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.

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.

By Mike A. A. Ozekhome SAN

PROLOGUE

THE TYRANNY OF DEATH AND THE INDOMITABLE SPIRIT OF MANKIND

Death, shame on you. You have always killed the body, not the soul; never the legacy. Such is the fate of the last two men standing, Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo, who died few days from each other.

DEATH AND MANKIND

Let us now discuss the death that took them away. From the dawn of existence, mankind has lived under the unyielding shadow of death. It is the ultimate oppressor; the force that acknowledges neither power nor piety; neither nobility nor knowledge. It is the great leveller; the final conqueror before whom all men- kings and commoners; heroes and villains; patricians and plebeians; rich and poor-must bow. Wearing a monstrous visage with fangs bared, death stalks us unseen. It strikes without warning. It is indifferent to the hopes, aspirations, dreams and struggles of humanity. Like our shadow, it follows us everywhere, sticking to us like a second skin. Viktor Franki was dead right when he wrote, “Death is the greatest tyrant of all, it is the one that can take away our freedom, our dignity, and humanity”. Perhaps the most eloquent tribute to death came from Thomas Sowell. Hear him: “Death is the greatest leveler, the ultimate democrat, but it is also the greatest tyrant, for it treats all lives as equal in their insignificance”.

The Psalmist explains man’s fragility better: “Man is like a breath; his days are like a fleeting shadow.” (Psalm 144:4). Indeed, life is but a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. James 4:14 puts it better when it proclaims, “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” And now, that fleeting shadow has claimed the twin colossi of Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo. These were two towering figures whose lives were totally dedicated to the attainment of justice, democracy, and the eternal struggle against oppression. They stood like ancient baobabs in the political landscape of Nigeria, their roots intertwined with the fight for equity, their voices thunderous in the corridors of power.

Expressing the fleetness of life, Macbeth in Act 5, Scene 5 of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, intoned that “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Yet, for all their power and defiance, they too have fallen to the callous hands of death; embraced by the inevitable grasp of mortality. “The death of a righteous man is never the death of his deeds, nor the end of his influence.” This is the paradox of existence: death takes men, but it cannot take away their legacy. It silences voices, but it cannot silence the echoes of the truth they spoke. It buries bodies, but it cannot bury the fire they ignited in the hearts of those they left behind.

Consider the tale of Achilles, the greatest warrior of Greek mythology. He was given a choice: a long, uneventful life or a short life filled with glory that would make his name immortal. He chose the latter, knowing that though his body would perish, his name would be sung in eternity. Like Achilles, Pa Clark and Pa Adebanjo chose the path of impact over the comfort of obscurity. Their names, their struggles, their legacy, will not be forgotten. NEVER!!!

Death, in its arrogance wrongly believes it has silenced them. But can death truly claim victory over men whose legacy outlives their mortal forms? The answer is an emphatic no. Death may take the body, but it cannot take the impact. It may silence the voice, but it cannot silence the ideology. The greatest flaw of death is its inability to erase the echoes of greatness. The African proverb is right that “the dead are not gone; they are only in another room”. As Haruki Murakami once put it, “Death is not the opposite of life, but a part of it”. Julius Caesar in Williams Shakespeare’s epic by the same title, “Julius Caesar” defanged death when he refused the entreaties of Calpurnia, his wife not to go to the Capital for fear of being assassinated by the conspirators. He shredded death thus, “No, Caesar shall not. Danger knows full well that Caesar is more dangerous than he. We are two lions littered in one day, and I the elder and more terrible”. (Act 2 Scene 2).

Yet, death still claimed Pa Clark and Pa Adebanjo as it has claimed countless others before them. Death will still claim more. Its bacchanalian propensity to consume mortals like Bacchus the god of wine is relentless. The finality of mortality forces a painful question upon us: If even men of such towering stature like Clark and Adebanjo cannot defy death, then what hope does mankind have?

But therein lies the irony. True death is not the cessation of breath but the erasure of memory. These men are not truly gone. Their essence remains immortalized in the ideals they fought for, in the words they spoke, and in the lives they touched.

We are reminded of the African proverb: “A man dies twice. The first is when he breathes his last; the second is when his name is spoken for the last time.” Pa Clark and Pa Adebanjo, by virtue of their outstanding works, have ensured that the second death shall never come. Their names will be inscribed in the annals of history; their voices will continue to echo through the ages. In the grand battle between mankind and death, memory is the battlefield. And men like Clark and Adebanjo never truly lose out. They have been inducted into the pantheon of great men.

THE GIANTS AND THEIR ETERNAL STRUGGLES

To understand the lives of Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo is to understand the very fabric of Nigeria’s history, its triumphs and tragedies, its betrayals and its resilience. These were not just men who merely lived through history; they made history themselves. They were not silent observers; they were architects of change and warriors in the relentless fight for justice.

Yet, even the greatest of warriors must one day lay down their swords. The passing of these two titans forces us to confront the painful reality that no man, no matter how powerful, can defeat the tyranny of time. It is as the Bible states in Ecclesiastes 9:11, “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.”

But if time has claimed their mortal frames, it has not diminished their impact. Death has never been able to claim greatness. It has tried throughout the ages but failed abysmally. Silencing Socrates did not kill philosophy. Crucifying Christ did not end Christianity. Assassinating Martin Luther King Jr. did not halt the civil rights movement. Killing Adaka Boro and Ken Saro Wiwa did not end Niger Delta agitation. Likewise, the passing of Chief Clark and Chief Adebanjo will not end their struggle. “O Death, where is thy sting?” Apostle Paul knew what he was doing when he compared death to a bee that has lost its sting.

CHIEF EDWIN CLARK, THE LION OF THE NIGER DELTA

This Nationalist spent all his life in ceaseless advocacy, ensuring that his people were not reduced to mere spectators in a nation built on their resources. He was not just a politician; he was a movement, a force of nature. He spoke for the voiceless, demanded justice for the marginalized, and carried the weight of an entire region’s hopes on his shoulders. Beyond these, his common cliché was “we are all Nigerians” a clear exemplification of this Pan-Nigerianity.

The story of Edwin Clark is the story of a man who refused to be silent or silenced. His life was defined by resistance, relentless advocacy and the ceaseless fight for equity. From his earliest days, he knew that the Niger Delta, despite being the economic heartbeat and financial basket of Nigeria, had been condemned to perpetual marginalization and squalor. Oil flowed beneath the feet of his people, yet poverty sat on their shoulders. Their land was rich, but their lives were poor. There is constant light in the environment, not from electricity, but from gas flaring that destroys both aquatic and agrarian life. There is “water water everywhere”, but like in the Ancient Marina, none fit enough to drink. Clark refused to accept this man-imposed destiny as their lot.

He fiercely championed resource control, true fiscal federalism and the rights of the marginalized oil-bearing communities, knowing that freedom is never freely given but must be fought for and won. His voice thundered in political arenas; his torch lit dark crevices; his presence was felt in the highest echelons of power; and his influence shaped the policies that sought to address the inequities of his time.

One of Pa Clark’s defining moments was the 2005 National Political Reform Conference midwifed by former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, where he led the South South Delegates Forum in one of the most historic protests against the injustice of oil revenue allocation. When Northern delegates refused to allow an 18% derivation formula for oil-producing states, Clark led a mass walkout. This was not just a political maneuvre; it was an act of defiance; a statement that injustice must never be negotiated, tolerated but must be rejected. I was the spokesperson for the entire South South delegates at the Conference.

A true leader does not retreat; and Clark never did. Even at 97, Pa Clark was still always on television screen, pontificating, advocating, teaching, directing and crusading for good governance, restructuring and a strong Nigerian nation. His life was a testament to the words of the legendary poet, Dylan Thomas, who wrote: “Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Clark never surrendered to injustice. And though death has claimed him, his voice will continue to echo in every struggle for equity in Nigeria. His light will continue to illuminate dark paths towards national resurgimento, restructuring, equity, egalitarianism and social justice.

AYO ADEBANJO: THE ETERNAL FLAME OF IDEOLOGY

Chief Ayo Adebanjo, on the other hand, was the embodiment of ideological purity. As a disciple of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, he stood firmly by the principles of federalism, free education, and self-determination. His words carried the weight of history. His defiance against injustice never wavered; and his belief in a restructured Nigeria remained unshaken even in his final days. He was, as Marcus Garvey once said, “a lion who did not live to entertain hyenas.”

If Chief Edwin Clark was a warrior for the Niger Delta and enthronement of justice in the Nigerian space, Chief Ayo Adebanjo was a lion of ideological purity. In a world where political leaders switch allegiances as easily as changing tissue papers, Chief Ayo Adebanjo was steadfast. He remained unwavering in his ideological beliefs. From his earliest days in the Action Group under the mentorship of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Adebanjo embraced a set of principles that would define his entire life-true federalism, free education, regional autonomy, and social justice. While many leaders evolved into political opportunists, Adebanjo remained a true disciple and guardian of Awolowo’s ideals, unshaken by the temptations of power.

Pa Adebanjo was imprisoned, harassed and exiled; yet he never compromised. In 1993, when the military annulled MKO Abiola’ selection, Adebanjo was at the forefront of NADECO (National Democratic Coalition), risking his limbs and life to demand the restoration of democracy. He was not one for silent negotiations; his brand of politics was radical, bold and unapologetic. “There is no diplomacy in truth,” he often said.

Chief Adebanjo’s fearless advocacy extended into his old age. In his 90s, he was still one of the loudest voices demanding the restructuring of Nigeria. While younger politicians hesitated or defected, fearful of repercussions, Adebanjo spoke with fire and clarity, insisting that Nigeria’s survival depended on true federalism. His courage reminds us of Winston Churchill’s words: “To each, there comes in their lifetime a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do something unique to them and their talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared or unqualified for what could have been their finest hour.”

Pa Adebanjo did not just seize his moment; he made sure every moment of his life was dedicated to fighting for justice. If Chief Edwin Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo have taught us anything, it is that death’s greatest weakness is its inability to erase legacy. It is said that when Alexander the Great lay on his deathbed, he ordered his generals to carry his coffin with his hands stretched out. When asked why, he said: “Let the world see that even the greatest conqueror leaves this world empty-handed.”

But some men do not leave empty-handed. They leave behind them movements, ideas, ideologies, revolutions and a generation greatly inspired to carry on their good works. That is the difference between ordinary men and legends. Clark and Adebanjo were legends.

Death thought it could silence Chief Clark and Chief Adebanjo, but death has yet failed. It could not erase or silence their names which are now immortal, etched into the pages of Nigeria’s history. Their ideas and ideals will live on in the youthful activists who demand a just Nigeria; in the communities that still fight for fairness; and in the common people who refuse to accept oppression as their fate.

Therefore, even as we mourn these two legends, we must recognize that they have won the only battle that matters-the battle against irrelevance; against obscurity. Surely, their bodies will rest, but their fight continues. They have transmitted from mortality to immortality.

DEFYING DEATH THROUGH LEGACY

As I reflect on the passing of Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo, I am struck by one immutable truth: death may take the man, but it cannot take his legacy. The true measure of a life is not in its duration but in its impact. These two titans of justice and democracy may have departed, but their spirits remain embedded in the struggles they fought and the victories they secured. The philosopher, Marcus Aurelius once said, “What we do now echoes in eternity.” And indeed, Chiefs Clark and Adebanjo lived lives that will echo far beyond their years. They were not merely politicians; they were symbols of defiance, embodiments of truth, and sentinels of justice who challenged impunity and spoke truth to power.

Their deaths, like those of all great men, force us to ask: What remains after the body has returned to dust? What is the true test of immortality? If it is in the endurance of one’s impact, then these men have conquered death itself. Thus, even death could not kill them.

MY PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS WITH PA ADEBANJO

I have had the rare privilege of knowing and working closely alongside these giants in their lifetime. My undiluted respect for them is not borne out of distant admiration, but from personal experiences; from standing in the trenches with them in the many battles for a better Nigeria. Of Chief Ayo Adebanjo, I had earlier written with conviction thus:
“Chief Ayo Adebanjo is truly one of the very last of the Mohicans – the last men standing. Here’s wishing and praying that he outlives his father and continues well beyond his 100-year anniversary in good health, fine cheer, and peace that passeth all understanding.”
(https://mikeozekhomeschambers.com/chief-ayo-adebanjo-a-member-of-the-dwindling-mohicans). But Pa Adebanjo died four years shy of the 100 years I had wished him. Only on March 18, 2024, the Patriots converged at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, to honour late Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN (the greatest constitutional lawyer to have emerged from the soil of Africa), at a National Dialogue on the constitutional future of Nigeria. I delivered the keynote address titled, “The Never-ending call for a new people’s Constitution”. At the event, Chief Adebanjo bared his fangs, lamenting the poor state of the Nigerian nation. He reiterated his call for restructuring, regional autonomy, social justice and a fair federalism.

Papa Adebanjo’s passing is therefore not just a personal loss but a national one. He was more than a political figure; he was an ideologue, a moral force in a landscape often devoid of conscience. He lived not for himself but for the idea of a fair and just Nigeria, and his unyielding advocacy for restructuring will not be forgotten. While he fought from the NADECO flank, I fought from the human rights and pro-democracy odeon. We always converged towards achieving common goals of having a better and more equitable Nigeria. His death becomes more painful to me because only in October, 2024, Chief Adebanjo forwarded one of the 5o books I presented to the public on October 17, 2024. He forwarded the book titled, “Nigeria’s Unforgettable Events”. And Pa Adebanjo has now departed. Thank you for goading me on for encouraging me.

MY PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS WITH PA CLARK

My encounters with Pa Edwin Clark were equally profound. I remember vividly the 2005 National Political Reform Conference, where I was entrusted with the role of Publicity Secretary and Spokesperson for the South-South Delegates Forum. It was there that I saw first hand Clark’s brilliance, his uncommon courage and defiance; and his ability to command respect from all and sundry. He was the undisputed leader of the South-South Delegation, and under his guidance and leadership of a field Marshal, we fought for a well-structured federation; for devolution of power; and for a fair derivation formula for oil-producing states.

Thus, when our proposal for a modest 18% derivation was rejected by the Northern delegates who said the South-South should even be grateful for 13% it was having, Clark led the historic walkout; an event that has since been termed the “First Walkout” in Nigeria’s conference history. It was a moment of historic reckoning, a statement that the oppression of the oil-bearing communities of the Niger Delta would not go unanswered. I stood with him, alongside other progressive minds, as we challenged the status quo and demanded justice and fairness. That was the kind of man Pa Clark was-fearless, courageous, bold, unrelenting and unbowed.

Pa Clark repeated his leadership qualities at the 2014 National Conference, where at 86 then, he fought for true fiscal federalism, like a trojan. He led the entire South-South to seek for justice and fair play in a warped federal set up. I worked ferociously with him. I was named the “Cicero of the 2014 National Conference” by the Conference leadership comprising of late Hon. Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, JSC (rtd); GCON; Prof Bolaji Akinyemi; CFR and Chief (Dr) Valerie-Janette Azinge, SAN, OFR.

Pa Clark was a father to all; a mentor to millions; a scholar; an outstanding lawyer, and an activist who led from the front. He loathed sycophancy, servility and political opportunism. You either loved him passionately, or hated him malevolently; but never could you ignore him. He regarded me as his son’ encouraged me; energized me; and goaded me on. In October, 2024, Pa Clark happily forwarded one of the 50 books I presented to the public on October 17, 2024. The title of the book he forwarded is “Nigeria’s Evolution and the Political Players”. And now, papa is gone. Farewell sir.

THE TITANS’ FINAL DEFIANCE: A LEGACY THAT CANNOT BE BURIED

It is often said that “a man dies twice: once when his body ceases to function, and again when his name is spoken for the last time.” If that is true, then Clark and Adebanjo will never truly die. Their names will be spoken for generations to come, their contributions studied in classrooms, and their courage invoked by young activists who refuse to accept a Nigeria that is anything less than just.

Like Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea, they parted the waters of oppression and repression, clearing a path of for those who would come after them. Like Socrates drinking the hemlock based on his conditions, they stood by their convictions even when the price was too high. And like Mandela in Robben Island, they fought a system designed to silence them and won.

THE CURTAINS NOW DRAWN

If death thought it could kill them, it has grossly miscalculated. For their works remain; their speeches still resonate; their ideas still shape the destiny of Nigeria.

It is a cruel paradox of existence that we must often celebrate greatness in the shadow of its departure. That we must find words to honor titans whose very absence renders language inadequate. But if time is the great equalizer, then it is also the thief of presence. It robs us of our icons, leaving us with only echoes of wisdom where once stood the steadfast guardians of justice. Yet, not all echoes fade.

As I write this elegy for two legends, my heart is heavy and sad, not for the duo, but for Nigeria for whom they laboured for life long. Her story has not been encouraging. But my resolve is strengthened to fight on. The best way to honour them is not through mere words, but through action. To those of us who remain committed on this side, their deaths must not mark the end of their battles; it must mark their rebirth in those of us left behind.

They have passed the torch on to us. It is now our duty to ensure that the torch continues to shine brightly and that their labours and sacrifices are not in vain. Aluta continua, Victoria acerta.
Rest well, papa Edwin Clark.
Rest well, papa Ayo Adebanjo.