Opinion

Tali Shani vs Mike Ozekhome: How a Legal Mole-Hill Was Turned into a Mountain

Published

2 months ago

February 6, 2026

Eric

By Abubakar D. Sani, Esq

INTRODUCTION

News of the decision of a British Tribunal in respect of a property situate in London, the UK’s capital, whose ownership was disputed has gained much publicity since it was delivered in the second week of September 2025. For legal reasons, the charges brought against prominent lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, based on same is the most that can be said of it as no arraignment was made before Hon. Justice Kekemeke of the High court of the FCT, Abuja, sitting in Maitama.

Accordingly, this intervention will be limited to interrogating the common, but false belief (even in legal circles), that the Tribunal somehow indicted him with conclusive ‘guilt’. I intend to argue that this belief is not correct; and that, on the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth. For the sake of context, therefore, it is necessary to refer to relevant portions of the decision of Judge Paton (the name of the Tribunal’s presiding officer), which completely exonerated Chief Ozekhome, but which his detractors have always conveniently suppressed.

WHAT DID THE TRIBUNAL SAY?

Not a few naysayers, smart-alecs, emergency analysts and self-appointed pundits have been quick to latch on to some passages in the judgement of the Tribunal which disagreed with Ozekhome’s testimony to justify their crucifixion of Chief Ozekhome – even without hearing his side of the story or his version of events. This is a pity, of course, especially for the supposedly learned senior lawyers among them who, by ignoring the age-old principle of fair hearing famously captured as audi alterem partem (hear the other side) have unwittingly betrayed patent bias, malice, malevolence and utter lack of bona fides as the major, if not exclusive, motivator of their view-points and opinions. I have particularly watched about five of such senior lawyers shop from one platform to another, with malicious analysis to achieve nothing, but reputational damage. They know themselves.

Before proceeding to those portions, it is important to acknowledge that the Tribunal conducted a review of the evidence placed before it. The proceedings afforded all parties the opportunity to present their respective cases. The learned Judge carefully evaluated the testimonies, documentary exhibits and surrounding circumstances and rendered a reasoned decision based on the materials before the Tribunal.

It is also not in doubt that the Tribunal made certain critical observations in the course of assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the plausibility of their explanations. Such evaluative comments are a normal and inevitable feature of judicial fact-finding, particularly in property tribunals in contested proceedings involving complex transactions and disputed narratives. They do not amount to indictment.

It is precisely the improper isolation and mischaracterization of some of these observations that have given rise to the present misconception that the Tribunal somehow pronounced a verdict of guilt on Chief Ozekhome. It is therefore necessary to place the relevant excerpts in their proper legal and factual context, so as to demonstrate how the self-same tribunal exonerated Ozekhome.

“Paragraph 98: Once one steps back from that material, and considers the Respondent’s own direct personal knowledge of relevant matters relating to this property, this only commences in 2019. That is, he confirmed, when he was first introduced to Mr. Tali Shani – he thought in about January of that year. He did not therefore know him in 1993, or at any time before January 2019. He could not therefore have any direct knowledge of the circumstances of the purchase of this property, or its management prior to 2019. He had, however, known the late General Useni for over 20 years prior to his death, as both his lawyer and friend.

“Paragraph 103: Such of the Respondent’s written evidence had been about the very recent management of the property, and in particular his dispute over its management (and collection of rents) with one Nicholas Ekhorutowen, who provided no evidence in this case. The Respondent confirmed in oral evidence that it was upon the execution of the powers of attorney that he came into possession of the various pre registration title and conveyancing documents which formed part of his disclosure. These had been handed over to him by the next witness who gave evidence, Mr. Akeem Johnson.

“Paragraph 168: Unlike the fictitious “Ms. Tali Shani”, a man going by the name of Mr. Tali Shani exists and gave evidence before me in that name. A certified copy of an official Nigerian passport was produced both to the Land Registry and this Tribunal, stating that Mr. Tali Shani was born on 2nd April 1973. I do not have the evidence, or any sufficient basis, to find that this document – unlike the various poor and pitiful forgeries on the side of the “Applicant” – is forged, and I do not do so.

“Paragraph 200: First, I find that General Useni, since he was in truth the sole legal and beneficial owner of this property (albeit registered in a false name), must in some way have been connected to this transfer, and to have directed it. He was clearly close to, and on good terms with, the Respondent. There is no question of this being some sort of attempt by the Respondent to steal the general’s property without his knowledge.

“Paragraph 201: As to precisely why General Useni chose to direct this transfer to the Respondent, I do not need to (and indeed cannot) make detailed findings. I consider that it is highly possible that it was in satisfaction of some debt or favour owed. The Respondent initially angrily denied the allegation (made in the various statements filed on behalf of the “Applicant”) that this was a form of repayment of a loan of 54 million Naira made during the general’s unsuccessful election campaign. In his oral evidence, both he and his son then appeared to accept that the general had owed the Respondent some money, but that it had been fully paid off. The general himself, when asked about this, said that he “did not know how much money he owed” the Respondent.

“Paragraph 202: I do not, however, need to find precisely whether (and if so, how much) money was owed. The transfer may have been made out of friendship and generosity, or in recognition of some other service or favour. The one finding I do make, however, is that it was the decision of General Useni to transfer the property to the Respondent.”

It must be emphasised that even where a court finds that a witness has given inconsistent, fluctuating, or implausible testimony, as some have latched on, such a finding does not, without more, translate into civil or criminal liability. At best, it affects the weight and credibility to be attached to such evidence. It does not constitute proof of fraud, conspiracy, or criminal intent. See MANU v. STATE (2025) LPELR-81120(CA) and IKENNE vs. THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44695 (SC)

Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s engagement with the evidence, certain passages had been selectively extracted and sensationalised by critics. On the ipssisima verba (precise wordings) of the Tribunal, only the above paragraphs which are always suppressed clearly stand out in support of Chief Ozekhome’s case, as the others were more like opinions.

Some paragraphs in the judgement in particular, appear to have been carefully selected as “weapons” in Chief Ozekhome’s enemies’ armoury, as they are most bandied about in the public space. The assumption appears to be that such findings are conclusive of his guilt in a civil property dispute. This is unfortunate, as the presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our adversarial criminal jurisprudence. It is a fundamental right guaranteed under section 36 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter which, regrettably, appear to have been more observed in the breach in his case.

More fundamentally, the selective reliance on few passages that disagreed with his evidence or testimony and that of Mr. Tali Shani, ignore the above wider and more decisive findings of the Tribunal itself. A holistic reading of the judgment reveals that the Tribunal was far more concerned with exposing an elaborate scheme of impersonation, forgery, and deception orchestrated in the name of a fictitious Applicant, Ms Tali Shani, and not Mr. Tali Shani (Ozekhome’s witness), who is a living human being. These findings, which have been largely ignored in public discourse, demonstrate that the gravamen of the Tribunal’s decision lay not in any indictment of Chief Ozekhome, but in the collapse of a fraudulent claim against him, which was founded on false identity and fabricated documents.

The Tribunal carefully distinguished a fake “Ms” Tali Shani (the Applicant), who said she was General Useni’s mistress and owner of the property, and the real owner, Mr Tali Shani, who was Chief Ozekhome’s witness before the Tribunal. It was the Tribunal’s finding that she was nothing but a phantom creation and therefore rejected her false claim to the property (par. 123). It also rejected the evidence of her so called cousin (Anakwe Obasi) and purported son (Ayodele Obasi) (par. 124).

The Tribunal further found that it was the Applicant and her cohorts that engaged in diverse fraud with documents such as a fraudulent witness statement purportedly from General Useni; all alleged identity documents; fabricated medical correspondence; the statement of case and witness statements; a fake death certificate; and a purported burial notice. (Paragraph 125). Why are these people not concerned with Barrister Mohammed Edewor, Nicholas Ekhoromtomwen, Ayodele Damola, and Anakwe Obasi? Why mob-lynching Chief Ozekhome?

The Tribunal found that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. It therefore struck out the Applicant’s claim (Paragraphs 130–165). The Tribunal significantly found that Mr Tali Shani exists as a human being and had testified before it in June, 2024. It accepted a certified Nigerian passport he produced, and accepted its authenticity and validity (Paragraph 168). Can any objective person hold that Ozekhome forged any passport as widely reported by his haters when the maker exists?

Having examined the factual findings of the Tribunal and their proper context, the next critical issue is the legal status and probative value of such findings. The central question, therefore, is whether the observations and conclusions of a foreign tribunal, made in the course of civil proceedings, are sufficient in law to establish civil or criminal liability against a person in subsequent proceedings.

STATUS OF JUDGEMENTS UNDER THE LAW

The relevant statutory provisions in Nigeria are sections 59, 60, 61, 173 and 174 of the Evidence Act 2011, provide as follows, respectively:

Section 59: “The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognisance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact, evidence of which is admissible when the question is whether such court ought to take cognisance of such suit or to hold such trial”;
Section 60(I): “A final judgment, order or decree of a competent court, in the exercise of probate. Matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character. or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is admissible when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such legal persons to an) such thing, is relevant (2) Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof (a)that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; (b) that any legal character. to which it declares any such person to be entitled. accrued to that person at the time when such judgment order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; (c) that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and (d) that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment. order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property”;

Section 61: “Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 60 are admissible if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state”

Section 173: “Every judgment is conclusive proof, as against parties and privies. of facts directly in issue in the case, actually decided by the court. and appearing from the judgment itself to be the ground on which it was based; unless evidence was admitted in the action in which the judgment was delivered which is excluded in the action in which that judgment is intended to be proved”.;

Section 174(1): “If a judgment is not pleaded by way of estoppel it is as between parties and privies deemed to be a relevant fact, whenever any matter, which was or might have been decided in the action in which it was given, is in issue, or is deemed to be relevant to the issue in any subsequent proceeding”;

(2):”Such judgment is conclusive proof of the facts which it decides, or might have decided, if the party who gives evidence of it had no opportunity of pleading it as an estoppel”.
It can be seen that the decision of the Tribunal falls under the purview of section 61 of the Evidence Act, as the provisions of sections 59 and 60 and of sections 173 and 174 thereof, are clearly inapplicable to it. In other words, even though some Judge Paton’s findings in respect of Chief Ozekhome’s testimony at the Tribunal relate to matters of public nature (i.e., the provenance and status of No. 79 Randall Avenue, Neasden, London, U.K and the validity of his application for its transfer to him) none of those comments or even findings is in any way conclusive of whatever they may assert or state (to use the language of section 60 of the Evidence Act).

In this regard, see the case of DIKE V NZEKA (1986) 4 NWLR pt.34 pg. 144 @ 159 where the Supreme Court construed similar provisions in section 51 of the old Evidence Act, 1948. I agree with Tar Hon, SAN (S. T. Hon’s Law of Evidence in Nigeria, 3rd edition, page 1041) that the phrase ‘public nature’ in the provision is satisfied where the judgement is clearly one in rem as opposed to in personam. It is pertinent to say a few words about both concepts, as they differ widely in terms of scope. The former determines the legal status of property, a person, a particular subject matter, or object, against the whole world, and is binding on all persons, whether they were parties to the suit or not. See OGBORU V IBORI (2005) 13 NWLR pt. 942 pg. 319 @407-408 per I. T. Muhammed, JCA (as he then was).

This was amplified by the apex court in OGBORU V UDUAGHAN (2012) LLJR -SC, where it held, per Adekeye, JSC that: “A judgment in rem maybe defined as the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a person or thing as distinct from the particular interest of a party to the litigation. Apart from the application of the term to persons, it must affect the “res” in the way of condemnation forfeiture, declaration, status or title”.

By contrast, “Judgments ‘in personam’ or ‘inter partes’, as the name suggests, are those which determine the rights of parties as between one another to or in the subject matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind whatever or a liquidated or unliquidated demand but which do not affect the status of either things or persons or make any disposition of property or declare or determine any interest in it except as between the parties (to the litigation). See HOYSTEAD V TAXATION COMMISSIONERS (1926) A. C. 155. These include all judgments which are not judgments in rem. None of such judgments at all affects any interest which third parties may have in the subject matter. As judgment inter partes, though binding between the parties and their privies, they do not affect the rights of third parties. See CASTRIQUE V IMRIE 141 E. R. 1062; (1870) L. R. 4H. L. 414”.

Suffice it to say that the decision of the London Property Tribunal was, in substance, one affecting proprietary rights in rem, in the sense that it determined the status and registrability of the property in dispute. However, it did not determine any civil or criminal liability, nor did it pronounce on the personal culpability of any party. The implication of this is that, even though the decision was in respect of a matter of a public nature, it was, nonetheless, not conclusive as far as proof of the status of the property, or – more importantly – Chief Ozekhome’s role in relation to it. Indeed, the property involved was not held to have been traced to the owner (General Useni) as having ever tried or convicted for owning same. I submit that the foregoing is the best case scenario in terms of the value of Judge Paton’s said decision, because under section 62 of the Evidence Act, (depending, of course, on its construction), it will fare even worse, as it provides that judgments “other than those mentioned in sections 59. 60 and 61 are inadmissible unless the judgment, etc is a fact in issue or is admissible under some other provision of this or any other Act”.

CONCLUSION

Some people’s usual proclivity to rush to judgment and condemn unheard any person (especially a high profile figure like Chief Ozekhome), has exposed him to the worst kind of unfair pedestrian analysis, malice, mud-slinging and outright name-calling especially by those who, by virtue of their training, ought to know better, and, therefore, be more circumspect, restrained and guarded in their utterances. This is all the more so because, no court of competent jurisdiction has tried or pronounced him guilty. It is quite unfortunate how some select lawyers are baying for his blood.

The decision of the London Tribunal remains what it is: a civil determination on attempted transfer of a property based on the evidence before it. It is not, and cannot be, a substitute for civil or criminal adjudication by a competent court. The presumption of innocence under Nigerian laws remains inviolable. Any attempt by commentators to usurp that judicial function through premature verdicts is not only improper, but inimical to the fair administration of justice.

Opinion

Nation Building Reimagined: Integrated Principles and Strategies for Sustainable Growth

Published

3 days ago

April 11, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

“True nation building is not the work of the state alone, but a harmonious convergence where empowered peoples provide the foundation, innovative corporates generate the momentum, and visionary institutions ensure direction — together forging sustainable prosperity, social cohesion, and enduring national strength for current and future generations” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

Nation building is a deliberate and continuous process of constructing cohesive, resilient, and prosperous societies capable of realising their full potential. It extends far beyond political structures or state institutions to encompass three interdependent spheres: peoples (individuals and communities), corporates (businesses and private-sector organisations), and nations (governance institutions and the state). When these spheres are strategically aligned through sound principles and practical strategies, they generate all-round exploits — inclusive economic growth, social cohesion, innovation, human flourishing, and global competitiveness.

This comprehensive framework offers actionable guidance for sustaining productive and progressive development. It is grounded in universal principles validated by international development experience, economic history, and governance studies, making it relevant for scholars, policymakers, business leaders, and development practitioners worldwide.

Foundational Principles of Effective Nation Building

Successful nation building rests on six core principles that transcend cultural, geographical, and ideological differences:

Inclusive Human Dignity and Agency — Recognising every citizen as both beneficiary and active architect of national progress through equal opportunity and rights protection.
Institutional Integrity and Rule of Law — Building transparent, accountable institutions that foster trust and predictability.
Economic Dynamism and Shared Prosperity — Promoting broad-based growth that benefits individuals, businesses, and the state simultaneously.
Social Cohesion and Cultural Resilience — Forging unity while respecting diversity to create a shared national identity and purpose.
Adaptive Leadership and Long-Term Vision — Combining strategic foresight with the flexibility to learn and adjust.
Sustainable Resource Stewardship — Balancing present needs with intergenerational equity in environmental and fiscal matters.
These principles provide a universal compass for development, as evidenced by cross-national data from the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators and the UNDP Human Development Reports.

Core Strategies Across the Three Spheres

For Peoples (Individuals and Communities): Nation building begins with empowering citizens. Key strategies include universal access to quality education and skills development, robust health and social protection systems, community-driven development programmes, and targeted initiatives for youth and women empowerment. These efforts enhance social mobility, reduce vulnerability, and foster active civic participation.

For Corporates (Businesses and Private Sector): Corporates serve as the primary engine of wealth creation and innovation. Effective strategies involve creating an enabling business environment, promoting public-private partnerships, enforcing strong corporate governance and ethical standards, and implementing talent development and local content policies. When supported appropriately, the private sector generates jobs, technological advancement, and tax revenues that fuel broader development.

For Nations (State Institutions and Governance): The state provides the overarching framework for progress. Strategies include institutional reform and capacity building, decentralisation for better responsiveness, evidence-based policy making, and strategic regional and global integration. Strong institutions ensure equitable rules, policy continuity, and effective service delivery.

Sustaining Progressive Growth in Nigeria

In Nigeria, this integrated framework offers a practical pathway to convert demographic and natural endowments into sustained prosperity. At the peoples’ level, investments in education, health, and skills development can transform the large youth population into a productive demographic dividend. For corporates, policy predictability, infrastructure development, and public-private partnerships can drive diversification beyond oil into agriculture, manufacturing, and digital services. At the national level, institutional reforms, anti-corruption measures, and evidence-based governance would reduce policy inconsistency and enhance public trust.

When these elements reinforce one another, Nigeria can achieve higher productivity, reduced poverty, greater social cohesion, and improved global competitiveness — creating a virtuous cycle of inclusive growth.

Advancing Development in West Africa

Within the ECOWAS region, the framework supports deeper integration and collective resilience. Strategies for social cohesion help address cross-border challenges such as irregular migration, climate impacts, and youth unemployment. Corporate-focused approaches encourage intra-regional trade and industrialisation through harmonised policies and stronger value chains. Institutional strategies promote policy coordination, joint humanitarian response, and shared security mechanisms.

By applying this model, West African countries can move from fragmented national efforts toward coordinated regional progress, enhancing food security, energy access, and economic competitiveness while building resilience against external shocks.

Driving Continental Transformation in Africa

Across Africa, the principles and strategies align closely with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Sustainable resource stewardship helps convert natural wealth into long-term human and infrastructure investments. The corporate strategies support regional value chains and industrialisation, while institutional reforms strengthen governance and reduce trade barriers.

When implemented continent-wide, this approach fosters inclusive industrialisation, technological advancement, and reduced external dependency — positioning Africa as a major driver of global growth in the 21st century.

Global Relevance and Contribution

On the global stage, the framework provides timely lessons for both developed and developing nations navigating technological disruption, climate change, and rising inequality. The emphasis on shared prosperity and social cohesion offers pathways to mitigate polarisation. The integration of corporates as development partners demonstrates how private-sector innovation can serve public goals. Institutional strategies of adaptive leadership and evidence-based policy making are universally applicable in managing complex transnational challenges.

Nations adopting this model contribute to global stability by reducing conflict drivers, enhancing food and energy security, and participating constructively in multilateral systems. In this way, the framework supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and helps build a more equitable and resilient world order.

Conclusion: A Practical Pathway to Enduring Progress

The principles and strategies of nation building presented here constitute a balanced, interconnected discipline capable of sustaining productive and progressive growth across multiple scales. For Nigeria, they chart a course from potential to performance. For West Africa, they strengthen regional solidarity. For Africa, they accelerate continental transformation. And for the global community, they offer practical wisdom for building fairer, more stable societies.

True nation building succeeds when peoples, corporates, and state institutions reinforce one another in a virtuous cycle. Its greatest strength lies in this holistic integration — recognising that sustainable development requires empowered citizens, innovative enterprises, and effective governance working in harmony.

In an increasingly interdependent world, embracing these principles with consistency, courage, and collective ownership is not merely beneficial but essential. Nations and regions that do so will unlock enduring prosperity, resilience, and a respected place in the global community. The framework provides both the vision and the practical tools needed to turn potential into lasting achievement for current and future generations.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Opinion

Dear CDS, NSA, Your Prodigal Sons, Brothers Have Killed General Braimah

Published

3 days ago

April 11, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

Almost five months since the yet to be explained killing of Brigadier General Musa Uba, another high ranking military officer, another Brigadier General, has been unlived. He was Brigadier General Oseni Omo Braimah, Commander of 29 Task Force Brigade Operation Hadin Kai, Maiduguri Borno State.

The sadness that followed the brutal killing of the Brigade Commander, can almost be touched, dear Nigerians, with special reference to the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, and his counterpart, the Chief of Defense Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede. These men, have at separate fora concassed for the kid gloves handling of terrorism activities, and terrorists.

Ribadu, it was, that asked that they be rehabilitated as they are ‘our brothers. Oluyede echoed the stand, saying the terrorists was equated to the biblical prodigal son, and therefore should be received with open hands. This he said to justify his latest ‘Operation Safe Corridor’, designed to welcome ‘repentant’ terrorists and bandits, and have them reintegrated into the society.

It is still these touted same brothers, and prodigal sons that overran a military base in Benisheikh, reportedly killing 18 soldiers including the Brigadier General. According to the Army, however, the number of deaths was overhyped, claiming that only two officers and two other soldiers were killed in the battle they said the military had the upper hand, and auccessfully repelled the assailants and maintained their positions.

Much as the military agreed that they lost four soldiers, they have failed to produce casualties, or even speak on the number, from the terrorists side, in a battle they said they had the upper hand. It’s still had to believe, only that the prodigal sons and brothers snuffed the life of a general, and according to reports, he was caught like a sitting duck.

The prodigal sons with the ‘brothers’ did not stop there; they proceeded to kill Forest Guard Commander and five others in Kwara, just as they mercilessly hacked to death eight members of the same family in Bokkos, Plateau. The list is endless. Of prodigal sons and brothers. Thanks to the NSA and the CDS.

Someone once said that that the only mercy a terrorist or bandit deserve is the mercy of God. And it is the duties of the authority to send them to God for such mercy.

Why do we keep handling merciless killers with kid gloves, and turn around to call them sons and brothers. They in turn, are only looking for opportunity to strike again.

These people have gone from being brothers to becoming animals, very dangerous and ugly beasts that have lost the capacity to show, and so should not be shown any mercy caught.

Dear NSA and CDS, you muat understand that these people have been extremely radicalised, and can no longer fit into the society of sane beings, and therefore, should be put away permanently. We can’t continue to safe corridor to experiment with the lives of Nigerians. No bandit or terrorist is worth rehabilitating, talk less of being integrated into the military. Whoever does that is complicit, and should be treated as an enemy of the Nigerian state.

The NSA and the CDS should begin now to revisit everyone they have ever pardoned or reintegrated into the society for they are part of our problem. They are culpable.

General Uba died saraa, as we say in our local parlance. We should let Braimah die saraa. We must not allow this irresponsibility happen again. I’m not borrowing any words from the president because all his words appear empty, while Nigerians continue in droves, even when the country is not really at war.

Time to jettison this brother, cousin, prodigal son rubbish, and deal decisively with terrorists and bandits.

Opinion

Ovation @30: A Triumph of Vision, Courage and African Excellence

Published

3 days ago

April 11, 2026

Eric

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba

There is an African proverb that says, “However long the night, the dawn will surely break.” No story embody this truth more powerfully than that of Chief Dele Momodu and the remarkable rise of Ovation International. Founded in April, 1996 at the height of the Sani Abacha regime, Ovation was born not out of comfort, but from adversity. In forced exile in London, faced with uncertainty and hardship, Momodu chose not to surrender to circumstance but to challenge it, daring to create a global lifestyle magazine at a time when Africa’s image was largely defined by negativity.

From that improbable beginning emerged a publication that would go on to redefine how Africa is seen by the world. Ovation introduced a different narrative, one of elegance, achievement, culture, and pride, documenting African success stories with unmatched consistency. At a time when global media often overlooked the continent’s brilliance, Ovation boldly projected it, celebrating milestones, personalities, and cultures across Africa and its diaspora. It became a powerful cultural bridge, connecting cities and continents while showcasing an Africa that is vibrant, accomplished, and globally relevant.

Over the past three decades, Ovation has not merely reported stories, it has shaped destinies and elevated generations. It has provided a platform for emerging talents in entertainment, business, and public life, often spotlighting individuals long before they attained global recognition. Its influence extended beyond storytelling into economic and social impact, creating employment for thousands across journalism, photography, real estate, design, and event production, while also setting new standards in lifestyle media, enterprenership and event documentation. Long before the rise of digital platforms, Ovation was already global, distributing African excellence to audiences around the world and strengthening the connection between Africa and its diaspora.

Through changing times and technological revolutions, Ovation International has remained consistent in quality, bold in vision, and authentic in purpose. Its ability to evolve without losing its identity is a testament to its strength as not just a magazine, but an enduring institution. Today, as it marks 30 years of impact, it stands as one of Africa’s most influential media platforms, one that has significantly contributed to reshaping global perception and asserting Africa’s place in the world.

This milestone is a celebration of resilience, vision, and legacy. It is a tribute to the pride of Africa Chief Dele Momodu, whose courage transformed hardship into history, and whose dream once considered unrealistic became a continental force. It is also a celebration of the entire Ovation family, whose dedication over the years has sustained and expanded this vision. Thirty years on, Ovation is not just a witness to Africa’s story, it is one of its most powerful storytellers.

A big thank you to Chief Dele Momodu for proving long ago that Africa is not synonymous with bad news, and congratulations on three decades of excellence proof that when the dawn finally comes, it can illuminate the world.

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