Justice Uwaifo. On 7th January, 2025, this nonagenarian celebrated his 90th birthday. Brilliant,luminous,strong, hale, hearty, hilarious and witty, Hon. Justice Uwaifo still chats with me on phone even as late as past 12 midnight.
His ever-alert mind and elephant memory take me up on sundry troubling socio-political, economic and legal issues besetting Nigeria, especially the Judiciary and the legal profession. We always argue; disagree; then agree. Many a time, I am forced to yield to either his superior logic or uncommon wisdom, both of which he excels in. Though happily retired as a fulfilled man who gave his all in the service of his fatherland, the living sage strikes me as someone who is greatly worried about the sorry state of things in Nigeria, especially in the Judiciary. He belly-aches about receding standards;about corruption, real or apparent in the Judiciary; about lack of credible recruitment process in the Judiciary; about the vanishing beauty of advocacy; about a litany of problems. Ha, papa hardly sleeps, agonizing about Nigeria. Billy Graham, probably had this legal colossus in mind when he once proclaimed, “when wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost”. The man that fits into the third category and who lost nothing, but gains everything because he has character in tons is papa Justice Uwaifo. He is a Spartan disciplinarian, but oxymoronically a gregarious and laughing humanist.
COMING TO MOTHER EARTH
Born on the 7th of January, 1935, in his father’s house at No. 113, Lagos Street, Benin City, Edo State, where he lived in his formativeyears, Justice Samson Uwaifo grew up in a community that valued honour, dignity, resilience, honesty and the pursuit of excellence. These values, instilled in him from a very tender age, were to serve as his life’s compass. They were to shape his character and define the trajectory of his entire life. It is said in African tradition that “a man’s destiny lies within him, waiting to be uncovered through diligence and purpose.” This apothegm aptly hallmarks Uwaifo’s rise, rise and rise; a journey marked by raw determination, academic brilliance and an unyielding sense of purpose.
THE TENDER FEET: JUSTICE UWAIFO’S FORMATIVE YEARS
The seeds of Justice Uwaifo’s legal prowess were sown during his formative years at the Elementary Government School Benin, where his innate curiosity and intellectual aptitude began to develop. His mother had died during childbirth when he was only 6 years old. The future looked quite bleak in terms of ever furthering his education. He helped his father in household chores. He wanted College Education,but as maters were then, someone in his family, an elder brother by another woman ( who was himself already in college), was bent on scuttling and denying him that opportunity. As matters were, there was no longer a mother to steer his youthful course. His father surprisingly appeared to listen to the curious reasons profered by that brother against him. The fellow told their father that it was better and sufficient for young Odemwingie to end up in Standard Six in Elementary School and become a pupil teacher; and no more. That piece of advice was obviously meant to hinder the young boy in life, a nefarious purpose indeed. After deep thinking on a particular day, the restless boy hired a bicycle for 3 pence and embarked upon a dangerous journey from Benin to NAIFOR, a tortuous journey marked by snaky hilly paths, valleys and dense forests. It was a perilous and risky journey as marauders and other dangerous elements were known to habitually traverse the route. But, Justice Uwaifo was neither scared nor deterred. He had a mission; a goal which he focused on. The mission was to meet his maternal uncle (his mother’s younger brother), to ask for 2 shillings and 6 pence for his entrance examination to a college. He was then in Standard 5 (as it was called in those days); and he was just 12 years old. His uncle was kind enough to give him the requested sum. With this money, little Justice Uwaifo took the entrance examination to the famous Immaculate Conception College (ICC), Benin City. This was one of the premier institutions of that era. He came tops, beating all his peers in the examination. From now on, no one, not even the vicissitudes of life would stop him, he vowed. Here, his fierce discipline and incredible drive manifested and clearly set him apart from his peers. Like Bacchus, the Roman god of wine, Justice Uwaifo’s thirst for knowledge was simply insatiable. It was evident to all who encountered him then that he was destined for greatness. Was it not said by our elders that the dog that would have a curved tail is easily identified whilst still a puppy? Is it not true that it is thunder and lightning that herald rainfall? Is it not true that the morning heralds the day? After one year which was then available in ICC, he could not persuade his father to continue at St. Patrick’s College, Asaba, as was then the case. He had to finish his College education in Niger College, Benin City, where he proved to be the best; and was indeed the Senior Prefect in his last year there.
THE MAKING OF AN ACTIVIST LAWYER
Justice Uwaifo did not grow up liking law. No. He dreaded it. He had a very curious perception of lawyers and the legal profession in general. He never even dared to pass by their Chambers, particularly the two law firms on Lagos Street, Benin City. Their dark suits struck awe in him in his subconscious as a bad omen. He often wondered what they did inside their chambers and how they performed their duty in court. Did they act like spiritualists that converge in dark covens to carry out nefarious activities, he wondered in his innocent mind. He genuinely thought that incantation must be the first of lawyers’ iniquitous tools of trade; that as a second tool, they specialized in fine-tuning the art of tutoring their clients and witnesses to lie in pursuit of their cases. And because one of them who was usually stern-faced, was a known chain smoker often flickering lit cigarette between his darkened fingers, he was surrounded by the joke of always quaffing some large dose of whisky for Dutch courage before entering the court room to harass his opponent’s witnesses. Justice Uwaifo therefore concluded that alcohol and tobacco must be the third tool of their trade. This was particularly buttressed, he reasoned, having heard that lawyers were called to Bar and became members of the Bar. So, he believed they must be drinking alcohol in the Bar. Justice Uwaifo would readily have embraced Dick the Butcher in William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II (Act IV, Scene II), when he said, “The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers”. These negative impressions of lawyers got Justice Uwaifo scared of the perverted aura they bore in his youthful imagination. He therefore dreaded ever being a lawyer. Rather, he preferred to simply take a degree in Mathematics and quietly teach somewhere, unknown, unsung.
His earlier perception of the Bench about this time did not also help matters. If anything, it exacerbated his fears. First, he could not connect the Bar and the Bench as members of the same legal profession. Although he silently admired members of the Bench, he also trembled whenever he heard of or saw even a Magistrate. He believed then that Judges must never be seen in public. Since they were reputed to have the power of life and death over fellow human beings, he reckoned they must be spiritualists who performed very dangerous and perverted duties.
But as he grew older, his negative perception of lawyers gradually srarted fadng. He began to grudgingly give lawyers some credulity and credibility, though still very minuscule. The scales finally fell away from his eyes the day he looked through the window of a court hall and saw late Hon. Justice Ephraim Akpata (of blessed memory) as a young lawyer taking part in an election petition. For the first time, his ambition to read law was aroused. He was absolutely fascinated seeing Akpata in his sparkling wig and dark gown, with a well adjusted snow-white neckband (bib).
Two weeks later, Justice Uwaifo saw, in the court premises, the Hon. Justice I. O. Aluyi with whom he had worked briefly before Aluyi left for Britain for studies. Justice Aluyi who had returned to Nigeria as a very young lawyer in a well-cut designer suit told Justice Uwaifo he had just argued a case at the Magistrate Court. These were persons he had been familiar with and had known for years and so could relate with. And they certainly did not fall into the category of his negative mental characterization of lawyers. He therefore made up his mind that law was not such a bad profession after all. He finally settled for it.
THE STRUGGLE TO READ LAW ABROAD
To read law in Britain with little or no financial support, Justice Uwaifo was forced to engage in menial jobs whilst studying simultaneously. To the glory of God and due to his tenacity of purpose, Justice Uwaifo obtained his LLB ( Hons) degree from the University of London complete with the Bar Finals at the Inner Temple of England and Wales in a little over two and half years. The Bar examinations took place from October 1961 to April 1964. By June of 1964, he had passed his Bar finals; but there was a snag. He did not have the wherewithal to timeously register in the Inns of Court.
This means that when he passed the Bar finals, he had not done the mandatory minimum dinning terms for the call to English Bar which immediately followed. He was thus later called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in absentia on 9th February, 1965, as he had to return to Nigeria early enough for the compulsory then three months’ course at the Nigerian Law School, Lagos. This he completed in December, 1964. He was thereafter called to the Bar in 1965 with the likes of Chief Gani Fawahinmi, my late mentor of blessed memory.
Justice Uwaifo’s struggles and inner being made him see law, not merely as a career, but as a means to champion the cause of justice, what Professor Dean Roscoe Pound termed “Instrument of Social Engineering”. Serious financial challenges which might have deterred lesser men as he encountered in London, only fuelled his determination to excel. Tell me how many mortals ever completed Bachelors degree in law including Call to Bar in a foreign country in about two years and eight months (October, 1961- June, 1964). I do not know of any; or do you? Please, tell me, if you do. Justice Uwaifo’s journey thus reflects the resilience of a man who believed, as Philippians 4:13 states, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
JUSTICE UWAIFO PRACTISED LAW FOR THE COMMON MAN
Justice Uwaifo’s early career in private legal practice was characterized by an unwavering commitment to fairness and equity. His clientele often consisted of ordinary Nigerians, many of whom lacked the resources to navigate the complexities of the Nigerian legal system. He became their champion, advocating for the voiceless and holding firmly to the belief that the law should serve as a shield for the weak and a restraint against the powerful. This ethos would later define his entire judicial career and elevate him glowingly as a symbol of integrity and judicial rectitude.
LEAVING THE BAR FOR THE BENCH
In 1975, after a little over 10 years of law practice, Justice Uwaifo’s judicial career commenced with his appointment as a Judge of the High Court of the Old Bendel State which now comprises Edo and Delta States. He was barely eleven years at the Bar! His appointment to the bench was met with widespread acclaim as he had already made a name as a man of unimpeachable character, integrity and keen intellect. From the outset, Justice Uwaifo brought to the bench a philosophy grounded in meticulous reasoning and an acute bend for justice-delivery. He was quoted often saying, “Judges must act as God’s nominated agents, delivering justice without fear or favour.” This profound belief underpinned every judgment he delivered and every ruling he gave, ensuring that his courtroom became a sanctuary of justice and and a haven of fairness to all without discrimination.
As a High Court Judge, Justice Uwaifo exhibited an exceptional ability to untangle the most intricate of legal disputes. His rulings and judgments were celebrated for their clarity, precision and moral conviction. In cases involving complex questions of law, he consistently demonstrated a mastery of legal principles, coupled with an empathetic understanding of the human impact of his decisions. Reflecting on his judicial philosophy, he once remarked, “A Judge’s ’s role is not simply to interpret the law but to ensure that justice is served in every sense of the word.”
MY FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH JUSTICE UWAIFO
It was during his High Court days in the Warri Division of the old Bendel State High Court of Justice that I first encountered this colossus of a Jurist in the early eighties. I was then a rookie lawyer in the pro-masses chambers of legendary Chief Gani Fawehinmi in Lagos. Chief Gani had sent me to represent the law firm in a case in Warri as I did virtually across the length and breadth of Nigeria.Justice Uwaifo had patiently and attentively listened to my submission that lasted for over three hours. It was an era of the exhibition of the beauty of the legal profession – oratorical courtroom gladiatorial oral submissions.
When I ended my lengthy submission, Justice Uwaifo with a twinkle in his eyes and a smile playing on his lips, quietly asked me, “young man, how old are you at the Bar?” I was fazed and trepid. I wondered if I had performed poorly as I was barely three years at the Bar then. Had I made a grievous legal blunder? What would I tell my hot-headed principal, Chief Gani? I sat down there, transfixed like an insect rendered immobile by some insecticides. He then openly praised my performance in court. Even then,I was not sure if he was not being merely sarcastic. Thank God the positive result of the courtroom examination was to come later. Justice Uwaifo had actually scored me with distinction in advocacy. How did I know? Chief Gani called me some weeks later and started hailing me, “Ozek baba”;“Ozek the mobile Library”; “Ozek the Dictionary”.
These were Chief Gani’s pet names for me which he echoed repeatedly whenever he was excited by my performance. I enquired what I had done right to merit this adulation. It was then he told me with éclat that he had met Justice Uwaifo at a ceremony in Benin; and Uwaifo had informed him about my superlative performance before him in the courtroom in Warri. When I appeared again before Justice Uwaifo in the same case in Warri,and also later when he was a Justice of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, he generously poured encomiums on me in open court. I always felt extra tallish.But more importantly, unknowingly to him, his kind words always fired the embers in me to continue to excel in my chosen profession. Thank you, sir, for being a silent mentor to me, though very much unknown to you. This you have done for countless others over the years.
JUSTICE UWAIFO AS MAN GIVEN TO LEGAL PRECISION
One of the most striking aspects of Justice Uwaifo’s judicial career was his insistence on the importance of legal precision. In Ekpenyong v. Etim (1990), he criticized the lack of focus in legal arguments presented before him, stating:
“The brief of argument filed on behalf of the appellants… contains ramblings on all sorts of complaints… Counsel should now learn to be precise along well-known guidelines in writing their briefs. It is not the volume of the argument that matters but the care with which the substance of it is presented.”
This statement reflected his demand for excellence and his determination to elevate the standards of legal practice in Nigeria. To Justice Uwaifo, every judgment, every argument and every legal process mattered. There was no room for mediocrity in the pursuit of justice. No stone must be left unturned, nor any turn left unstoned.
EARLY YEARS ON THE BENCH
Justice Uwaifo’s early years on the higher Bench was also marked by deep erudition and an ability to balance tradition and modernity in his interpretation of the law.
In Okpuruwu v. Okpokam (1988), he provided a nuanced perspective on the role of arbitration in Nigerian customary law, observing:
“I do not know of any community in Nigeria which regard the settlement of arbitration between disputing parties as part of its native law and custom… That seems more a common device for peace and good neighborliness rather than a feature of native law and custom.”
This insight reveals Justice Uwaifo’s deep understanding of societal dynamics and his commitment to ensuring that the law evolved to meet the needs of a changing society.
JUSTICE UWAIFO AT THE COURT OF APPEAL
By the time Justice Uwaifo was elevated to the Court of Appeal in 1985, he had already established himself as a j
Jurist of exceptional pedigree. His judgments were not only legally and jurisprudentially sound,but also intellectually profound, often addressing broader societal issues that extended beyond the courtroom and the immediate case at hand. He was a firm believer in the idea that the Judiciary has a responsibility to uphold the moral fabric of society. In this regard, his judgements served as both legal precedents and moral teachings, setting a very high standard for the Judiciary. He believed (he still does) like Professor Dean Roscoe Pound, that law must serve the society as an instrument of social engineering to balance the ever-present societal interplay of centripetal and centrifugal forces. He believed that law exists to serve as a hand-maid to deliver justice( See Bello v AG,Oyo State ( 1986) NWLR.
One of the defining characteristics of Justice Uwaifo’s judicial philosophy was his fierce independence. He was unafraid to challenge established norms or to stand alone if he had to in defence of what he believed to be right. His decisions often reflected a deep-seated conviction that justice must prevail (fiat justicia ruat caelum), no matter the personal or professional cost. This courage, combined with his intellectual rigour, earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues, legal practitioners, and members of the public.
JUSTICE UWAIFO AS A GAME CHANGER
Justice Uwaifo was elevated to the Supreme Court in November, 1998. The period he was posted to the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal could be described as the “apogee of judicial activism”, as he easily became a game changer.
A matter that clearly showed Justice Uwaifo’s judicial activism was the celebrated case of PETER NEMI v ATTORNEY GENERAL LAGOS STATE (1996) 6NWLR)(Pt 452). The case had raised an issue of great constitutional import regarding the interpretation of section 31 of the 1979 Constitution (now section 34 of the 1999 Constitution) relating to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Appellant (Nemi) had in 1982 been arraigned before a Lagos High Court for armed robbery. The High Court convicted and sentenced him to death on February 28, 1986. The appeals against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal (1990) and the Supreme Court (1994) were all dismissed.
At the Supreme Court, my good friend and fellow in the human rights Community, Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, was counsel to Nemi. He raised for the first time the constitutional issue of whether the delay in the execution of the death sentence passed on his client constituted inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Section 31 of the 1979 Constitution and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
A full Supreme Court sat to hear the matter presided over by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Mohammed Bello. After listening to the submissions of amici-curiae such as legal giant Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN); Second Republic Justice Minister, Mr. Kehinde Sofola (SAN); and some select Attorneys-General of states, the apex court on October 14, 1994, held, per Bello, CJN,that the complaint of breach of rights indeed raised issues of “far reaching constitutional importance”, but declined to answer the question under the Nigerian Constitution put before the apex court,noting that only the High Court had the power to entertain first instance complaints of breach of fundamental rights; not the Supreme Court which had only appellate jurisdiction.
Subsequently, a fresh suit was commenced at the Federal High Court,Lagos, in 1995. The Judge declined jurisdiction on the ground that the Supreme Court had already confirmed the death sentence and that the condemned prisoner had no more rights remaining to enable such complaint about alleged breach of fundamental rights. This decision was challenged at the Court of Appeal; and then the Supreme Court.
This was where the rare wisdom and humanity of Justice Uwaifo came in full display. Not only did he make an order remitting the case back to the High Court to be tried by another judge, he made legendary pronouncements.
Hear him: “The proposition that a condemned prisoner has no right to life, cannot enforce any fundamental rights and is therefore as good as dead is quite perturbing. Does it mean that a condemned prisoner can be lawfully starved to death by the prison authorities? Can he be lawfully punished, by a slow and systematic elimination of his limbs one after the other, until he is dead? Could his legs be soaked with petrol and set on fire under a pot to boil rice by someone wearing a smiling face while this is going on since he is as good as dead and without fundamental rights? Would any of these amount to inhuman treatment or torture? Is a condemned prisoner not a person or individual? These are questions which gravely touch not only the heart but which also bring Section 31(1)(a) of the Constitution into focus even in cases of condemned prisoners”. Although Peter Nemi later regained his freedom,that was not the news. The news was Justice Uwaifo’s inerasable pronouncement which hallmarked his jurisprudence and humanity.The Nemi case was to forever change the false impression that because a convict has been sentenced to death, he no longer has fundamental rights worthy of protection. Thank you, sir for widenening the hitherto narrow scope of our civil rights and liberties.
JUSTICE UWAIFO AS MENTOR AND ROLE MODEL
Justice Uwaifo’s ascent through the hierarchy of the Judiciary was marked by an unwavering commitment to the principles of democracy, accountability and the defence of citizens rights and the rule of law. He believed that the Judiciary must remain independent and impartial, serving as a check and bulwark against arbitrariness and abuses of power.
Reflecting on this principle, he warned in his valedictory speech delivered in 2005 that, “There is the unfortunate tendency for some people… to misunderstand the important role of the Judiciary… Those who do not want their official action questioned regard Judges as undeclared enemies.”
These words, spoken with characteristic candour, emphasized the critical role of the Judiciary in upholding good governance and constitutional democracy. Justice Uwaifo’s dedication to this ideal was evident in every judgement he delivered and every principle he espoused whilst on the Bench.
As his career progressed, Justice Uwaifo became not just a Judge, but a mentor and role model for a new generation of lawyers and Judges. His insistence on integrity, character, precision and fairness left an indelible mark on the Nigerian legal firmament. He understood,like Prof Dean Roscoe Pound of the Sociological School of thought, that law was an instrument of social engineering; and not merely a set of rules, but a living instrument of justice, capable of defending the poor and voiceless;transforming lives and shaping societies. His life’s work is a living testament to the enduring power of these principles and a reminder of the profound impact that one individual can make on the course of history and tapestry of lives.
AT THE PINNACLE OF JUSTICE
When Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo perched at the apex court of Nigeria in November 1998, it only marked a natural progression and culmination of decades of dedication to the law and the principles of justice. For many, reaching the highest judicial office in the land would signify the pinnacle of achievement, a career milestone to crown decades of legal service. But for Justice Uwaifo however, his appointment to the apex court was not an end in itself, or a chieftaincy title decoration. It was indeed the beginning of a period marked by groundbreaking judgments, profound contributions to constitutional democracy, good governance and an unwavering commitment to judicial integrity and enlargement of the vistas of our jurisprudence.
Justice Uwaifo approached his role on the Supreme Court bench with the same gravitas, precision, penchant for detailed writing in long hand; intellectual rigour, and the moral conviction that had defined decades of his career at the lower Benches.
He understood that the decisions of the Supreme Court were not just resolutions of disputes; they were guiding principles that would shape policy and the trajectory of the nation’s jurisprudence for generations yet unborn. Each judgment was therefore a rare opportunity for my Lord to reinforce the rule of law, uphold the Constitution, defend citizens’ fundamental rights, enthrone justice and reaffirm the Judiciary’s role as the guardian of democracy and the last hope of the common man.
IS IMMUNITY ABSOLUTE?
One of Justice Uwaifo’s most memorable decisions was his contribution to the landmark case of Gani Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2002). This case tested the limits of constitutional immunity under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants certain protections to the President, Vice President, Governors and their Deputies. While many Judges interpreted the provision as granting absolute immunity to holders of such offices as sacred cows that could not be touched at all, Justice Uwaifo disagreed fiercely. He saw it differently. He delivered a judgment that opened up new jurisprudential frontiers and reaffirmed the principles of accountability and the rule of law for office holders. He held that though those officers listed in section 308 cannot be prosecuted whilst in office,they can however be investigated and evidence of such investigation warehoused to be used in prosecuting them after leaving office. Such evidence,he reasoned, may also be used for impeachment purposes against the named officers by the legislators whilst still in office. He elaborated with great erudition:
“To do nothing under the pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society. The evidence may be useful for impeachment purposes if the House of Assembly may have need of it. It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he has left office.”
This ruling resonated far beyond the courtroom, sending a clear echoing message that no individual, regardless of his high office, is above the law. Justice Uwaifo’s interpretation struck a delicate chord and balance between respecting constitutional protections and ensuring that public officials remained accountable and responsible to the people.
Justice Uwaifo’s tenure on the Supreme Court Bench was marked by judgments and rulings that affirmed his unwavering belief in the supremacy of the Constitution as a living document. In his view, the Constitution was not a rigid framework but a dynamic instrument that must be interpreted in the light of the principles of fairness, equity, societal justice, egalitarianism and societal progress. This deep philosophy is evident in his approach to cases involving fundamental rights, jurisdictional disputes and questions of the exercise of judicial discretion.
THE EVILS OF PERVERSE DECISIONS
In Udengwu v. Uzuegbu (2003), Justice Uwaifo addressed the evil inherent in perverse judicial decisions and the appellate court’s duty in rectifying miscarriage of justice. He lectured professorially thus:
“A perverse decision of a Court can arise in several ways. It could be because the court ignored the facts or evidence; or that it misconceived the thrust of the case presented; or took irrelevant matters into account which substantially formed the basis of its decision… The hallmark is invariably, in all this, a miscarriage of justice, and the decision must be set aside on appeal.”
This view further emphasized his unflagging dedication to ensuring that justice was not only done but also seen to have been done. For Justice Uwaifo, the judiciary has a sacred duty to correct errors and protect the integrity of the legal process. He also believes like Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, JSC (of blessed memory) that though the Supreme Court is “final not because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. … This court has the power to overrule itself (and had done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error”; he also believes that “Where therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such decision be overruled” (Adegoke Motors LTD v. Adesanya (1989) 13 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at page 275A).
According to him, “the Supreme Court is both the final and the constitutional court of the land. I need hardly to avert to the importance of this court in its role in the judiciary as the third arm of government. But I must not fail to emphasise that everything should be done to ensure the continued constitutional relevance and credibility of the Supreme Court. The court needs very capable Judicial Officers at all times to be able to achieve this”. Justice Uwaifo warned:
“Let the day never come when it may be said that the Supreme Court could not be forthright enough but buckled under pressure having regard to the manipulative dimension prevalent in our socio-political environment, but manifesting as an undergrowth, and tending to overshadow with unpredictable consequences our sense of honour and direction as a nation. The Supreme Court must always demonstrate, even more than ever in such an atmosphere, that it can neither bend nor break”.
Does the Supreme Court today still allow bold and courageous lawyers to press forward for revision of earlier judgements and not get damnified with heavy costs? I do not know; or do you?
Justice Uwaifo’s decisions were characterized by their meticulous reasoning, great erudition, intellectual depth and breadth and moral clarity. In Olumegbon v. Kareem (2002) LPELR – SC 147/1997, he provided a timeless exposition on the concept of judicial discretion, asserting:
“Judicial discretion has been described as meaning that judges are to act according to the rules of reason and justice not according to private opinion, and according to law and not humour.”
This statement encapsulated his view that Judges must be guided by objective principles; not personal biases or external pressures. It also reflected his broader philosophy that the Judiciary must remain impartial, independent and firmly anchored in the principles of justice.
APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
Justice Uwaifo who was appointed to the Supreme Court on November 25, 1998, posited that appointment into the nation’s apex court should not be “a court for all comers simply because they have been in the Court of Appeal, nor appointment to it be based on favour or just any other cause”.
He went on in his valedictory speech of January, 2005, “My second suggestion is that lazy Judges should not be appointed to the Court of Appeal. A lazy Judge is easy to identify. Thirdly, an incompetent Judge should be similarly denied appointment. He is as reprehensible and irritating as a corrupt judge. Both are twin evils all said and done”, he submitted.
In expressing his concerns, Justice Uwaifo stated that “if those in charge have a better option and are prepared to apply it, then it can be said we are all travelling in the same direction. But let there be acute awareness that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is the hub of stability for this country; and let us not assume that things cannot go wrong if there is no new approach to its well-being”.
JUSTICE UWAIFO’S RAW COURAGE AND SINGLE-MINDEDNESS
Beyond the legal intricacies of his judgments, Justice Uwaifo’s tenure on the Supreme Court was defined by raw courage and independence of mind. He was unafraid to challenge powerful interests, confront societal injustices, or dissent (even with the majority) when he believed that justice demanded such. His judgments often served as a moral compass, offering guidance not only to the Bench and legal practitioners, but also to the broader society.
THE EPIC VALEDICTORY SPEECH LIKE NONE OTHER
On January 24 2005, Justice Samson Odenwingie Uwaifo honorably bowed out of the apex court upon attainment of the constitutional age of 70 years; but not before ruffling some feathers. The man who was never shy of expressing strong opinions whenever the occasion arose, lived up to expectation and his billing. Like most valedictory sessions, the court was jam-packed. Friends, relations, admirers, the Bench, Bar, well wishers and all who wanted to identify with the retiring Justice were present. At 10.00am on the dot, the session had already commenced. As usual, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Hon.Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, presided. It was a regular event. Several speeches were made. All the nice things were, as expected, said about the outgoing judge. A few swipes were directed at the government, the Bar, Bench and a little on some alleged undesirables here and there. Though he had been described as an activist Judge, what many perhaps did not anticipate that day was the penetrating force of the valedictorian’s speech. Unlike most Justices that generally took it easy and massage sundry egos when exiting the apex court,Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo had plenty to say. And in saying them, he bruised toes and gave bloody noses.
JUSTICE UWAIFO’S NUGGETS ON CORRUPTION
In one take-away nugget in the epic speech, Justice Uwaifo admonished all like a priest speaking from the pulpit:
“No Judge worth the name should feel inclined to hide any positive element of his head in the closet through fear or favour, or from corrupt motives or simply on grounds of intellectual compromise when reaching a decision. He must to the best of his ability act as God’s nominated agent.”
He believed that the law should serve as a shield for the vulnerable and a check on the powerful. In his view, the Judiciary’s role extended beyond merely interpreting statutes, to safeguarding the moral foundation of society. His warnings against judicial corruption were particularly resonant in his valedictory speech.
Justice Uwaifo looked straight at the audience inside the imposing Supreme Courtroom and asked a question rhetorically: “who is more harmful to the society between a man who runs amock with a dagger in a crowded street and a corrupt Judge?” Without waiting for an answer, he readily gave his verdict thus:
“A corrupt Judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs amock with a dagger in a crowded street. He can be restrained physically. But a corrupt Judge deliberately destroys the moral foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals through abusing his office, while still being referred to as ‘honorable.’ It is difficult to bring him to account under our system…”
His speech captured the gravity of his warnings about the dire consequences of corruption within the Judiciary. Justice Uwaifo recognized that the trust placed in Judges was both a privilege and a profound responsibility, one that must never be compromised.
Channels television aired in Benin City on 14th October, 2016, he ruminated on corruption on the Bench and how to tackle it: “I will not say that the Nigerian judiciary is corrupt, but it cannot be denied that there are corrupt judges. If a judge is corrupt, he is no longer a Judge; he is a thief and therefore he should be treated according to law and sent to jail. The substantive issue is corruption: is it true that these people were actually corrupt and that huge sums of money were found in their place? If that is so, the question of the procedure that was taken will be secondary. Well the DSS can be punished for what they did, but the result if the money was actually found particularly when I considered that Court of Appeal Justice who demanded 200 million naira was found to be true,but they retired him. That one is completely unacceptable. They shouldn’t have just dismissed him; they should have dismissed him and then sent him to jail. If you do that – send this one to jail, send the other to jail, those who are really corrupt when you find them, corruption will stop straight because they would be afraid, Judges will be afraid, because it can happen. But if you just retire them, they will simply say, “um, don’t mind them”.
JUSTICE UWAIFO ON CORRUPTION AND INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS AS HARBINGERS OF FEAR
Justice Uwaifo warned that “no judge worth the name should feel inclined to hide any positive element of his head in the closet through fear or favour, or from corrupt motives or simply on ground of intellectual compromise when reaching a decision. He must to the best of his ability act as God’s nominated agent. That has been my personal moral philosophy of the duty call of a judge since I was appointed a High Court Judge. So, a judge should not just write his judgment. He must let it appear he made it with a clear commitment to convince. That must be demonstrated by the quality of its analysis and transparency. An unconvincing judgment is like a song rendered in awkward decibel: it can neither entertain nor can it be danced to”.
JUSTICE UWAIFO ON A COURT’S JURISDICTION
Justice Uwaifo’s judgements on issues of jurisdiction, particularly in cases such as N.D.I.C. v. C.B.N. & Anor (2002), further cemented his legacy as a Jurist of exceptional clarity,erudition and uncommon insight. In that case, he held that jurisdictional challenges could be raised at any stage of legal proceedings, provided that sufficient facts supported the argument. This ruling reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of a court’s authority to adjudicate a matter.
JUSTICE UWAIFO ON DEMOCRACY
While his legal opinions were firmly rooted in the principles of fairness and justice, they also reflected his wit, wisdom, and deep understanding of human nature. He once remarked, “Democracy is most obviously seen to be necessary when the tendency of an autocrat puts justice at risk. But one sure way of making democracy stay on course is to enthrone justice.”
This observation encapsulates his belief in the intrinsic link between justice and democracy. For Justice Uwaifo, the Judiciary was not merely an arbiter of disputes, but a cornerstone of democratic governance. Justice Samson Uwaifo’s time on the Supreme Court bench was a period of profound impact and enduring legacy. His judgements continue to serve as guiding light for legal practitioners, scholars, and judges across Nigeria and beyond. Through his judgements, speeches, and unwavering commitment to the principles of justice, he affirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of democracy, the protector of human rights, the defender of the poor against arbitrariness and repression and the conscience of the nation.
THE LEGACY OF AN ICON IN RETIREMENT
The legacy of Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo transcends the courtroom, reflecting the enduring impact of a life dedicated to justice, integrity and the preservation of democratic ideals. When he retired from the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2005, his departure marked the end of a golden era of a judicial career unparalleled in its breadth and depth,and unmatched in its plenitude and amplitude. Yet, his work continued to ripple across the nation’s legal landscape and beyond, cementing his status as a symbol of judicial excellence and moral clarity. For example, shortly after he retired from the apex court bench, the Osun State government would not let him rest. It pulled him out of retirement to head the Uwaifo Judicial Commission of Enquiry which was set up to investigate sundry human rights abuses by police officers.
Justice Uwaifo’s post-retirement years exemplify the principle that the pursuit of justice is a lifelong calling; it is a marathon race, not a 100- metre dash race . His transition from the bench to roles as a consultant, arbitrator and mentor showcased his unwavering commitment to fairness and equity. He is often sought after, even at 90, for his wisdom in resolving complex legal and social disputes, his impartiality and moral compass making him an indispensable figure in arbitration. Justice Uwaifo’s role in these capacities demonstrates his belief that the law, when wielded correctly, could serve as a tool for societal transformation.
In addition to his work in arbitration, Justice Uwaifo has become a powerful advocate for judicial integrity. At public addresses and professional engagements, he consistently emphasizes the dangers of corruption within the Judiciary, framing it as a moral and societal cancer. His warnings are clear and uncompromising: a Judiciary tainted by corruption not only fails the people but undermines the foundation of democracy itself. Justice Uwaifo has argued passionately for systemic reforms to safeguard the judiciary’s independence and ensure that its officers remained beyond reproach.
His speeches and writings during this post-retirement period has also focused on the role of the Judiciary in upholding constitutional democracy. He is always deeply concerned with the growing tension between executive overreach and judicial independence, a dynamic he viewed as potentially catastrophic if unchecked. He believes the Judiciary ’s role extends beyond the resolution of disputes to the protection of societal morality and the rights of individuals. His voice has become a clarion call for preserving the balance of power in governance and ensuring that the Judiciary serves as a true check against abuse of power.
In his mentorship of younger legal practitioners and judges, Justice Uwaifo has left a legacy that cannot be erased. His insistence on character, integrity, honesty, hardwork, discipline and ethical conduct has become a guiding light for those entering the legal profession and others. He once remarked in private conversations with mentees that “a Judge’s wisdom is measured not by the length of his rulings but by the fairness of his decisions and the clarity of his reasoning.” This focus on clarity and fairness has become a hallmark of the training he provides to the next generation of legal minds.
Justice Uwaifo’s retirement has also allowed him to reflect on the evolution of Nigerian law and its trajectory. He is a staunch advocate for the continuous education and improvement of judges, emphasizing the need for them to remain intellectually sharp and socially aware. He championed the idea that the judiciary should not only be a repository of legal knowledge but also an engine room for societal progress.
Throughout his life, Justice Uwaifo has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to blend the letter of the law with its spirit. His understanding of justice as a living, breathing principle informed every aspect of his work. He views the judiciary as a sacred trust, charged not only with interpreting statutes but also with protecting the soul of the nation. His influence extends far beyond the confines of the courtroom, shaping public discourse on governance, accountability and the rule of law.
Justice Uwaifo is today a revered elder statesman and dispute-resolution expert. His name is synonymous with hard work, integrity and judicial excellence. His words and deeds continue to inspire generations of legal practitioners and Judges, serving as a reminder of what it means to serve with honour,dignity, character and humility. His life’s work is a testament to the enduring power of strong principles and the transformative potential of justice.
Justice Samson Uwaifo’s legacy is not merely etched in the annals of Nigerian legal history; it is enshrined in the hearts and minds of those who truly believe in the rule of law. His contributions remind us that being on the Bench is not just a profession; it is a calling; one that requires courage, conviction, and an unwavering commitment to the truth. As his life demonstrates, a good name, built on integrity and service, is indeed better than silver or gold.
JUSTICE UWAIFO’S WORKS TO BE CELEBRATED IN LAGOS
On the 19th of February, 2025, there will be a public presentation and launch of a landmark book on the retired Justice S.O. Uwaifo in Lagos. The book is titled “A Legacy of Jurisprudential Wisdom and Substantive Justice”. This book confirms all I have written and reflected above about the judicial career of our legendary Justice Uwaifo.
Through the usual vicissitudes of life and the natural ageing process, Papa Uwaifo, once always clean-shaven, today adorns his handsome face with grey beard. He may carry his tall elegant frame with slight graceful bent, but the quintessence of the man and his huge mental acumen remain intact, uncorrupted by age. He still,like Andrew’s Liver Salt,bubbles with the sap of life like a yam tendril in the rainy season ( thank you, Chinua Achebe,for your epic,”Things Fall Apart”).
Surely sir, you have lived by your name – “UWAIFO” – “Wealth that does not end”. Truly, your wealth of character does not end. What is more, your middle name, “ODEMWINGIE”, has,going by its literal translation, “fortified your prosperity”. Soldier on sir. May God grant papa Justice Uwaifo long life, good health and peace that passeth all understanding as he bravely marches on into the centenarian bracket. Yours is truly Gen 6:3 and Philippians 4: 17.
Related
You may like
The Oracle
The Oracle: Senator Jonah Jang: A Legacy of Leadership, Service and Fidelity
Published
4 days agoon
March 29, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.D.
PROLOGUE: THE BIRTH OF A WARRIOR
In the quiet hills of Du,in the quiet surburbs of Plateau State, a child was born on the 13th of March, 1944. On this day in 2025,that young boy turned 81.The winds of destiny had blown softly that morning, carrying with them the whispers of unannounced greatness. Little did the world know that this little baby, a retired German,US and Nigerian-trained Air Commodore and former Military Governor of old Benue and Gongola states ( the latter now Adamawa and Tarsba state),Sen Jonah David Jang, CON,would one day carve his name in the annals of Nigerian history. He did so not just as a soldier; not just as a governor; not just as a pilot and Airforce officer; not just as a Senator;but also as a towering figure whose life truly exemplifies the true testament of character, honour, resilience, courage and divine purpose.
From an early age, Jonah Jang was not like other children. There was a spark in his little eyes, a quiet but unmistakable determination that spoke of something greater than the ordinary. He was not one to simply watch life unfold before him.He had a smouldering fire, a hunger, an insatiable desire to make an impact on the society.
Raised in a rural land where tradition met with the harsh realities of modernity and survival, Jang quickly learnt that life was nothing but a battlefield and that only those with an unyielding spirit and unflagging determination could emerge victorious. Jang’s faith was his compass; his discipline his armour; and his patriotic zeal his drive.His destiny though not yet revealed by then, was already being woven into the very fabric of his being.
So when the military came calling, Senator Jang like an eagle drawn to the winds, hugged it and fiercely soared. Trained in West Germany,the Nigerian Defence Academy and the United States, Governor Jang was not just another recruit; he was a moving force to be reckoned with. His time in the Nigerian Air Force shaped him into the warrior he was meant to be. Rising through the ranks to Wing Commander, he mastered the skies, not just as a pilot, but as a leader of men and material, a strategist and a man who understood that power was a responsibility and nit just an ornamental privilege.
FROM THE MILITARY TO THE POLITICAL FIELD
Fate is hardly ever predictable. Destiny always remains wrapped in the belly of mother nature. Jang did not know he had been born to do more than merely serve in uniform. His mission was not yet complete. The battlefield had shifted from the skies of war and bombs to the slippery battlefield of governance. So, like a general stepping into unfamiliar terrain, he gingerly took his first tender steps into politics, a new world where wars were fought not with weapons and brute force, but with conversation, consultation, wisdom, willpower and an unwavering resolve to manage challenges of betrayal, perfidy, duplicity and treachery.
THE GOVERNOR WHO DARED TO DREAM
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” – Proverbs 29:18.
Leadership is not for the faint-hearted, and politics, especially in Nigeria, is not for the weak and cowardly. Jonah Jang soon learnt this when he became a two-term Governor of Plateau State between 2007 and 2015. He did not take the seat as an imperious ruler; he took it as a servant of the people.For him, leadership was a calling, a sacred duty to restore dignity, to uplift the downtrodden and to leave behind a legacy that would stand the test of time.
Plateau State, beautiful as it was, had its peculiar challenging struggles. Roads were broken; infrastructure was failing,; ethnic tensions were high; insecurity strut about proudly like a peacock; and corruption lurked in the shadows. Many would have buckled under the weight of such monumental challenges. But not Jang. He had been trained to face turbulence, both in the skies and on the ground. Thus, he began his mission of uncommon transformation.
Under his leadership, trust returned to governance.Roads were built; security was enhanced and strengthened; the youths were engaged; ghost workers were flushed out; and the social,economic, education and agricultural sectors witnessed an unforgettable revival. But beyond the tangible projects, Jang gave Plateau something greater; he gave them hope. He made the people realize they could not only dream, but could realize such dreams. He was ans still is,a father to the state. Jang was a leader who did not rule from a distance but stood with the people;fought for them and defended them.
His leadership was tested time and again. Political adversaries fought him; critics doubted and demonized him. At times, the very foundations of governance in the state seemed violently shaken. But Jang stood firm and soldered on like a lion among men, unbowed, unshaken. Afterall he had not sought power for personal gain or self-aggrandizement. He wielded power,not as a sword to represss,but as shield for the defence of his beloved people. He deployed power as a tool for achieving justice, development and the greater good of his Plateau people.
Through storms of criticism,back-stabbing and seasons of triumph, he never lost sight of his mission-develop the people. And when his tenure ended in 2015, he did not look back with regret, but with the quiet satisfaction of a man who had given his all. He left Plateau State better than he met it.It was never the same rustic and undeveloped state he had met when he first took office. It had risen from its ashes like phoenix; it had transformed beyond arguments.Plateau had become a beacon and haven of peace, hope, tranquility, progress,development and humanity.
A NAME ETCHED IN TIME
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” – 2 Timothy 4:7
After leaving office as Governor of Plateau State, Jonah Jang could have chosen to retreat into the shadows, to live the rest of his days in peace and quietude as many would. But warriors never truly retire. They merely retreat and remain ever watchful, ever ready to serve. So,in 2015, he was called upon once more by his Plateau North people to represent them at the Nigerian Senate. Afterall the reward for hardwork is more work. Baba Jonah proved it.
His tenure in the Senate was not merely about adding another title to his name; it was about continuing his set mission, fighting for the people; standing for justice and their dignity. He ensured that the legacy he had built would never be undone.
THE PERSECUTION, TRIALS, TRIBULATIONS
No great leader ever walks mother earth without facing trials,persecution and tribulations. False allegations waltzed in,flying like ominous bats.Challenges suddenly arose, with the full weight of political warfare threatening to stain the banner of his legacy. He was falsely accused of pilfering his state funds. This was when we met. He briefed me to represent him in the 17 count charge before the Plateau State High Court. Studying the charge and the ingredients, his innocence exuded; his integrity and character nakedly stared me in the face. For a spartan man of modest means who ruled transparently and who as a sitting Governor took a well-documented loan of only 100m which he was paying back by installments from his meagre salary and allowances as a sitting Governor; and which loan he finally repaid fully as a Senator,it simply did not add up that he could steal from the state treasury of his people that he so loved and who reciprocated in equal measure. So, I defended him ferociously with my team of lawyers for over four years ( May 4,2018-September 2,2022). He had told me that he was innocent; that some powers that be had obviously felt that he had achieved too much to be allowed to walk away as a distinguished elderstatesman and as clean as a whistle. But he had always been these. And more He narrated to me how these powerful people were determined to completely erase his legacy and make him irrelevant in the political equation and scheme of affairs in Plateau State.In the dock, Jang stood tall,notwithstanding his diminutive stature.He watched witness after witness lie against him in a most brazen manner. He severally shook his head in utter disbelief and incredulity.But he did not cry.It was my bounden duty as his lawyer to chisel through and perforate the tissue and cocktail of poisoned lies.And I did just that.A smiling Baba Jang was completely exonerated,discharged and acquitted of all 17 counts. He emerged victorious once more, proving that truth,though slow, and integrity though temporarily besmeared,always triumphed in the end over swift lies.
Now, as he stands tall in the threshold of history and in the pantheon of great men,Jonah Jang is not just a retired soldier,Senator, Administrator or former governor,he is indeed a symbol of love, character, integrity, honour, dignity and resilience. Jang remains a loud testament to undiluted faith and a clear reminder that true leadership is about service, sacrifice and unwavering commitment to the people.
Thus on his 81st birthday,we do not merely celebrate another year of his life; we celebrate a legacy, a person that has touched lives, changed the course of a state and inspired a generation.
Jonah David Jang is not just a man; he is a movement. His story is not just one of politics, but of destiny, determination, and divine orchestration. Like his namesake David in the Bible, he has been for his people, an uncommon caregiver and a protector,in the same way a mother hen protects her chicks. His life like that of the Biblical David demonstrates that God can take a person from a humble position and elevate him to greatness. O yes,I almost forgot Jang is also Jonah.Like the biblical Jonah,he weathered the storms, survived in the belly of the whale and lives to spread the message of hope,prosperity,love and humanity,not to the Ninevites this time,but to his good people of Plateau State
DRAWING THE CURTAINS
To His Excellency, Governor,Senator, Air Commodore (rtd) Jonah David Jang, CON, may history forever remember your name and judge you fairly. May your legacy continue to inspire and water generations yet unborn. May your story be told not just as a tale of leadership, but as a beacon of hope for those who dared to dream dreams, fight wars,serve the people and conquer.l adversities.
Happy birthday sir.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: President Tinubu Cannot Legally Remove an Elected Governor of a State
Published
2 weeks agoon
March 21, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhomo SAN
INTRODUCTION
In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor and an entire State House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency.
Let me be very firm most categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision, statute or any known convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government. That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship.
The last time I checked, she is supposed to governed under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government. The emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order only in times of grave national crisis; certainly not to topple duly elected state officials. Lois X1V of France as an absolute dictator could not have done better and would therefore green with envy from his cold grave, having on 13th April, 1655, stood in front of parliament and imperiously exuded, “L’Etat C’est Moi” (“I am the State”).
A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état, executed by executive fiat through a national broadcast which torpedoed elected structures and whimsically imposed a sole Administrator who would now illegally receive Rivers State allocations from the Federation account under section 162 of the Constitution contrary to the very judgement of the Supreme Court which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pretended to be executing.
We have seen this script play out before during the infamous 2004 Plateau State emergency, where former President Obasanjo suspended Governor Dariye in what was widely condemned as a travesty of constitutional governance. Then, as now, the excuse was “exceptional circumstances”; but the reality was nothing short of executive lawlessness and overreach masked as national interest. I had criticized it in the same way I also criticized those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan.
And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability?
Let me be very clear about this for historical purposes: President Tinubu clearly lacks the power, authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His act constitutes nothing but a gross constitutional aberration and a most illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconscionable step that has the potential of imploding Nigeria at large and Rivers State in particular. The Constitution must stand hallowed, unassaulted, or democracy will fall and perish. Although time shall tell, but time is certainly not on our side.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, at page 379, defines “Declaration” as an official or formal statement, especially about the plans of a Government or an organization; the act of making such a statement.
Declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency therefore means proclaiming or making known a situation of emergency. What does “emergency” itself mean?
Emergency Doctrine is variously referred to as “emergency”, “imminent peril” or “sudden peril” Doctrine [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 523).
A “state of emergency” is defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (P.1620) as “when a government gives itself special powers in order to try to control an unusually difficult or dangerous situation, especially when this involves limiting people’s freedom”. “Emergency powers” are such powers as are conferred on a Government during such an unusual situation to hold the state together.
The Constitution in Section 305, of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered (the organic law and grund norm of the land) embraces three adjuncts of a declaration of a state of emergency: (1) Reasons for proclaiming it; (2) How it is proclaimed; (3) How it can be halted both before and after its proclamation. It also envisages two types of State of Emergency: (i) By Mr. President under Section 305 (3) (a) and (b), when the Federation is at War; or the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war. (ii) The scenario where it is the Governor of a State who personally calls for the state of emergency under situations envisaged in Section 305 (3) (c), (d) and (e). This occurs where the threat does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.
Section 305 of the 199 Constitution, as altered, provides:
1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.
2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.”
None of the factors envisaged in Section 305 of the Constitution has occurred at all to warrant the steps taken by the president. In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met, discussed and approved the president’s emergency proposals before he acted. He did it in advance (in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS.
I hereby call on the NASS to show class for once by roundly rejecting the President’s unconstitutional act of first declaring a state of emergency before its approval and also for acting altra vires by accompanying it with the suspension of elected democratic structures. This will place them on the right path of history. Otherwise, they should be prepared to be damnified by history.
I must emphasize that the declaration of a state of emergency does not translate into a dissolution of governance structures within the affected state. Under a state of emergency, the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, remains in office, whilst the institutions of government at the state level continue to function, unless expressly provided otherwise by law. There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level.
The framers of the 1999 Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the power to declare a state of emergency is not an avenue for executive overreach or imperious excursion into the realm of narcissm or ego trip. While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision howsoever, express or implied, that allowed President Tinubu to remove a sitting Governor and state House of Assembly legislators under the thin guise of emergency powers. There is no war in Nigeria. There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court’s judgement. A mere blow up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION of POWERS AND FEDERALISM
Nigeria operates a federal system of government, which means that power is divided and shared between the federal, state and Local Government Areas. This structure is designed to prevent excessive concentration of power in any one level of government, for as Lord Acton once explained, “power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The President’s authority over the states is limited, just as a Governor cannot interfere with presidential functions at the federal level.
Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy as ablly propounded in 1748 by a great French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, ensures that no single branch of government has unchecked authority. The removal of a Governor is a matter strictly within the purview of the State House of Assembly, as stipulated under Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is quite detailed, lengthy and rigorous; and requires a legislative super majority to accomplish. It is not a power and prerogative the President can usurp and exercise as did President Tinubu, regardless of the circumstances.
CAN THE PRESIDENT SUSPEND OR REMOVE A SITTING GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, OR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY EVEN UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY?
Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. Recent developments in Rivers State, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu purportedly suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the entire House of Assembly, call for a meticulous constitutional examination and analysis. At the heart of this matter lies an age-old question: Can the President, under the guise of emergency rule, lawfully suspend or remove a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or Legislature?
The answer, based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents and the very principles of federalism which we operate, is an unequivocal NO. The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) does not, under any circumstance, empower the President to remove, suspend, or torpedo duly elected state officials even under Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EMERGENCY POWERS
In no place does Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grant the President the power to suspend a Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. This reality is backed by constitutional jurisprudence and was reaffirmed in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 265, where the Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution is supreme and that no authority including the President can act outside its provisions.
Yet, this is not the first time that Nigeria has witnessed an outright abuse of emergency powers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 suspension of Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly remains a painful reminder of how emergency provisions have been misused to subvert democratic structures.
That unconstitutional precedent, which many Nigerians condemned then as executive overreach reminiscent of military juntas, appears to have resurfaced in Rivers State where President Tinubu’s action has eerily followed that same better-forgotten pattern, with the Judiciary left untouched as a token concession to constitutionalism. But can democracy survive when two out of the three arms of government are arbitrarily dissolved? I believe not.
FEDERALISM, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning that power is distributed between the central and state governments, as explicitly outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 11 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this system, a Governor is not an apron string of or mere extension of the Presidency. He is an independently elected authority answerable to no one but only the people of his state who elected him.
The Constitution does not permit a President to unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily remove a Governor—not by fiat; not by emergency decree; and certainly not by mere executive pronouncement. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental pillar of democracy, dictates that such removals must be carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.
This principle was reinforced in Attorney-General of Ogun State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 583, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally impose duties or restrictions on state officials. This means that even if a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Governor remains in office unless impeached through due process.
The Constitution provides only one legal pathway for the removal of a state Governor, and that is through impeachment, as stipulated in Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is legislative, not executive, requiring a State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings as dictated by the Constitution. In any event, the Rivers State House of Assembly (whether rightly or wrongly) had already commenced one against the Governor. Why truncate the constitutional process through an unconstitutional executive fiat? Why? Why?? Why???
THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL CONTROL
Some have sought, in most illogical and unscholarly manner, to justify the President’s emergency intervention in Rivers State under the masquerade and facade of maintaining public safety. They cite the Public Order Act, which grants state Governors powers over public assemblies, meetings, and processions. However, even this statute does not authorize the suspension of an entire government structure.
The irony, of course, is that while Governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states, they lack actual control over security forces. Section 215 of the Constitution subordinates a State Commissioner of Police to the Inspector General of Police and the President, meaning that even if Rivers State were experiencing insecurity, it was ultimately to the same traducing Federal Government it would have turned to.
The absurdity of this power imbalance, even though Rivers State had not gotten there, was noted in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, where the Court observed that the Federal Government cannot pass the blame for state security failures to a Governor who lacks the constitutional means to deploy security personnel.
THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: A CONSTITUTIONAL FIREWALL?
Even if the National Assembly, sought to legislate on emergency rule, section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly prohibits it from removing a Governor or Deputy Governor. This means that not only does the President lack the power, but even the National Assembly itself is equally barred from such unconstitutional act.
Prof. Ben Nwabueze, one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars, had long warned that allowing a President to wield unchecked emergency powers would erode democracy and lead to an authoritarian system where Governors served as vassals at the pleasure of the President rather than the electorate.
In line with this reasoning, Chief F.R.A. Williams had condemned the Plateau State emergency declaration as “a contradiction of all known principles of true federation operating in a democratic society.” Are we not now witnessing history repeat itself in Rivers State?
THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
One of the most fundamental principles of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1999 Constitution donate specific executive and legislative powers; but nowhere do they mention any inherent powers allowing the President to remove Governors undemocratically.
This principle was applied in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 187, where the Supreme Court held that powers not expressly granted by the Constitution cannot be assumed. Thus, any claim that the President possesses inherent emergency powers to remove a supposedly erring Governor is legally baseless. The President can not dorn the garb of a Primary School headmaster who has absolute control over and supervises his pupils.
HOW A GOVERNOR MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
If Not the President, then who can remove a Governor under emergency rule? The answer remains the State House of Assembly as the only body constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings against an erring Governor.
Under Section 188, impeachment is a rigorous and multi-step process, requiring:
a. A written notice signed by at least one-third of Assembly members;
b. A two-thirds majority vote to proceed further;
c. The formation of an investigative panel by the state Chief Judge;
d. A full blown hearing granting the Governor a right to defence either by himself or through a counsel of his choice;
e. A final two-thirds majority vote for removal after thorough hearing, recommendations, etc.
If a Governor remains in office, it is because the State House of Assembly has not found legal grounds for removal. The President’s personal opinions, political considerations, or security concerns do not change this constitutional scenario.
ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR RIVERS STATE?
The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings Nigeria into another moment of constitutional crisis and democratic reckoning. While this may appear to be a novel occurrence, history reminds us that this is not the first time a Nigerian President had wielded emergency powers in a manner that undermined the very essence of democracy.
Emergency rule in Nigeria has precedents, but each instance had always been marred by legal controversy, constitutional breaches and political opportunism. The most striking parallel to Tinubu’s action in Rivers State can be drawn from the 2004 Plateau State emergency declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In that case, Obasanjo had suspended the Governor and the State House of Assembly, replacing them with a Sole Administrator, Major-General Chris Alli (Rtd.). That action was roundly criticized as an overreach of executive power, much like what is unfolding today in Rivers State. I was one of the critics.
However, even further back in Nigeria’s history, the Western Region crisis of 1962 under the First Republic presents another instructive example. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution, the then Governor-General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, had declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil. Balewa had removed the Premier, the Governor, all Ministers, and members of the Regional Assembly, installing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator.
The striking difference, however, is that this took place under a Westminster parliamentary system, where Parliament held sovereignty. In contrast, Nigeria’s current presidential system operates under constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. The framers of the 1999 Constitution deliberately excluded any provision that would allow such sweeping executive powers, particularly those that could enable a President to remove a sitting Governor or dissolve a State House of Assembly under emergency rule.
WHY TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE IS UNPRECEDENTED
Even within the history of emergency rule declarations, Tinubu’s action in Rivers State is particularly alarming. While previous Presidents who declared emergency rule (Balewa in 1962 and Obasanjo in 2004) did so under questionable legal interpretations, they at least had some statutory backing, however flimsy.
Tinubu, on the other hand, has no legal foundation whatsoever to suspend an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. There is no enabling law, no precedent under the 1999 Constitution, and no Supreme Court ruling that grants the President such sweeping powers.
The 1999 Constitution, as amended, is as clear as a whistle that section 305 which grants the President powers to declare a state of emergency does not provide for the removal or suspension of an elected Governor.
Section 11(4) explicitly denies even the National Assembly the power to remove a Governor under emergency rule; meaning it certainly cannot authorize the President to do so.
The principle of federalism, which underpins Nigeria’s governance structure, dictates that Governors derive their mandate directly from the people and not from the President.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS PRECEDENT IS ALLOWED TO STAND?
One of the most dangerous aspects of President Tinubu’s action is the precedent it sets for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If a President can wake up one morning and, under the guise of an emergency, remove a Governor and dissolve the State Legislature, what prevents the same President or future Presidents from doing the same in other states?
In fact, if the logic of this unconstitutional action is stretched further, it raises an even more disturbing possibility:
What if a President wakes up tomorrow and declares an emergency in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? The Constitution recognizes the FCT as a state.
Could the President then suspend the Senate and the House of Representatives that supervise the FCT and appoint himself as Sole Administrator of the FCT and Federal Republic of Nigeria?
These hypothetical scenarios, once dismissed as absurd, in my earlier research have now become real threats when constitutional violations are left unchallenged and unchecked.
PRESIDENT TINUBU’S ATTEMPT TO RELY ON NON EXISTENT EMERGENCY LAWS
To compound the legal crisis, Tinubu’s government seeks to justify its actions by invoking emergency regulations that do not exist in Nigeria’s current legal framework. The 1961 Emergency Powers Act, which was made pursuant to Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution, is no longer in force. That law had allowed the Governor-General to make sweeping regulations, including appointing an Administrator, restricting fundamental rights, and even suspending state governments.
However, this law ceased to have effect long ago. When Nigeria transitioned from the Westminster system to the presidential system in 1979, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any provision that could allow such broad emergency powers.
The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, provide a clear confirmation: the 1961 Emergency Powers Act is described as “omitted; spent”. This means that it has since been consigned to the vehicle of historical oblivion and cannot be resurrected to justify Tinubu’s current unconstitutional acts.
A CLOSING CAVEAT: THE PERILOUS PRECEDENT OF TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE
Not a few Nigerians have argued quite plausibly, too, that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly was not purely a matter of law and order, but an act driven by political expediency and personal indignation.
The President finds himself presiding over a nation teetering on the brink economic hardship, rising insecurity, public angst, and deep-seated political fractures. Yet, rather than confront these crises headlong with statesmanship, his administration appears to be flexing emergency powers in a manner that raises more questions than it answers. If Rivers State warranted emergency rule, why then have states like Zamfara and Niger where armed bandits and insurgents have reduced governance to an afterthought not received the same treatment?
Even the most ardent defenders of Tinubu’s emergency Decree ( for a Decree it is in reality) must pause and ask: Is Rivers State the greatest threat to national stability, or is it merely the most convenient political battleground? If emergency rule in Rivers was truly about law and order, why was a hand-picked Administrator imposed while duly elected officials were unceremoniously suspended from office? Is this about democratic governance, or is it about power and control?
If Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy, then the same Constitution must apply to all, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. If Tinubu’s draconian action in Rivers State is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent where emergency powers become a tool for political suppression and repression rather than a last resort for genuine intractable crises.
So, the question remains: Is this the Nigeria we want or deserve? Or shall we, in our studied silence, watch democracy dismantled piecemeal with one emergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.
Related
The Oracle
Nigeria’s Political Leadership Since 1960 and Rhythms of Corruption (Pt. 2)
Published
3 weeks agoon
March 15, 2025By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
Introduction
In the first part of this article, we examined the nexus between leadership and corruption, after which we embarked on a brief historical review of our political leadership from the pre independence period to the First Republic. Today, we shall examine how the first republic was aborted by the military coup and its push-back (the counter-coup) and how ethnic tensions preceeded the civil war which followed afterwards.
Thereafter, we shall trace the persistent trajectory of corruption through the ensuing thirteen years of military rule up to our 2nd experience of democracy between 1979 and 1983; the Buhari-Idiagbon military era (and its preference for draconian decrees) which was later replaced by the seemingly benevolent/benignly regime of our first (and only) military president, Ibrahim Babangida. Enjoy.
MILITARY COUPS: THE END OF THE FIRST REPUBLIC
By 1966, the situation had reached a boiling point. The civilian government, unable to control the escalating violence and political instability, was overthrown in Nigeria’s first military coup. On January 15, 1966, a group of young army officers, mostly of Igbo extraction, assassinated key political leaders, including Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, Northern Premier Ahmadu Bello, and Western Premier Samuel Akintola.
Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, the leader of the coup, declared that the military intervention was necessary to rid the country of corruption, tribalism, and political mismanagement. In his words, “We must halt this rigged dancing competition where the winner is pre-determined before the music even begins.” However, rather than halting Nigeria’s downward spiral, the coup plunged the country into even deeper turmoil.
The coup was widely perceived in the north as an Igbo conspiracy to dominate Nigeria, especially since key northern leaders were among the casualties while the Igbo-dominated Eastern Region’s leaders remained untouched (see Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Nigerian Civil War. Wikipedia. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). The result was a counter-coup in July 1966, led by northern officers, which culminated in the assassination of the new head of state, General Aguiyi-Ironsi, who was Igbo. Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon, a northern Christian, assumed leadership. What followed was a period of intense ethnic violence, particularly targeted against Igbos living in the northern regions. Tens of thousands of Igbos were massacred in what some historians consider a precursor to the Nigerian Civil War (ibid).
ETHNIC TENSIONS AND THE ROAD TO CIVIL WAR
As Nigeria lurched from one crisis to another, the dream of a united nation began to fade. The period from 1966 to 1967 was marked by intense negotiations to prevent the breakup of the country (ibid). However, the killing of Igbos in the north created a mass exodus of Igbos back to the Eastern Region. The regional military governor of the east, Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared the secession of the Eastern Region, naming it the Republic of Biafra in May 1967 (Lewis, P. (2007). Oil, politics, and economic change in Indonesia and Nigeria. University of Michigan Press. p. 78. ISBN 9780472024742.). In his declaration, Ojukwu framed the conflict as a matter of survival for the Igbo people, stating that “We are humans. We live. We fight, fight because the decision to be free is a decision taken freely and collectively, because to become involved in violent struggle for freedom is the only honour left to an oppressed people threatened with genocide, because in the final analysis the only true bulwark against death is to live. Biafra rejects death…Biafra lives” (Brittle Paper. (2014). 9 powerful quotes by Ojukwu on the history of Biafra and the revolution. Brittle Paper. <https://brittlepaper.com/2014/06/9-powerful-quotes-ojukwu-history-biafra-revolution/>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.).
Gowon, on the other hand, insisted on the unity of Nigeria. To him, allowing Biafra to secede would set a dangerous precedent for other regions, potentially leading to the disintegration of the entire country. His famous declaration that “There is no basis for a Nigerian nation, except the will to stay together” encapsulated the fragile nature of Nigeria’s unity.
What followed was a brutal civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970, with millions of lives lost, particularly on the Biafran side which killed an estimated 500,000 to 3,000,000 people (see Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Nigerian Civil War. Encyclopaedia Britannica. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nigerian-civil-war>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). The images of starving children from Biafra became a symbol of the horrors of the war, drawing international attention. The war ended with Biafra’s surrender in 1970, and Gowon’s government famously declared that there was “no victor, no vanquished.” (Origins. (2020). The Nigerian Civil War: Remembering Biafra, 50 years later. Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective. https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/nigerian-civil-war-biafra-anniversary. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). However, the scars of the war would linger, deeply affecting Nigeria’s political trajectory in the years to come.
CORRUPTION: A PERSISTENT THEME
While the political landscape of Nigeria was shaped by ethnic tensions and military coups, corruption quickly became a persistent theme in its governance. From the early years of the First Republic, political leaders were accused of using their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of the people (Republic. (2023). Political party financing in Nigeria. Republic. <https://republic.com.ng/February-March-2023/political-party-financing-in-nigeria/>. Assessed on the 18th of January, 2025.). A report by Nigeria’s Coker Commission of Inquiry in 1962 found that Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s government in the Western Region had used public funds to finance the operations of his political party, the Action Group. This was just one of many scandals that eroded public trust in the political class.
The military leaders who took over after the coup of 1966 were not immune to corruption either. While they came to power with promises of cleaning up the political mess, they quickly became entangled in the same web of patronage and self-interest. Gowon’s government, despite overseeing the end of the civil war and initiating efforts to “rebuild” the nation, was plagued by accusations of financial impropriety. Nigeria’s sudden oil wealth, thanks to the oil boom of the 1970s, only made matters worse (Ogunmodede, T. A., & Egunjobi, F. (2018). Historical analysis of Boko Haram insurgency and terrorism in Nigeria.Open Access Library Journal, 5(2), 1-13. <https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=83885>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). As one critic put it, “Nigeria is not suffering from poverty; it is suffering from the mismanagement of wealth.” (Ucha, C. (2010). Poverty in Nigeria: Some dimensions and contributing factors. American University. <https://www.american.edu/cas/economics/ejournal/upload/ucha_accessible.pdf>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024).
THE ERA OF MILITARY DOMINATION: AUTHORITARIANISM AND DEEPENING CORRUPTION (1980-1999)
The Military Marches In: Power Through the Barrel of a Gun
By the dawn of the 1980s, Nigeria had seen more coups than it had enjoyed democratic elections. The post-colonial optimism of the early 1960s had withered, leaving behind a country caught in the throes of military domination. The soldiers who had come to “save” Nigeria from the divisive politics of the First Republic now found themselves enmeshed in the very corruption, tribalism, and mismanagement they had sworn to eradicate. The rise of military rule in Nigeria was not an accident but a consequence of a fractured political system, made worse by economic mismanagement and elite-driven greed. As the Nigerian saying goes, “He who rides the tiger cannot dismount without being devoured.” The military, having tasted power, found it too tempting to give up.
After General Yakubu Gowon’s ouster in July of 1975, the military era took a sharp turn with the ascension of General Murtala Mohammed, a brash and energetic leader determined to right the ship of state. However, his tenure was cut short when he was assassinated in an attempted coup just six months into his rule, throwing the country once again into uncertainty. His deputy, General Olusegun Obasanjo, succeeded him and became the first military ruler to hand over power voluntarily to a civilian government in 1979, paving the way for Nigeria’s Second Republic. However, this democratic experiment was brief, as the nation soon returned to military rule in 1983, beginning what many call the “era of authoritarianism.” (Ameh, A. O., & Oghojafor, B. E. A. (2014). Leadership theories and Nigeria’s development crisis: A retrospective view. CORE. <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/328106737.pdf>. Assessed on the 17th of January, 2025)
THE SECOND REPUBLIC: A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY
Nigeria’s Second Republic (1979-1983) came into existence amid cautious optimism. Obasanjo’s transition to civilian rule was lauded as a step toward stability, and Alhaji Shehu Shagari became the first democratically elected president of the Second Republic. Shagari’s government inherited a country rich in oil but mired in problems: poverty, ethnic divisions, and, most alarmingly, widespread corruption.
Oil was the lifeblood of Nigeria’s economy by this time, providing over 90% of the nation’s foreign exchange earnings (Chinweze, C. (2018). Analysis of the impact of oil spills and the Niger Delta crisis on Nigeria’s external relations. World Maritime University Dissertations. https://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3304&context=all_dissertations. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). However, rather than being a blessing, this black gold became a curse. The government, flush with oil wealth, mismanaged the windfall, while politicians lined their pockets and patronage networks flourished. As one critic noted, “The Nigerian government is like a leaking basket filled with oil money the more you pour in, the more it spills out.”
During the Shagari administration, corruption became rampant, with large-scale embezzlement and looting of public funds HistoryVille. (2020). President Shehu Shagari: The honest man who was overthrown in a coup. HistoryVille. <https://www.thehistoryville.com/president-Shehu-Shagari/>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). Public projects were over-inflated, contracts were awarded to friends and allies, and government officials lived in opulence while the majority of Nigerians languished in poverty. A popular Nigerian proverb, “The goat eats where it is tied,” describes this situation perfectly. In the Nigerian political landscape, leaders and their close associates devoured the resources of the state with reckless abandon. The atmosphere of greed became so pervasive that when the oil prices collapsed in the early 1980s, plunging Nigeria into an economic crisis, the government was too crippled by corruption to provide meaningful solutions.
THE BUHARI-IDIAGBON ERA: WAR AGAINST INDISCIPLINE
On December 31, 1983, the military once again intervened. Major General Muhammadu Buhari and his deputy, Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, overthrew the Shagari administration, accusing it of corruption and economic mismanagement. In his first speech as head of state, Buhari made his intentions clear: “Since what happens in any society is largely a reflection of the leadership of that society, we deplore corruption in all its facets. This government will not tolerate kick-backs, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing of imports etc. Nor will it condone forgery, fraud, embezzlement, misuse and abuse of office and illegal dealings in foreign exchange and smuggling.”
Buhari’s military regime was marked by an aggressive anti-corruption campaign. His government launched the “War Against Indiscipline” (WAI), a series of policies aimed at reforming the moral fabric of Nigerian society announced in March 1984 by Tunde Idiagbon, the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters and the launch event was held at Tafawa Balewa Square to much fanfare. Public officials were arrested and tried for corruption, and draconian laws were introduced to curb societal vices like tardiness and disorder. Citizens could be flogged publicly for breaking queues, and civil servants faced harsh penalties for lateness. To Buhari and Idiagbon, discipline was the key to Nigeria’s recovery. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“We will not agree on every issue. But let us respect those differences, and respect one another. Let us recognize that we do not serve an ideology or a political party; we serve the people.” – John Lynch.
LAST LINE
God bless my numerous global readers for always keeping faith with the Sunday Sermon on the Mount of the Nigerian Project, by humble me, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb., LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.Sc, DHL, DA. Kindly come with me to next week’s exciting dissertation.
Related
Court Summons Tinubu, Ibas over Rivers Emergency Rule
Dele Momodu Appeals to Tinubu: ‘Don’t Kill Democracy in Nigeria’
2025: UBA Charts Path, Focuses on Innovation, Sustainability, Expands Operations to Saudi Arabia, France
Communal Clashes: Adeleke Threatens Royal Fathers with Dethronement
My Top Seven Tips for Success As a New Immigrant in the UK
Celebrating a Hero of June 12, Humphrey Nwosu
Who Will Tell the President? By Fouad Oki
Nigerian Engineer Wins $500m Contract to Build Monorail Network in Iraq
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Will Senate President, Bukola Saraki, Join Presidential Race?
World Exclusive: How Cabal, Corruption Stalled Mambilla Hydropower Project …The Abba Kyari, Fashola and Malami Connection Plus FG May Lose $2bn
Rehabilitation Comment: Sanwo-Olu’s Support Group Replies Ambode (Video)
Fashanu, Dolapo Awosika and Prophet Controversy: The Complete Story
Pendulum: Can Atiku Abubakar Defeat Muhammadu Buhari in 2019?
Pendulum: An Evening with Two Presidential Aspirants in Abuja
Who are the early favorites to win the NFL rushing title?
Boxing continues to knock itself out with bewildering, incorrect decisions
Steph Curry finally got the contract he deserves from the Warriors
Phillies’ Aaron Altherr makes mind-boggling barehanded play
The tremendous importance of owning a perfect piece of clothing
Trending
-
News7 years agoNigerian Engineer Wins $500m Contract to Build Monorail Network in Iraq
-
Featured7 years agoWORLD EXCLUSIVE: Will Senate President, Bukola Saraki, Join Presidential Race?
-
Boss Picks7 years agoWorld Exclusive: How Cabal, Corruption Stalled Mambilla Hydropower Project …The Abba Kyari, Fashola and Malami Connection Plus FG May Lose $2bn
-
Headline7 years agoRehabilitation Comment: Sanwo-Olu’s Support Group Replies Ambode (Video)
-
Headline6 years agoFashanu, Dolapo Awosika and Prophet Controversy: The Complete Story
-
Headline6 years agoPendulum: Can Atiku Abubakar Defeat Muhammadu Buhari in 2019?
-
Headline7 years ago
Pendulum: An Evening with Two Presidential Aspirants in Abuja
-
Headline6 years ago2019: Parties’ Presidential Candidates Emerge (View Full List)