Connect with us

Opinion

Rejoinder to Simon Kolawole’s Misrepresentation of The Patriots’ Position on the 1999 Constitution

Published

9 months ago

on

By Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION
On Sunday, July 27, 2025, respected columnist,Simon Kolawole, published an opinion piece in ThisDay titled,“Back to the 1999 Constitution – Again?” In the said piece, Kolawole sought to downplay or outrightly discredit the persistent and growing calls for the restructuring of Nigeria’s constitutional framework. He targeted, in particular, the longstanding position advanced by patriotic intellectuals and elder statesmen under the collective known as The Patriots, portraying them as revisionists of Nigeria’s constitutional history. But Kolawole’s interpretation not only misrepresents the actual arguments being advanced by The Patriots, it also rests on selective history, unverified assumptions, and a concerning disregard for legal scholarship and political truth. He claimed, among other things, that The Patriots had falsely asserted that the 1999 Constitution was authored by the military and that their stance was either uninformed or deliberately misleading. (See Simon Kolawole, “Let’s Tell Ourselves the Truth about the Constitution,” ThisDay, July 28, 2024.)

PURPOSE OF THIS INTERVENTION
This rejoinder seeks to correct these misrepresentations and restate – clearly and accurately-the long-held position of The Patriots on the 1999 Constitution. It will also address broader issues surrounding the unsuitability of Nigeria’s overcentralized federal structure in a pluralistic society, and highlight areas of the Constitution, particularly the Exclusive Legislative List, that require urgent reform if Nigeria is to remain a just, united, and functional federation.

CLARIFYING THE PATRIOTS’ POSITION ON THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

Simon Kolawole alleges that The Patriots have repeatedly claimed that the 1999 Constitution was “written by the military” and that such a claim is false because “it was drafted by a committee of legal experts and approved by the Provisional Ruling Council.” He suggests that this position lacks intellectual rigor and should be dismissed by well-meaning Nigerians.

However, this is a complete mischaracterization of the Patriots’ position. The Patriots have never claimed that soldiers sat down with pens and drafted the Constitution in a vacuum. No.What they have consistently stated is that the 1999 Constitution is a product of military imposition, lacking the democratic legitimacy that should accompany any foundational legal document in a pluralistic society such as Nigeria.

In a public statement by Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN – renowned constitutional law scholar and founding member (later Chairman) of The Patriots-it was clearly argued that:
“The 1999 Constitution was imposed by a military regime without a referendum, without public debate, and without the participation of the Nigerian people. It cannot therefore be considered a people’s Constitution.”

Similarly, in a 2001 press briefing, Chief FRA Williams, SAN, another founding member and pioneer chairman of The Patriots, described the 1999 Constitution as:
“A document that merely adapted the 1979 Constitution and was handed down to us by a departing military junta.”

The use of the term “military Constitution” by The Patriots refers therefore not to its literal authorship by soldiers, but to the flawed process of imposition and the absence of participatory legitimacy through a people’s referendum. It is this absence of democratic authorship and validation that underpins The Patriots’ sustained call for a truly autochthonous Constitution-one emerging from the will and deliberation of the Nigerian people.

To suggest otherwise, as Kolawole did, is to either misunderstand the semantics of constitutional discourse or to deliberately distort the message.I prefer to believe that the former is the case. The consequence of such distortion is dangerous: it undermines the gravity and urgency of constitutional reforms by reducing it to a mere semantic disagreement rather than the existential democratic concern that it actually is.

CRITIQUE OF NIGERIA’S OVERCENTRALIZATION
The evolution of Nigeria’s federal structure is marked by a troubling contradiction: although it is constitutionally designated a federation, the actual distribution of power closely resembles that of a unitary state. This paradox can be traced back to the 1966 military coup and the subsequent unification of the country under a single military command structure. The military, inherently centralist in its command hierarchy, dismantled the regional autonomy that had defined Nigeria’s First Republic (1960–1966). (See Olumide Akanbi, “The Evolution of Nigeria’s Federalism and the Military Factor,” Journal of African Federalism, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2018, p. 45.). What some Northern soldiers considered to be the original sin of General J.T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, (the then Head of State who seized power during the chaos and crises that ensued during the 15th January, 1966 military coup),was his promulgation of Decree No. 34 pf 1967 which abrogated the federal stricture in favour of a unitary one.
Before the 1966 military intervention, Nigeria’s federalism allowed each of the three (later four) regions (with the creation of the Midwest Region on 10th August, 1963, from Western Region by popular referendum of the people) to exercise substantial control over local affairs. These regions had their own Constitutions, public services, and developmental priorities. However, from General Yakubu Gowon’s Decree No. 8 of 1967, which effectively abolished regional governments in favor of 12 militarily-administered states, to the eventual promulgation of the 1999 Constitution by General Abdulsalami Abubakar’s regime, Nigeria has grown increasingly centralized. Thus, there has never been any conscious effort by successive governments – colonial, civil or military, since Nigeria’s Lugardian almagamation on January 1, 1914 – to have a buy-in of the people through a referendum. None from the 1922 Clifford Constitution;1946 Richards Constitution; 1951 Macpherson Constitution; 1954 Lyttleton Constitution; 1960 Independent Constitution; 1963 Republican Constitution; 1979 Constitution; 1989 Constitution; and up to the 1999 Constitution.

This over centralization of powers at the centre poses severe governance challenges in a country as ethnically,culturally, religiously and linguistically diverse as Nigeria. With about 374 ethnic groups (Prof Onigu Otite), at least 500 spoken languages and strong regional identities, a one-size-fits-all approach to governance is both ineffective and inflammatory. As Rotimi Suberu notes, “centralized federalism in Nigeria breeds disaffection, weakens accountability, and fuels centrifugal tensions.” (Rotimi Suberu, Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria, United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001, p. 112.)
For example, the same educational policy enforced in Zamfara State may be culturally, religiously or economically inappropriate in Bayelsa State. Federal government’s directives on land use, resource control or school curriculum rarely accommodates local realities. Similarly, national security priorities are often applied uniformly without sensitivity to regional insecurity dynamics such as the age-long farmer-herder clashes in the Middle Belt, or self-determination agitations in the South East.
Another critical example is the administration of religion. While the federal Constitution of 1999 claims secularism (section 10), certain states enforce Sharia law, while others either remain secular, practise traditional religion,or remain Christian-dominated. Yet, national laws, judicial and other public structures fail to reflect these peculiar realities, often resulting in policy flip-flops and conflict or discrimination claims. This dissonance between forced constitutional uniformity and lived practical plurality experiences is an enduring source of national instability.
Nigeria’s flawed federalism also impedes development. Federating states are heavily dependent on federally-allocated funds (under section 162 of the 1999 Constitution). This disincentivizes local innovation or internally generated revenue (IGR) strategies. Because federal allocation is distributed by formula rather than performance or resource ownership, states have limited autonomy to plan large-scale infrastructure, education, or healthcare interventions independent of Abuja. This also breeds discrimination and resentment. Oil-rich Bayelsa State, for example, shares from the Federation Account less than may non-oil producing communities notwithstanding the attendant oil and gas–related environmental degradation and prevalent poverty.

OVERHAULING THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE LIST
The Exclusive Legislative List in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) contains 68 whole items which only the federal government has power to legislate upon. (See Part I, Second Schedule, Constitution of the 1999 Constitution.This list is excessive and counter-productive in a federal system we pretend to operate in our pluralistic society. It takes away vital areas of governance from the reach of states and local governements, despite their proximity to the people. Among the most problematic items are police and security, prisons, railways, mineral resources, electricity generation and transmission, labour and trade unions, education (particularly tertiary), taxation of certain commodities, matrimonial matters, licensing, etc.

This dominant central control over crucial sectors greatly undermines Nigeria’s federal claim and limits each state’s ability to respond to its unique developmental needs.
Take policing, for example. In the United States and India (both federal democracies with complex diversities), subnational units maintain their own police forces with full jurisdictional authority. Yet in Nigeria, only the federal government is constitutionally empowered to create or control the police force under sections 214 and 215 of the 1999 Constitution. The implication is that state governors, though constitutionally described as “chief security officers” of their states, can not control security within their borders. (See Yusuf Olaolu Ali, SAN, Federalism and the Nigerian Constitution: A Legal Perspective, Spectrum Law Review, 2016, p. 78.)

This unitarinsm has proven disastrous. States facing terrorist insurgency, mass kidnapping and ethnic violence are unable to develop local policing models or equip forces that understand the terrain and speak local languages or respond to such vices as they occur. The result is a reactive and overstretched federal police, further alienating citizens from security providers.
Similarly, prison administration is fully centralized; yet most of the crimes prosecuted in Nigeria occur under state criminal laws,not federal laws. This mismatch causes logistical and financial burdens on the federal system while delaying justice. A state-based correctional system, aligned with state judicial authority, would be more efficient and localized to deal with local offences.

In the education sector, control over accreditation, curriculum and policy located at the federal level stifles local creativity and ignores peculiar local needs. States such as Lagos and Rivers which have made giant strides in digital learning and school reforms are constantly required to comply with federal laws that may not reflect their educational needs,local priorities or resources.

Another major area of great concern is resource control and mining. Under the 1999 Constitution, all mineral resources are owned by the federal government, with states entitled only to derivation funds. This has perpetuated sustained injustice leading to the conflict in the Niger Delta.It has created a retrogrssive culture of dependence where resource-rich states remain poor due to limited control over their God-given assets while non-oil producing states live fat on such poor states.An unjust and obnoxious system of sharing the cake without contributing to its baking has thus emerged.

Globally, federations assign such matters to local authorities. In Canada, provinces control natural resources and generate revenue from them. In India, states co-legislate on police, education and public health under a Concurrent List. In the U.S., the Tenth Amendment reserves unenumerated powers to the states. Nigeria’s failure to adopt similar devolution of powers has painfully hindered innovation, democratic accountability and balanced development.

What is therefore needed is a restructuring of the Exclusive Legislative List, pruning it to only essential national matters such as defence, foreign affairs, banking and currency, while moving most socio-economic functions to the Concurrent or Residual Lists. This would not only align with global federalist principles but also reflect Nigeria’s diverse socio-political realities. Only a brand new Constitution emanating from the people’s will after a Constituent Assembly and referendum can bring about such a revolutionary outcome,not piecemeal amendment of the present 1999 Constitution.

ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IN CONSTITUTION-MAKING:
THE LEGISLATURE AS ENABLER, NOT ORIGINATOR
It is axiomatic that under constitutional democracy, sovereignty resides in the people. The legislature, while clothed with enormous powers of lawmaking, is not the primary source or originator of the people’s will. Rather, it is a conduit-a servant and enabler-of that will. Nigeria’s National Assembly, as presently constituted, draws its powers from the 1999 Constitution which is itself a product of military fiat, not of popular affirmation of the people. This reality raises a fundamental legal-philosophical contradiction: can a creature of a flawed document presume to re-birth it? Can a child reconfigure its own paternity? The National Assembly, being a product of a schedule attached to Decree No. 24 of 1999, cannot, ab initio, claim any right to author a new grundnorm that overrides its own existential basis. All it can do is to amend, amend and amend the flawed Constitution under section 9 thereof. The reason is that being the tail (representative agent), it cannot wag the dog (the people that own the will).

The National Assembly’s attempts at constitutional amendment-however noble-have therefore largely been elitist and parliamentary, not popular or plebiscitary. Several constitutional alteration bills have been passed (up to 5 already); yet none has bridged the democratic gap of a sovereign national consensus. None has dared to make Chapter 2 justiciable (the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principle of State Policy). They would never! The people thus watch from the sidelines as professional politicians hold sway over what should be their social contract. That is akin to medical doctors prescribing medication to patients they have not examined. The people’s voice is conspicuously absent in the very document that governs their lives. The legislative arm must therefore reposition itself-not as the progenitor of a new Constitution, but as the facilitator of a new constitutional order birthed by the people themselves through a referendum.
[See Mike Ozekhome, “The Illegality and Illegitimacy of the 1999 Constitution,” ThisDay, April 22, 2024].

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM VS. CONSTITUTIONAL REWRITING
There exists a grave conceptual and legal dissonance in conflating constitutional reform with constitutional rewriting. Reform is cosmetic; rewriting is foundational. The former merely plasters the gaping cracks of a collapsing edifice. The latter reconstructs its very foundation. Nigeria’s current approach has been that of tentative and timid reforms. Reforms through amendments involve mere tinkering with clauses, altering sections, inserting or deleting subsections-all within the same defective legal framework. This is akin to merely repainting a termite-ridden house while ignoring the need to first fumigate and wholly rebuild; or merely cutting off the branches of a tree threatening the foundations of a house, rather than uprooting it completely.
Rewriting on the other hand is a revolutionary act-peaceful, yet radical. It is negotiated. It requires a complete break from the past; a tabula rasa; a fresh convening of the people; and a new social contract that reflects the genuine aspirations of today’s Nigerians;not those of 1998 military oligarch. Countries like South Africa, Kenya and some others have walked this noble path through convocation of Constituent Assemblies participation in national referenda. Why not Nigeria?
To continue operating the 1999 Constitution is to perpetuate a fraud-a self-deceit that we live under democracy when in fact we are governed by relics of khaki rule. The National Assembly must embrace its transitional role and work with civil society, the judiciary, the executive and all Nigerian stakeholders to midwife-not manufacture-a new constitutional dawn.
[See Jibrin Ibrahim, “Why Nigeria Needs a New Constitution, Not Another Amendment,” Premium Times, March 4, 2021].

NEW REFERENDUM-BASED CONSTITUTIONS: GLOBAL TESTAMENT TO POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
The world is replete with nations that emerged from constitutional darkness into the light of participatory democracy and popular governance. Some examples will suffice here to advance this point. Kenya, in 2010, rose from the ashes of electoral violence to birth a new people-oriented Constitution through a referendum. The Kenyan model was not merely legal-it was moral. It sought to heal, not just to rule. South Africa’s 1996 Constitution is another golden standard: a document forged through exhaustive public consultations, grassroots submissions, and national soul-searching, culminating in a powerful symbol of unity post-apartheid.
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution also passed through a national referendum, marking the country’s rebirth after years of military interregnum. In 2022, Chile attempted a similar feat by proposing a new Constitution through a popularly elected Constituent Assembly. Although that version was rejected in a referendum, the process itself showcased the democratic principle: the people must be heard, not herded; their will must prevail, not discarded.
In Iran, a new Islamic Republic Constitution was birthed in 1979 after a 99.5% referendum of the Iranian people. A people’s referendum in Bangladesh in 1991reintroduced a parliamentary system of government, abolished the office of the Vice President and provided that the President must be elected by the Parliament. Morocco held a referendum on 1st July, 2011, for constitutional reforms in response to wide-spread protests. Egypt subjected its new Constitution to a referendum in 2012. The Eritrean people in 1994 carried out a referendum which gave the people a “sense of ownership of the Constitution”. Tunisia, following a revolution and months of protests, set up a Constituent Assembly that drafted a new Constitution on 26th January, 2014, after a people’s referendum. Iraq, on October 15, 2005, carried out a referendum to adopt her new Constitution.
The United States of America (after whom Nigeria’s Constitution is modelled) held a constitutional convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between May 25 and September 17, 1787, to birth a new Constitution and have a “more perfect union”. Of the 55 Delegates that attended the Convention presided over by George Washington (who later became the first American President), 39 delegates signed a new Constitution after a people’s referendum. Broad outlines of a new Constitution were proposed, debated and agreed upon by these delegates that represented the autonomous confederates. It was this initiative that brought about America’s federal system of government; Executive Presidency; Republicanism; Separation of Powers (a doctrine earlier popularized in 1748 by Baron de Montesquieu, a great French philosopher); and judicial review. It witnesses inclusive inputs by great Federalists such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, John Adams and John Marshal. Since 1789 when the Constitution birthed ( 236 whole years ago),has just 7,591 words with only 27 amendments. The reason it has withstood its stability and acceptability is because it emanated directly from the will of the people and so enjoys their legitimacy and respectability.Why not Nigeria,I ask? (See Mike Ozekhome: Constitutional Autochthony and a Referendum for a New People’s Constitution: A Comparison with the 1999 Constitution; February, 2025, Mikeozekhomeschambers.com).
What unites the above examples is one common thread-referendum. This is the power of the people expressed directly; not elected, selected or appointed through legislative surrogates. The people must see their fingerprint on the agreed charter that governs them. That is the essence of legitimacy through a yes-or-no referendum on the people’s grundnorm. Referendum makes a Constitution autochthonous, homegrown,people-owned.
[See Yash Ghai, “Kenya’s Constitution: An Instrument for Change,” Open Society Foundations, August 2011]
[See Christina Murray and Heinz Klug, “Constitution-Making in South Africa: A Model for the World?” Review of Constitutional Studies, 1997].

LESSONS FOR NIGERIA FROM THESE COUNTRIES
Nigeria must jettison the illusion that piecemeal amendments can yield a legitimate, people’s Constitution. We must learn from America, our African and Latin American siblings that the legitimacy of a Constitution lies not in its legal grammar but in its popular genesis. A new Nigerian Constitution must be drafted by a Constituent Assembly comprising of Representatives of the people elected on a non political or partisan basis-civil society, labour, youth, men and women’s groups, professionals, students, traditional institutions, faith-based organizations, persons living with disabilities and other stakeholders. It must then be subjected to a national referendum where every citizen, from the creeks of Yenagoa to the plains of Sokoto, from the savannah to the mangrove swamps, etc, casts a vote.

This process is not just a legal imperative-it is a national therapy. A referendum-based Constitution would erase the ghost of military rule and birth a fresh beginning and identity for Nigeria. It would convert cynical citizens into patriotic stakeholders. It would replace imposed obedience with inspired allegiance.

The time has come. Let the eagle soar again-not on colonial graves; not on military Decrees and diktats; but on the wings of popular consent of the people.
[See Clement Nwankwo, “Towards a People’s Constitution for Nigeria,” Cleen Foundation Policy Paper, 2021].

THE PATRIOTS’ PATRIOTIC BLUEPRINT FOR A PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION
A Constitution must not only be written-it must be born. And like all legitimate births, it must pass through the womb of collective consent. The Patriots, a formidable assembly of distinguished elder statesmen and women, jurists, constitutional scholars, professionals, traditional and religious leaders and public intellectuals, have for years championed the cause of a People’s Constitution, not by revolution but by resolution; not with bayonets but with ballots; not by Decrees but through dialogue and democratic deliberation.
Their thesis is clear: no nation can build peace on the foundation of falsehood or silence, and no union can last where one part feels conscripted rather than convened. In the interest of national salvation-not sentiments-they propose a blueprint for constitutional rebirth anchored on Nigeria’s plurality.

PRACTICAL STEPS FOR NIGERIA’S CONSTITUTION-MAKING PROCESS
Step 1: Enactment of Enabling Legislation:
• Executive Bill Pathway: The President submits an Executive Bill to the National Assembly, requesting promulgation of a law to enable INEC conduct elections into a Constituent Assembly on a non-partisan basis.This will comprise of 110 members made up of three representatives from each Senatorial zone of the 36 states of Nigeria and the FCT,Abuja (one per senatorial district). Such candidates are to campaign and run on their personal merit based on their own manifestos, not on political party platforms. This approach follows global best practice, as seen in Uganda (1989) and South Africa (1996).
• Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC):

Step 2: The elected Constituent Assembly sits publicly for the sole
purpose of drafting a new people’s Constitution. In this historic task, the Constituent Assembly shall consult widely across all segments of the society. They shall also draw inputs from:
• The 1960 Independence and 1963 Republican Constitution;
• The 2014 National Conference Report (over 600 consensus-based recommendations);
•Relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution;
• Relevant reports from Senate and House Committees on their Constitutional Review exercise;
• Nationwide submissions from ethnic nationalities, civil society, the military, Police, media, business,private sector,persons living with disabilities, academia,students leadership, labour, diaspora, traditional and religious leaders, elder statesmen and women, market men and women, and more.
Deliberations at the Constituent Assembly must be open to the public, transparent, and all-inclusive; modeled after the 1996 South African process which received over two million citizen submissions.

Step 3: Public Engagement and Harmonization
Once the initial draft is produced:
• The document must be translated into major local languages and subjected to town hall meetings, digital consultations, and public critique across the six geopolitical zones and the diaspora.
• The drafters shall revise and harmonize the draft based on inputs received.
This step ensures that the Constitution reflects lived realities, promotes civic ownership, and withstands democratic scrutiny.
Step 4: National Referendum
The harmonized final draft is subjected to a national referendum—a democratic mechanism for the people to either accept or reject the new Constitution.
The Constituent Assembly may in its wisdom adopt one of two suggested formats:
• Single Yes/No Vote on the entire draft Constitution (as done in Kenya in 2010 and Bangladesh in 1991).
• Clause-by-Clause Referendum, where citizens vote section-by-section, enabling granular endorsement or rejection. This format mirrors the 1963 Midwestern Referendum of 10th August, 1963.
A minimum voter turnout threshold shall be set to ensure democratic validity.
Step 5: Presidential Proclamation and Entry into Force
Once the referendum is concluded and the draft is approved,it is submitted to the President for assent.
• The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, acting under section 5 of the Constitution and in line with the powers vested in nim as head of the Executive, shall sign and proclaim the new Constitution into law, thus bringing about its enforcement.
It is only then that Nigeria can truly affirm the genuine foundational democratic statement: “We the people of Nigeria… do hereby give to ourselves this Constitution.”

This process is not about undermining state institutions—it is about restoring them to legitimacy. It blends legality (via executive and legislative action) with legitimacy (via citizen participation and referendum). It affirms that sovereignty indeed resides with the people, not a political class; not a elitist group.

This roadmap ensures that Nigeria’s next Constitution is not a product of Decree, convenience, or elite consensus, but of collective national will, built through openness, participation, and inclusion.

CONCLUSION

A CALL TO NATIONAL ACTION

Nigeria stands today, not merely at a constitutional crossroads, but at a moral precipice. The air is thick with constitutional fatigue, the soil weary of authoritarian roots masked by democratic branches, and the soul of the nation suffocate under the weight of imposed structures (foreign and military) that neither resemble nor respect its people’s will.

It is no longer a question of whether the 1999 Constitution is flawed. That is settled. It is a graveyard of imposed ideas, a mausoleum of military fiat dressed in borrowed democratic robes. What is now urgent, pressing and constitutionally obligatory is what we, the Nigerian people must do to salvage her soul.

We must not tinker any longer with palliative amendments. The process of constitutional reform cannot merely be an elite sport, played behind closed doors in committee rooms in Abuja, choreographed by a political class more interested in electoral advantage than nation-building. No. It must begin and end with the people.
The people, in their villages and towns, their religious centres and schools, their market places and offices-they are the sovereigns. Not military Decrees of yesteryears. Not the colonially inherited scaffolds of exclusion. Not the self-serving silence of our complicit elites.

As argued above, the role of the National Assembly under sections 4 and 9 of the 1999 Constitution is not to wear the toga of originators. It is not their prerogative to determine in isolation the next chapter of our nationhood. Rather, they must become enablers, facilitators of a people-driven process rooted in popular sovereignty.
The Patriots, in their timeless wisdom, hug this national moment. Their peaceful blueprint for constitutional renewal, laid out with clarity and democratic precision, calls for a step-by-step people’s conference, one divorced from state capture, one driven by inclusivity, and culminating in a national referendum.

This process is not a romantic idealism. It is national necessity. It is legal realism. It is historical debt owed to a citizenry long ignored and dedpised.

Furthermore, at a time where the sword increasingly overshadows the scale, when guns echo louder than reason, the law must reassert itself-not in violence, not in Decrees, but in institutional dialogue. We are not a banana republic. We are a sovereign Republic founded on law and justice.And it is time we returned to that foundation with humility and courage.
Now therefore, dear Nigerians-activists and artisans, farmers,professors and pensioners, youth and students, academia,diaspora, market men and women,military and police, and elderstatesmen and women,religious and traditional leaders- we call upon you. Let this be the hour of national reawakening and rebirth. Let this be the season when democracy is not just recited but rewritten. Let it not be said that in our moment of reckoning, we chose silence over courage, cynicism over hope, and apathy over action.
Let the President, National Assembly initiate enabling Executive Bill; Let the NASS pass it into law. Let the process commence towards a truly people-led constitutional process. Let the Constituent Assembly deliberate and agree on a draft new Constitution.Let the NASS in its new law mandate INEC to organsise a people’s referendum . Let civil society and other stake holders mobilize town halls, public debates grassroots dialogues to aid the Constituent Assembly. Let the courts be courageous in defending the people’s right to re-found their nation. Let the press amplify, not suppress. Let the young rise and the old lead by example and with conscience.

Let it be said of this generation: They inherited a broken Constitution. They rebuilt it and gave us a new one.
Let Nigeria rise anew, not on the crumbling scaffolds of imposed legality, but on the sacred shoulders of popular legitimacy. This is the lens I recommend to Kolawole and others to appreciate the Patriots’ pateiotic position. God bless Nigeria.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

A Vindicating Truth: A Factual Presentation on the Supreme Court’s Intervention in the ADC Leadership Matter

Published

1 day ago

on

May 4, 2026

By

By Comrade IG Wala

To All Nigerians, Party Stakeholders, and Lovers of Democracy,

In the life of every great political movement, there comes a moment where the noise of confusion meets the silence of the Law. For the African Democratic Congress (ADC), that moment arrived on April 30, 2026.

For months, the ADC was held in a state of judicial paralysis caused by a lower court order that froze the party’s activities. This order did not just affect a few leaders, it threatened to delete the ADC from the Nigerian political map and disenfranchise millions of supporters ahead of the 2027 General Elections.

Today, we present the facts of the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure that every Nigerian, from the city centers to the grassroots, understands that Justice has spoken, and the ADC is alive.

The Three Pillars of the Supreme Court’s Ruling:

1. The End of Paralysis (The Status Quo Order)!

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, was clear and firm: the Court of Appeal’s order to maintain a “status quo” was improper and unwarranted. The apex court recognized that you cannot freeze a political party indefinitely without a trial. By setting this aside, the Supreme Court rescued the ADC from a leadership vacuum that was being used to justify de-recognition by INEC.

2. The Restoration of Administrative Legitimacy.

By nullifying the appellate court’s freeze, the Supreme Court effectively restored the David Mark-led National Working Committee to its rightful place. This means that for all official, administrative, and electoral purposes, the ADC now has a recognized head. The party is no longer a ship without a captain; the doors of the headquarters are open, and the party’s name remains firmly on the ballot.

3. The Order for a Fresh Trial on Merits.

True to the principles of fair hearing, the Supreme Court did not simply gift the party to one side. Instead, it ordered the case back to the Federal High Court for an accelerated hearing. This is a victory for the Truth. It means the court is not interested in technicalities or stopping the clock, it wants to see the evidence, read the Party Constitution, and deliver a final judgment based on the Right vs. Wrong.

Note: I will drop the 7 prayers made to Supreme Court by ADC in the comment section.

A Message to Our Members and Supporters.
To our members who have felt a sense of fear, apprehension, or a lack of confidence in the Nigerian courts, let your hearts be at peace.

It is a delusion to believe that gross injustice can simply walk through the doors of our highest courts unnoticed. This matter is currently one of the most publicized and people-centric cases in Nigeria. In such a bright spotlight, the Judiciary acts not just as a judge, but as a shield for the common man.

The Law is not a tool for the crafty, it is a searchlight for the Truth.
Inasmuch as they say the Law is blind, it sees with perfect clarity the difference between a lie and the truth, between right and wrong. The Supreme Court’s refusal to let the ADC be strangled by procedural delays is proof that the system works for those who stand on the side of justice.

Our confidence is not in personalities, but in the Process. We are returning to the Federal High Court not with fear, but with the armor of Truth.

The Handshake remains strong, the vision is clear, and our participation in the 2027 elections is now legally anchored.

Stand tall. The ADC has been tested by the fire of the courts, and we have emerged not just intact, but vindicated.

Signed,
Comrade, IG Wala.
02/04/26. — with Shareef Kamba and 14 others.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Police is Your Friend and Other Lies We No Longer Believe

Published

1 day ago

on

May 4, 2026

By

By Boma Lilian Braide (Esq.)

There was a time in Nigeria when the phrase The Police is Your Friend was not a national joke. It was a civic assurance, a symbolic handshake between the state and its citizens. It represented the ideal of a civil security architecture built on trust, service, and protection. Today, that once reassuring slogan has decayed into a bitter irony. It no longer evokes safety; it provokes fear. It no longer signals partnership; it signals danger. What should have been the soul of Nigerian civil state relations has become a cruel parody of our lived experience at checkpoints, stations, and on the streets.

The Nigerian security apparatus has undergone a transformation so profound that it now resembles a predatory machine rather than a protective institution. The sight of a police patrol vehicle, which should ordinarily bring comfort, now triggers anxiety. Citizens instinctively brace themselves, not for assistance, but for extortion, harassment, or violence. We are not merely witnessing isolated incidents of misconduct. We are watching a pattern of state enabled brutality unfold in real time, a pattern so consistent that it feels like a televised execution of the social contract. In this grim theatre, the Nigerian state often appears not as the protector but as the principal aggressor.

On Sunday, April 26th 2026, the quiet air of Effurun in Delta State was shattered by the crack of a service pistol. What should have been an ordinary Sunday afternoon became the final chapter in the life of twenty-eight year old Mene Ogidi. A viral video, barely two minutes long, captured the horrifying scene. Ogidi sat on the dusty ground, his hands tied behind him with a rope. He was unarmed, exhausted, and pleading in his mother tongue for a chance to explain himself. Standing over him was a man in plain clothes, a man sworn to protect the very life he was about to extinguish. Assistant Superintendent of Police Nuhu Usman raised his pistol and fired two shots at close range into the body of a restrained, helpless citizen.

This was not a confrontation. It was not a crossfire. It was not a struggle for a weapon. It was an execution. A daylight assassination carried out by a state paid officer who felt so insulated by impunity that he performed his violence in front of a digital audience. The collective outrage that followed was not simply about one death. It was the eruption of a nation that has watched this script repeat itself far too many times.

Barely days later, in Dei-Dei Abuja, another life was cut short. A National Youth Service Corps member was shot inside his father’s compound. Authorities described it as a mistake during a crossfire, but the silence that followed spoke louder than any official explanation. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are symptoms of a deep institutional rot, a rot that has turned the badge into a license for violence rather than a symbol of service.

Extrajudicial killings in Nigeria represent a direct assault on the fundamental right to life and the presumption of innocence. When a law enforcement officer assumes the roles of accuser, judge, and executioner, the very foundation of the state begins to crumble. In the case of Mene Ogidi, the Delta State Police Command admitted that the officer acted in gross violation of Force Order 237, the regulation governing the use of firearms. This admission is significant because it reveals that the problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the collapse of discipline, the erosion of accountability, and the entrenchment of a culture of impunity.

Between 2020 and 2025, Nigerian security agencies were implicated in nearly six hundred violent incidents against civilians, resulting in more than eight hundred deaths. The Nigeria Police Force accounted for over half of these fatalities. These numbers paint a disturbing picture. The institutions funded by taxpayers to provide security have become one of the greatest threats to their safety.

The psychology behind this brutality is rooted in the absence of consequences. When officers believe that nothing will happen after they pull the trigger, the threshold for using lethal force drops to zero. In the Effurun case, reports suggest that the suspect was even transported to a station after the initial shooting, only to be shot again. This level of cruelty reflects a complete dehumanization of the citizenry. The victim is no longer seen as a person with rights. He becomes a disposable suspect. This mindset is a legacy of the defunct SARS unit, whose methods and mentality continue to shape policing culture. Rebranding SARS into SWAT or the Rapid Response Squad means nothing if the same men, trained in the same violent ethos, continue to operate with the same predatory instincts.

The Nigerian police system has evolved from a flawed institution into what many citizens now describe as a state sponsored cartel. The Zero Tolerance mantra often repeated by the Inspector General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has become a public relations slogan that evaporates at every checkpoint. The immediate dismissal and recommended prosecution of ASP Usman and his team may satisfy the public’s immediate hunger for justice, but it does not address the deeper institutional vacuum that allowed an officer to believe he could execute a restrained suspect without consequence. If accountability only occurs when a video goes viral, then we are not being policed. We are being hunted by a uniformed gang that is occasionally caught on camera.

This raises critical questions. Where were the superior officers? Where was the Area Commander while this culture of execution was taking root? Command responsibility in Nigeria remains a myth. Until a Commissioner of Police is removed for the actions of their subordinates, there will be no internal incentive to reform. The decay is structural. We are recruiting frustrated individuals, training them in aggression rather than professionalism, and unleashing them on a population they are conditioned to view with suspicion and contempt.

The mistake narrative used in the Abuja NYSC shooting reflects this tactical incompetence. A professional force does not mistake a youth corper in his bedroom for a combatant. Nigerians are effectively subsidising their own endangerment, paying for the bullets that cut down their brightest young citizens. A nation cannot survive this level of uniformed recklessness. The state has lost its monopoly on violence to its own agents. When police officers fear the citizen’s camera more than they respect the citizen’s life, the system has failed.

Five years after the historic 2020 End SARS protests, the systemic reforms promised by government remain largely unfulfilled. Only a handful of states have implemented the recommendations of the judicial panels or compensated victims. The National Human Rights Commission reported in July 2025 that it had received over three hundred thousand complaints of abuses. This staggering figure reflects the scale of the crisis. While the current Inspector General has introduced new regulations to align the Police Act of 2020 with operational realities, the gap between a gazetted document in Abuja and a patrol team in Delta remains vast.

The solution to this bloodletting must be radical and structural. First, police oversight must be decentralised. Relying on Force Headquarters in Abuja to discipline an officer in a remote community is inefficient and ineffective. Each state should have an independent, citizen led oversight board with the authority to recommend immediate suspension and prosecution without interference from the police hierarchy.

Second, Force Order 237 must be overhauled to strictly limit the use of firearms to situations where there is an immediate and verifiable threat to life. Under no circumstances should a restrained or surrendering suspect be shot.

Third, Nigeria must address the mental health and welfare of police officers. Men who live in dilapidated barracks, earn inadequate wages, and operate under constant stress are more likely to lash out at the public. However, poverty cannot be an excuse for murder. Welfare reform must go hand in hand with strict accountability.

Finally, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The trial of ASP Usman and others like him should be public, transparent, and swift. It must serve as a deterrent that resonates in every police station across the country. The era of secret disciplinary rooms must end. Nigeria must invest in technology driven policing, not only in weapons but in body cameras and digital accountability systems. When officers know they are being recorded, hesitation replaces recklessness.

A NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION

The era of Orderly Room secrecy must end. Nigeria must decentralise police disciplinary trials, moving them from closed sessions in Abuja to open, civilian led inquiries in the states where the abuses occur. A National Firearms Audit is urgently needed. Every officer must account for every round issued, and any missing ammunition should trigger automatic suspension for the entire chain of command.

The National Assembly must fast track the Victims of Police Brutality Trust Fund, ensuring that compensation becomes a legal right funded directly from the budgets of offending commands. Nigeria must stop being a nation of post script outrage. Command responsibility must become law. If an officer under a Commissioner’s watch executes a handcuffed suspect, that Commissioner must lose their job alongside the shooter.

The blood of Mene Ogidi and the NYSC member in Dei Dei is a stain on our national conscience. It is a reminder that as long as one Nigerian can be tied up and shot without trial, no Nigerian is truly safe. Silence is no longer an option. Waiting for the next viral video is no longer acceptable. The time to demand change is now.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Kwankwaso-Obi Anti-Coalition Alliance and the Perception of the North

Published

2 days ago

on

May 3, 2026

By

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba

Let’s not sugarcoat it, what is unfolding is not just political maneuvering for 2027, but a carefully calculated roadmap to 2031. Anyone who believes Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso is acting out of patriotism or prioritizing Nigeria above his personal ambition is simply ignoring the pattern before us. His willingness to deputise Peter Obi is not born out of ideological alignment or national interest, it appears to be a strategic move aimed at one target weakening Atiku Abubakar and ensuring he does not emerge as president in 2027.

Kwankwaso’s real calculation seems anchored in 2031. He understands that as long as Atiku remains active and contesting, his own presidential ambition struggles to gain traction, especially in the North where Atiku’s influence remains deeply rooted. By positioning himself in a way that could undermine Atiku now, he potentially clears the path for himself later, when he can conveniently lean on the “it is the turn of the North” narrative with stronger moral leverage. This is not about helping Obi win, it is about ensuring Atiku is completely removed from the equation.

It is also important to state plainly that Kwankwaso is fully aware of his electoral limitations in this arrangement. He knows he cannot significantly attract Northern votes for Obi beyond a few pockets, even within Kano State. And even there, the good people of Kano are far more politically aware and discerning than to be swayed purely by sentiment. This makes the entire proposition even more questionable, if the electoral value is limited, then the intention behind the alliance becomes even clearer. It suggests that even if he joins an Obi ticket, it is not driven by a genuine commitment to Obi, the Igbo, the South-East or Nigeria but by a broader personal calculation.

Northerners must understand that this is a long game, and every move appears deliberately designed. Kwankwaso seems cautious not to overtly confirm growing suspicions that he is working, directly or indirectly, to the advantage of Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet, many are beginning to connect the dots. The belief that there is an underlying alignment is gaining ground, especially when actions repeatedly result in one outcome, a divided North that weakens its collective electoral strength, a repeatation of 2023 in a different style. The alignment of Kwankwaso’s political godson and the governor of Kano Abba Kabir Yusuf with Tinubu only fuels this perception, suggesting a dual-front approach: one operating directly and visibly, the other indirectly and subtly.

This is not the first time such a pattern is being observed. Many Northerners still recall similar dynamics from 2023, and recent developments have only intensified the conversation. In fact, within just the last 24 hours, the level of criticism and open dissatisfaction directed at Kwankwaso across Northern Nigeria has been unprecedented. What was once dismissed as mere suspicion of a quiet alliance is now, in the eyes of many, being confirmed by actions seen as disruptive to any meaningful coalition.

For Kwankwaso, this moment carries significant weight. The long-circulating “sellout” label, which many had hesitated to firmly attach, now appears to be finding a resting place in public discourse. Should he once again position himself outside a collective Northern arrangement, that perception may become permanently entrenched.

The implications for the North are serious. Voting Obi because of Kwankwaso, which is unlikely, could fracture an already consolidated political base, reduce its bargaining power, and ultimately produce outcomes that do not reflect its true strength. The North has never historically rejected a dominant figure like Atiku in favor of a subordinate position, nor has it embraced a configuration where its most established candidate is sidelined. The idea that the region would choose Kwankwaso as a deputy while overlooking Atiku as a president is not just improbable, it runs contrary to established Northern political behavior.

What is at stake goes beyond individual ambition. The North is fully conscious of the stakes and increasingly resolute in its direction. There is a growing determination to stand firmly behind its own Atiku Abubakar, to protect its collective political strength, and to resist any arrangement that appears designed to divide it. The signals are clear, the North has decided, and it will not fall into what many perceive as calculated traps, whether from Kwankwaso or from forces seen as working against its cohesion and democratic leverage….

Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba writes from Kano, and can be reached via drssbaba@yahoo.com

Continue Reading

Trending