By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION
The dramatic on/off attempt to recall the Senator representing Kogi central Senatorial District in the National Assembly has focused public attention on that hitherto obscure and seldom used process. While the public has been regaled (if not quite transfixed) with the apparently determined and desperate attempt by her supposed constituents to recall her (and her equally robust push-back), the body at the centre of it all – the electoral umpire – has been no less up-to-the-job with its prompt assessments and verdicts (so far, in her favour). INEC roundly rejected the recall process on the ground that it has not met the constitutional requirements of section 69(a) of the 1999 Constitution.

However, what few observers have noticed (much less commented on) is the legal framework which underpins the entire process – INEC’s Guidelines for Recalling Members of the National and State Houses of Assembly, 2024. I will get to the details shortly, but it is quite interesting that a similar handicap, in my opinion, afflicts an even more sensitive regulatory document, the NJC’s (National Judiciary Council) Regulations for the Discipline of Judicial Officers. I believe both documents are potentially problematic for the following reasons, starting with that of INEC as aforesaid.

INEC’S RECALL GUIDELINES, 2024
This would-be sledgehammer which Senator Natasha’s traducers sought to deploy for her removal is expressed on its face to have been made by INEC pursuant to Sections 69, 110 and 160 of the Constitution, Sections 2(c) and 113 of the Electoral Act, 2022, “and all other powers enabling it in that behalf”. At its foot (its conclusion), it bears the signature of Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, INEC’s Chairman. Therein, in my view, lies the problem. This is because, an enactment which is supposedly made by a multi-member body cannot validly be endorsed or executed by only one of them – without an express authorization to that effect. Administrative bodies must act within the scope of their statutory powers and follow administrative due process. See the cases of Ajiboye V. Attorney-General of the Federation (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 345) 765 and Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40.

The relevant law is Section 27(2) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that where a body established by an enactment comprises three or more persons and is empowered to make subsidiary instruments, for any such instrument to be valid, it should be “executed under the hand of any two of the members thereof as may be authorized by such body generally for that purpose or specially or any particular occasion”.

Now, by virtue of Paragraph 14(1) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, INEC consists of a Chairman and twelve members (called “National Electoral Commissioners”). Section 148 of the Electoral Act, 2022 empowers INEC to make regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the Act. Even though Section 147 of the Act empowers the Commission to delegate “any of its powers and functions to any National Electoral Commissioner, Resident Electoral Commissioner, electoral officer, or any other officer of the Commission or any other officer appointed under the provisions of (the) Act,” curiously, not only are the Guidelines themselves not expressed to have been made pursuant to the aforesaid provisions of Section 148 of the Electoral Act, more importantly, they are silent on any delegation of the power to enact them by the Commission to its Chairman, as contemplated by Section 147 of the Electoral Act.

The implication of this defect is glaring: the Recall Guidelines are ultra vires the sole executor thereof, INEC’s Chairman, because by virtue of the aforesaid combined provisions of Section 27(2) of the Interpretation Act and Paragraph 14(b) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, they should have borne the imprimatur (been “executed under the hand”) of at least two of INEC’s Commissioners or officers. There are limits to statutory and constitutional powers due to the supremacy of due process over the ultra vires acts of public officers. See the cases of Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 833)1 and Minister of Internal Affairs v. Shugaba Darman (1982) 3 NCLR 915. This ought to have completely put paid to Senator Natasha’s entire recall saga, and forcing INEC to go back to the drawing-board. This remains to be seen, of course. The “wahala” of reviewing without supposed ballot papers of recall. The law might yet hand her a technical victory – seemingly without firing a shot.

NJC’S JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REGULATIONS 2017
This document appears to be even more problematic than INEC’s Guidelines. How is that so? This is so because even though the Regulations were expressly made by the NJC on the 9th day of March, 2017, there is nothing on their face to indicate to suggest that they were executed by any officer of that distinguished body of Jurists – not even the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria who is its head by virtue of Paragraph 20(1) of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. The same paragraph provides that the NJC consists of twenty-three members.

Indeed, similar provisions in Section 27(2) of the Interpretation Act prescribe that the NJC Regulations ought to bear the imprimatur of at least two of its members. Its failure in this regard, with the greatest respect, is even worse because I am not aware of any provision – similar to those of Section 147 of the Electoral Act, 2022 – which empowers the Council to delegate any, some or all its powers (especially of enacting subsidiary instruments such as the Regulations) to any of its members (presumably the Hon. CJN). This lacuna is too obvious to be over-emphasized – much less overlooked. It should be squarely addressed by concerned authorities.

RULES OF EVIDENCE
Beyond the foregoing fatal structural defect, a fundamentally more worrisome aspect of the NJC Regulations, in my humble view, are the provisions of Regulation 21(3) thereof which stipulate that the rules of evidence do not apply to the Investigating Committee’s hearings. This provision is curious, to say the least, given that the Regulations are meant to guide an investigation into judicial misconduct – to probe allegations of ethical violations and malfeasance against judicial officers who, by their very calling, are trained to apply (and have been applying virtually throughout their entire careers) the rules of evidence codified in the Evidence Act, 2011.

This provision is problematic because by virtue of the provisions of Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution, only the National Assembly is competent to legislate on evidence. See the case of AG Abia State v. AG Federation (2002) LPELR-611 (SC). That being the case, the broader question becomes whether the other evidence-related provisions of the NJC’s said Regulations – namely Regulation 21(2), (4), (5), (7) and (8) might legitimately come under scrutiny. They stipulate as follows:-

<span;><span;>- (2): “All testimony taken at the hearing shall be given under oath or affirmation and recorded”;

<span;><span;>- (4): “The complainant shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence and call witnesses”;

<span;><span;>- (5): “At any hearing of the Investigating Committee, the subject judge has the right to present evidence, to compel the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of witnesses and to cross examine, in person or by Counsel, Committee Witness”;

<span;><span;>- (7): “The Investigating Committee may take oral evidence if it considers it necessary to do so”;

<span;><span;>- (8): “The Investigating Committee must arrange for any evidence given orally to be recorded in a transcript or by electronic recording”.

The significance of the foregoing is underscored by the fact that the NJC is not one of the bodies which are specifically excluded from the application of the Evidence Act, 2011, under the provisions of Section 256 of the Evidence Act. The maxim is expresso uniu est exclusio alterius (the express mention of a thing in a statute implies the exclusion of others which otherwise might be included). See P.H.C.S. LTD VS MIGFO LTD. (2012) All FWLR Pt. 642 pg. 1615.

I humbly submit that the foregoing view is buttressed by Item 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution which stipulate that the power of the National Assembly to legislate on the substantive subject matters of the preceding Items (1-67) in that List includes “any matter incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned elsewhere in (the) List.”
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS
Yet, another interesting issue is the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers 2016. Is the fact that it appears to be co-extensive with the Code of Conduct for Public Officers under the Constitution in the Fifth Schedule thereof anomalous in any way?. Has the Constitution covered the field or can the more detailed and specific provisions of the latter co-exist with it? Is enacting a Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers among the powers donated to the NJC under Paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution? That is the question.

This issue is somewhat topical given the ongoing story about the propriety of the chairmanship of the Board of Trustees of the IBB golf club, Abuja, by the President of the Court of Appeal. Given the provisions of Rule 9.3 of the said Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers 2016 which expressly permits judicial officers to join sporting organisations. One wonders whether Hon. Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem breaches any Code of Conduct to so act. I very doubt if the Code of Conduct for Public Officers under the Constitution bans such engagements. Although she may be on sure footing, to so act, this must be subjected to public perception of the Head of the Intermediate Court intermingling with the hordes of politicians that daily patronize the Golf Club. And perception is invariably reality. With Justice Emeka Nwite’s restraining order against her and others from being nominated and presented pending the determination of the Originating suit – the many peels of the onions are just unfolding.

In all, the non-endorsement of the foregoing vital regulatory instruments (including the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers) in the manner required by law might make them vulnerable to challenge by ambitious counsel and litigants who might fall back on such complaints in the absence of more fundamental objections or defences. Let those in charge of amendments to these laws do the needful immediately.

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court judgment in SUNDAY JACKSON V. STATE (SC/CR/1026/2022), delivered on the 7th of March, 2025, has sparked widespread legal and moral outrage across Nigeria. In affirming the death sentence handed down by the trial court, the apex court failed to deliver substantial justice in a case marked by procedural breaches, rigid legalism, and a troubling disregard for the fundamental right of self-defence. This essay critically examines the judgment, arguing that it is unjust, perverse, unscholarly, and wholly unjustified in both reasoning and outcome.

In a nation where the winds of uncertainty often shake the pillars of governance, the judiciary stands as the last bastion of hope, a symbol of justice, fairness and the enduring promise that truth can still prevail in Nigeria.

The gravity of judicial responsibility, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, cannot be overstated. As the apex court and final arbiter of justice, the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate guardian of the Nigerian Constitution, the protector of public rights, and the interpreter of the law. Its pronouncements not only resolve individual disputes but also shape the trajectory of national jurisprudence, social order, and democratic integrity. A single judgment from the Supreme Court becomes binding precedent, reverberating through all lower courts and across the institutions of governance. This elevated position demands that its Justices of the apex court exercise the highest levels of legal intellect, moral integrity and impartial deliberations unclouded by politics, fear, favour, prejudice or personal interest.

The sanctity of the Court rests on the public’s faith in its wisdom, objectivity and commitment to justice. Citizens turn to the judiciary when every other organ of government has failed them; it is the last hope of the common man. Therefore, a poorly reasoned or blatantly biased judgment from the Supreme Court does more than harm the litigants before it inflicts deep and lasting damage on the national psyche. It sows seeds of cynicism and disillusionment, erodes confidence in the rule of law, and emboldens lawlessness in both high and low places. Worse still, inconsistent or politically tainted decisions fracture the coherence of the legal system, leaving lower courts unsure, litigants confused, and legal practitioners adrift. In a society already grappling with instability, corruption, and contested democratic norms, the Supreme Court’s responsibility becomes even more sacrosanct. Its every judgment must be a beacon of clarity, fairness and constitutional fidelity, because when justice falters at the summit, the entire legal edifice trembles beneath it.

The Sunday Jackson Metaphor

With every passing day, Sunday Jackson, draws closer to having a noose around his neck and a chair kicked from under him. He awaits a governor’s signature, his fate balanced between the executioner’s grip and the taste of freedom. The final conviction and death sentence passed on Sunday Jackson, a young farmer from Adamawa State, has sparked both legal and moral outrage, not only because of the Supreme Court’s judgement but also due to the broader implications it carries for justice, equity and the ordinary Nigerian’s faith in the law. At the heart of this case is a man, living in a region marred by years of deadly conflict between pastoralist herders and sedentary farmers, an environment where survival is often tied to the right to defend one’s land and life. Most Nigerians believe that the justice edifice failed citizen Jackson from the High Court, through to the intermediate court and up to the Supreme Court.

Summary of Facts

SUNDAY JACKSON V. THE STATE (SUPRA)

On the 7th of March, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a judgment that sent shockwaves through legal and civil society circles. The apex court upheld the death sentence passed Sunday Jackson, a local farmer from Adamawa State, who had been convicted of killing a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, during a violent encounter on his farmland. The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence.

The incident that led to Jackson’s prosecution occurred sometime in 2018 in Kodomti, Numan Local Government Area of Adamawa State. Jackson had gone to harvest thatching grass on his farm when he was confronted by Bawuro, who allegedly accused him of being involved in the killing of his cattle. A confrontation ensued. According to Jackson’s statement, Bawuro attacked him with a dagger. In the struggle that followed, Jackson managed to disarm him and, in a bid to protect himself, stabbed Bawuro in the neck multiple times. The herdsman died from his injuries. Jackson fled the scene but was later apprehended and charged with culpable homicide punishable with death.

The Judgement And Some Legal Challenges

Despite Jackson’s plea of self-defence, the trial court in Adamawa state and subsequently the Court of Appeal, rejected his argument and found him guilty of murder under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in affirming this decision, concluded that Jackson’s use of force was excessive and unnecessary once the threat was neutralized by his having disarmed his assailant. This reasoning, however, has not gone unchallenged.

The judgment, which took 167 days to be delivered after the final written addresses far exceeding the 90-day constitutional deadline raises serious procedural concerns. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution mandates that judgments must be delivered not later than 90 days after the conclusion of arguments. Legal analysts argue that such delays not only breach constitutional provisions but also affect the credibility and validity of judgments, especially in capital cases where human life is at stake.

Even more contentious was the court’s interpretation of self-defence. While acknowledging that self-defence is a complete defence to murder, the court still found that Jackson fulfilled only part of the legal criteria. According to the judgment, although Jackson did not provoke the attack and was in immediate peril, he failed to retreat once he had disarmed the deceased. The court reasoned that having seized the dagger, Jackson no longer faced an imminent threat and should have fled instead of retaliating with deadly force. This position has been widely criticized as unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.

Jackson’s claim was consistent and straightforward; he acted instinctively to preserve his life in the face of sudden, life-threatening danger. The stabbing occurred during a physical struggle. The notion that he had a clear and safe opportunity to flee while entangled in a fight with an armed opponent is, at best, speculative and, at worst, a dangerous oversimplification of a clear and perfect danger to his life. The apex court appeared to construct a simplistic mental narrative that did not align with the raw, chaotic nature of real-life violence.

The most alarming aspect of the judgment was the court’s failure to apply the doctrine of excessive self-defence, which is well recognized under Section 222(2) of the Penal Code. This provision reduces a murder charge to manslaughter where death occurs in the course of self-defence but with force that exceeds what is reasonably necessary. In similar cases, such AS OKONKWO V STATE (1998) 4 NWLR 143 CA, the courts acknowledged the value of subjective human reaction under extreme fear and pressure. The Supreme Court, in Jackson’s case, chose a strictly objective standard and ignored compelling evidence that Jackson acted in a state of panic and fear.

In a nation plagued by constant deadly farmer-herder clashes, often fueled by a failure of state security and law enforcement, the case of Sunday Jackson represents a grim reminder of how legal rigidity can compound social injustice. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to clarify and evolve the jurisprudence of self-defence in Nigeria to align it with human reality, constitutional guarantees, and moral common sense. Instead, it chose a path, in my humble thinking, that seems more invested in procedural technicality than in substantial justice.

As the Supreme Court famously held, justice, ultimately, must not only be done but must be seen to have been done. In Sunday Jackson’s case, it appears neither was. See ADMINISTRATOR & EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ABACHA V SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS (2009) LPELR – 3152 and R. V. SUSSEX JUSTICES EXPARTE MCCARTHY (1924) 1KB 256 at 259.

Overview Of The Supreme Court Judgement: Points Of Concern

1. Procedural Irregularities and Constitutional Violations in judgment delivery

One of the most glaring issues with the judgment is the court’s failure to address a fundamental procedural breach, the inordinate delay in judgment delivery. Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) mandates that courts must deliver judgment within 90 days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, after final written submissions on the 27th of August, 2020, judgment was not delivered until the 10th of February, 2021, a staggering 167-day delay. This delay not only breached the Constitution but also the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the state, which guards against undue delay in criminal trials. And as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. See the cases of COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EKIADOLOR & ORS V OBAYAGBONA (1028) LPELR-40154 (CA) and DIAMOND BANK PLC V SLIMPOT (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR-41612 (CA).

Such procedural irregularities are not mere technicalities when the life of an accused is on the line. Legal precedent and statutory provisions affirm that a judgment delivered outside constitutional limits is voidable, especially when it could amount to a miscarriage of justice. Yet, the Supreme Court chose to sidestep this error, affirming a death sentence based on a tainted process. The implications of this oversight go beyond Jackson’s case; it undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to uphold its own rules.

2. Misapplication of the Doctrine of Self-defence

The Supreme Court’s narrow and mechanical application of the self-defence doctrine marks another troubling aspect of the judgment. By Jackson’s uncontested account, he was suddenly and violently attacked by the deceased, a herdsman armed with a dagger. A physical struggle ensued, during which Jackson managed to disarm the attacker and, in a moment of survival instinct, stabbed him multiple times. Jackson then fled the scene.

The court held that once Jackson had disarmed his assailant, he was no longer in danger and should have retreated. This finding was both speculative and disconnected from the realities of close-combat self-defence. The retrieval of the weapon and the fatal stabbing occurred nearly simultaneously, during an intense physical altercation. The court’s assumption that Jackson had a viable opportunity to retreat was not supported by the available evidence. It further ignored the psychological turmoil and imminent threat Jackson faced at that moment.

Even if Jackson exceeded reasonable force in the heat of the encounter, section 222(2) of the Penal Code clearly states that where death results from excessive force used in self-defence in good faith, the appropriate charge is manslaughter, not murder. The court’s refusal to consider this statutory mitigation reveals a disturbing commitment to technical rigidity over fair and context-sensitive adjudication. (To be continued).

Though for the week

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice”. (Montesquieu).

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In our last outing in this series, we emphasized on how the people’s Constitution can make the decisive difference. Today, we shall continue and the same topic after which we shall take a look at how to navigate the path to a new Nigeria. Read on.

A PEOPLE-DRIVEN CONSTITUTION: RECLAIMING NIGERIA’S POLITICAL DESTINY (CONTINUES).

The judiciary, which is meant to serve as the guardian of the Constitution, must be truly independent. Section 84(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides for the remuneration of judicial officers, but financial autonomy must be extended beyond salaries to cover the operational needs of the courts. A judiciary that is dependent on the executive for its funding cannot be expected to act impartially. The new constitution must guarantee the financial independence of the judiciary, ensuring that it can function without interference from the executive.

Furthermore, the non-justiciable nature of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution, which deals with economic and social rights, must be addressed. These rights, which include the right to education, healthcare, and housing, are currently unenforceable in court under the Constitution (Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria). This has allowed successive governments to neglect these vital services without consequence. The new constitution must make these rights justiciable, giving citizens the power to hold their government accountable for providing essential services.

Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies, such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), must also be strengthened. Currently, these bodies are often seen as tools for political vendettas, rather than impartial agencies tasked with rooting out corruption. The new constitution must guarantee the independence of these agencies, insulating them from political interference and providing them with the resources they need to carry out their mandates effectively. As the saying goes, “You cannot fight corruption with corrupt tools.” These agencies must be restructured to become credible institutions that can restore public confidence in governance.

Also, Nigeria is a country of over 250 ethnic groups, each with its unique culture, language, and traditions. The new constitution must reflect this diversity, ensuring that all Nigerians, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or region, are given equal opportunities to participate in governance and access the nation’s resources. The current federal character principle, as outlined in Sections 14(3) and 147(3) of the 1999 Constitution, has often been used as a tool for political patronage rather than genuine representation. The new constitution must ensure that appointments are based on merit while maintaining the balance necessary to promote national unity.

One of the most pressing issues that the new constitution must address is that of indigeneity. In many parts of Nigeria, citizens are classified as “indigenes” or “non-indigenes,” with the former enjoying privileges in terms of employment, education, and political participation, while the latter are treated as second-class citizens. This practice has fueled ethnic tensions and undermined the sense of national identity. The new constitution must abolish the distinction between indigenes and non-indigenes, ensuring that all Nigerians have equal rights and opportunities, regardless of where they reside. This would go a long way in fostering a sense of national unity and reducing the ethnic and regional tensions that have long plagued Nigeria.

As the saying goes, “Democracy is not a spectator sport.” For democracy to thrive in Nigeria, the electoral process must be transparent, free, and fair. One of the biggest challenges in Nigeria’s political landscape is the lack of trust in the electoral system. Voter apathy is high, as many Nigerians believe that their votes do not count. This belief is not unfounded, as elections are often marred by violence, vote rigging, and judicial manipulation.

The new constitution must include provisions that revamp the electoral process, ensuring that every vote counts. This includes the use of technology to enhance transparency in the voting and counting process, as well as stringent penalties for electoral fraud. Electoral offenders must be prosecuted and banned from holding public office for a specified period, as a deterrent to those who seek to undermine the democratic process.

Furthermore, the new constitution should allow for independent candidates to run for office, providing Nigerians with more choices and breaking the monopoly of the political parties. This would open up the political space to new voices and ideas, fostering a more vibrant democracy.

Conclusively, Nigeria stands at a crossroads, and the choices made in the coming years will determine the country’s future. The 1999 Constitution, flawed and illegitimate, has run its course. It is time for Nigeria to chart a new path, one that is driven by the will of the people and guided by principles of fairness, justice, and accountability.

A new constitution is not just a legal document; it is the foundation upon which a nation builds its future. For Nigeria, that future must be one where power is decentralized, institutions are strong, and corruption is no longer a way of life. The journey towards this new Nigeria will not be easy, but as the proverb goes, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” That step is the creation of a new, people-driven constitution, one that truly reflects the aspirations of Nigeria’s diverse and vibrant population.

By decentralizing power, strengthening institutions, ensuring inclusivity, and revamping the electoral process, Nigeria can finally begin to break free from the cycles of poor leadership and corruption that have held it back for decades. The time for change is now, and it is the Nigerian people who must lead the way.

CONCLUSION: NAVIGATING THE PATH TO A NEW NIGERIA

Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment in its history. The road from independence has been filled with hope, turbulence, and resilience. Through every challenge, political instability, corruption, economic stagnation, and social inequality, the Nigerian spirit has remained unyielding. Yet, as the proverb wisely says, “A river may be wide, but it can always be crossed.” The task ahead is immense, but not insurmountable. The time has come to reimagine a future built on the foundation of ethical leadership, accountability, and the collective strength of the Nigerian people.

Corruption, a shadow that has followed Nigeria since its earliest days, has eroded the promise of prosperity and progress. From the post-independence era to the present day, corruption has been a persistent barrier, preventing the full realization of Nigeria’s potential. However, the people of Nigeria have shown time and time again that they are not defined by the failures of their leaders, but by their own resilience, innovation, and determination. Across the country, from the vibrant streets of Lagos to the fertile plains of Kano, a new generation is rising, a generation that refuses to accept the status quo, a generation that believes in a better tomorrow.

For Nigeria to fully realize its vast potential, a transformation in governance must occur. This is not merely about eradicating corruption; it is about fostering a culture of integrity, accountability, and service. The nation must embrace leadership that puts the people first, leadership that serves not just as rulers but as custodians of the public good. Institutions must be strengthened, ensuring they are not mere pawns in political games but pillars of justice, fairness, and transparency. Only through this systemic reform can the cycle of impunity be broken, and the vision of a prosperous Nigeria become a reality.
The road to reform is neither simple nor swift, but it is essential. The future of Nigeria will not be defined by its past mistakes but by the courage of its people to demand better from those in power. It is the everyday Nigerian, the youth, the farmer, the entrepreneur, the teacher who holds the key to the country’s future. It is their voice, their activism, and their insistence on justice and fairness that will pave the way for the Nigeria of tomorrow.

As Nigeria steps into a new era, the challenges remain significant, but the opportunities are boundless. The country has everything it needs to thrive, a young and dynamic population, rich natural resources, and a vibrant cultural heritage. The only missing ingredient is the collective will to channel these resources toward the common good. It is in this spirit that Nigeria must move forward, with hope, vision, and an unwavering belief that a brighter future lies ahead.

The proverb says, “No matter how long the night, the day is sure to come.” For Nigeria, that day is on the horizon. It will not come through the actions of a few, but through the collective determination of the many. The dawn of a new Nigeria is within reach, and the time to seize it is now. (The end).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“There are three essentials to leadership: humility, clarity and courage”. —Chan Master Fuchan Yuan.