In a dramatic ruling that has sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s political landscape, the Supreme Court affirmed a federal high court judgment that has reshaped the status quo in Rivers State. The language used in this ruling seems laden with subjective undertones, which could stir strong emotional responses. Such language, in a legal setting, arguably oversteps the boundary between legal clarity and the realm of personal opinion. The emotional tone woven through the judgment—while perhaps reflecting the Court’s sentiments on the case—could be seen as subjective for a ruling of this magnitude. I dare not question, but this is undeniably something that is left to the legal eye for further scrutiny.

The apex court’s decision reinforced this intervention but also faulted the Abuja Court of Appeal for attempting to void the federal high court’s judgment. There seems to be an undercurrent of frustration in this strong critique of the actions of the lower court. This ruling, while legally binding, carries an emotional charge that could be interpreted as subjective. I dare not question, but this raises the concern of whether such a judgment, laden with subjective emotional tone, compromises the Supreme Court’s duty to remain impartial in its rulings. The impartiality of the Court’s approach is something that warrants careful legal review.

One of the central aspects of the ruling was the Court’s statement that the 27 lawmakers—allegedly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC)—remain legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. The use of “allegedly” and “still legitimate” seems subjective. It creates an atmosphere of uncertainty where there should be clarity. By framing the matter with such ambiguity, the ruling seems to inject a subjective interpretation into what should be an unambiguous legal question. This leaves room for interpretation and further analysis, and is undoubtedly something left to the legal eye for consideration.

In the words of Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, “It is an act of indiscipline and a joke taken too far which has no place in a democracy.” This judgment carries a subjective tone that could be seen as more of a political critique than a legal one. Phrases like “indiscipline” and “a joke taken too far” might resonate with the public, but they also reflect a personal viewpoint that could be seen as subjective. Such language, while emphatic, goes beyond the legal reasoning into the realm of moral judgment. I dare not question, but for a judgment of such consequence, one might expect more neutral and legal language instead of emotionally charged rhetoric. This is left to the legal eye to determine its appropriateness.

The apex court also stated that “Four members sitting as purported members of the House of Assembly in defiance of a subsisting court order is a nullity.” The use of the word “purported” carries an implicit dismissal of the actions of those involved, casting them in a light of illegitimacy that seems almost definitive. By choosing this language, the Court introduces a subjective judgment, which, while impactful, may not always serve to clarify the legal process as fully as a neutral statement would. This raises the question of whether the Court’s role is to provide objective legal analysis or to weigh in on the perceived legitimacy of political actors in such a charged atmosphere. This again is left to the legal eye for further scrutiny.

The justices emphasized the importance of protecting the legislature, calling it “the core institution of governance” that must be upheld “at all costs.” “At all costs” introduces a subjective, dramatic imperative. While this language might reflect the Court’s commitment to upholding democratic processes, it could be seen as a subjective rallying cry that leaves no room for nuance or the careful weighing of competing interests within the legal framework. I dare not question, but this strong language is certainly something that requires careful legal analysis to determine its appropriateness.

Justice Agim also criticized Governor Siminalayi Fubara for using his immunity under Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to justify unconstitutional actions, calling it “an act of indiscipline born out of executive power.” Labeling the actions as “indiscipline” introduces a subjective critique into a legal assessment. While the legal principle may be valid, the framing of these actions in terms of “indiscipline” seems to cross the line from legal analysis into a moral critique. This subjective interpretation of the governor’s behavior could be considered a deviation from the expected objectivity of a Supreme Court decision. This is left to the legal eye to scrutinize further.

The Court also noted that “the governor has chosen to collapse the legislature… as it is there is no government in Rivers State.” This bold claim is highly subjective. It attributes intentionality to the governor that goes beyond the legal facts of the case. It seems to offer a psychological interpretation of the governor’s actions, speculating on his motives and character rather than focusing solely on his legal responsibilities and actions. Such attributions of intent seem to shift the discussion from legal facts to political interpretation, which is left to the legal eye for careful consideration.

In addition, Justice Agim remarked, “What he has done is to destroy the government because of his fear that he wants to be impeached.” This statement reads like a psychological analysis rather than a legal judgment. It attributes subjective psychological motives—“fear of impeachment”—to the governor, which raises the question of whether the Court’s role is to interpret legal actions or to engage in speculation about political and personal motivations. This is an element that is clearly left to the legal eye to assess for its appropriateness within a legal judgment.

Furthermore, the Court noted that it was becoming a pattern for those in executive power, when feeling threatened by impeachment, to resort to tactics such as demolishing buildings or other unconstitutional actions. The use of “becoming a pattern” suggests a subjective generalization. While the Court may be trying to highlight potential abuses of power, such sweeping statements imply a recurring problem without clear, substantiated examples of the “pattern” described. Generalizations in a legal ruling could lead one to question the line between legal reasoning and subjective political commentary. This aspect of the ruling is certainly left to the legal eye for deeper review.

This subjective approach by Justice Agim was pointed out by the Rivers State Information Commissioner, who responded further: “We believe that the determination of the main issue of defection of the 27 lawmakers is a matter not before the Supreme Court as it is pending at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt.” The Commissioner’s statement offers an important critique of the Court’s jurisdiction. His point suggests that the Supreme Court may have prematurely entered a matter that was still under deliberation at a lower court, raising questions about the appropriateness and timing of the Court’s intervention. This adds to the growing concern that the Court’s ruling may have been more subjective than legally warranted. This is an issue clearly left to the legal eye for further consideration.

Justice Agim, who delivered the verdict, ruled that no funds should be released to the Rivers State Government until Speaker Martin Amaewhule’s leadership passes a lawful Appropriation Law. This ruling introduces a subjective element, especially considering that the case is still pending before the federal high court, as the Rivers State Commissioner of Information has pointed out. The Court’s decision to issue such a directive while the matter is under consideration by a lower court may be seen as a subjective intervention. The appropriateness of this ruling, particularly in light of the pending case, is something left to the legal eye for scrutiny.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court also directed the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General of the Federation to halt the release of federal funds to the Rivers State Government. While the Court described the governor’s actions as problematic and inconsistent with legal requirements, this characterization could be seen as subjective, especially considering the immediate financial impact on the state’s ability to pay bills and meet obligations. I dare not question, but such terms may not fully capture the complexities of the situation, particularly as the matter remains under appeal, especially regarding Speaker Amaewhule’s leadership and the defection issue. A more comprehensive legal review could offer further clarity.

The Court further ruled that the suspension of funds would remain until Governor Fubara addresses these concerns with Speaker Amaewhule’s leadership. While the decision is clear, the characterization of the governor’s actions may oversimplify an issue still under judicial review. I dare not question, but this decision may benefit from further legal examination in the appeals court, particularly in light of the Rivers State Commissioner’s statement that the matter remains unresolved.

Justice Agim also stated that no funds should be released until Speaker Amaewhule’s leadership passes a lawful Appropriation Law. This connects the release of funds to the legislative process, which may seem premature, especially with the case of defection still pending. The Court also ordered the return of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk to their positions. I dare not question, but the involvement of the judiciary in such executive matters raises questions about the Court’s role in this decision. These actions remain open to further legal scrutiny as the case continues.

The Supreme Court has invalidated the local government elections conducted by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) on October 5, 2024, citing breaches of the Electoral Act. I dare not question, but why was there no directive for a new election, especially considering that the previous local government chairpersons had overstayed their terms and refused to step down? Could the Court’s decision, though legally sound, have overlooked the practical consequences of leaving the leadership vacuum unaddressed?

Justice Jamilu Tukur’s ruling emphasized procedural errors, particularly continuing voter registration after the election date was announced. I dare not question, but does this focus on procedural issues, without providing clear guidance for the next steps, seem to leave the state vulnerable to political instability? Is the Court’s emphasis on legality potentially subjective, without sufficient consideration for the political and governance realities on the ground?

The Court also upheld the Federal High Court’s decision barring INEC from providing the voters’ register to RSIEC. I dare not question, but what is the implication for governance in Rivers State without a clear path forward? Does this gap in the ruling suggest a subjective approach, without a comprehensive directive to resolve the leadership crisis?

Given these circumstances, I dare not question, but could the Court have been more proactive in directing a new election to address the leadership vacuum? The absence of such guidance seems to leave the political landscape open to further challenges, raising questions about the balance between legal precision and practical governance.

Lastly, the implications for the future of the Rivers State government remain uncertain, with the role of the legislature being reasserted in a way that could shift the balance of power. This case, marked by its subjective language, presents a complex situation that calls for further legal analysis. I dare not question, but the Supreme Court’s ruling raises questions about the actions of political figures in Rivers State and how the law responds to such developments. Could the Court’s decisions, though grounded in law, be overlooking the broader consequences for the people, especially in a region as sensitive as the Niger Delta?

The immediate effects on livelihoods, institutions, and governance could be profound. I dare not question, but one might wonder whether the Court’s moves, while legally sound, could inadvertently complicate the already delicate political and economic landscape. Is the lack of clear guidance on how to resolve the leadership vacuum a decision that leaves too much open to uncertainty?

This complexity, coupled with the potential for both legal and political fallout, is certainly something left to the legal eye for careful review. However, the manner in which these decisions unfold will undoubtedly impact the people, and it is crucial to approach such matters with the necessary sensitivity, given the unique challenges of the Niger Delta region.

Analysts have labelled the consumer goods sector as undervalued in the Nigerian stock market, highlighting that macroeconomic conditions and consumer engagement are crucial for its growth.

This topic was explored on the podcast “Drinks and Mics,” co-hosted by Ugo Obi-Chukwu, CEO of Nairametrics; Akinbamidele Akintola, CCO of Alerzo; and Arnold Dublin Green of Cordos Capital.

When asked which sector presents undervalued growth opportunities, the CCO of Alerzo remarked, “Undervalued right now, I think the consumer goods sector.”   

Further elaboration revealed that the existing macroeconomic conditions and consumer engagement in the sector are not strong enough to attract investors seeking undervalued opportunities.

Despite revenue growth for most consumer goods stocks, favourable macroeconomic conditions and supportive factors are still necessary to fully transition the sector to a bullish phase.

“It is not volume; volume is growing, but the price of consumer goods is moving faster than volume,” Akinbamidele noted. 

The analysts cautioned that price shocks resulting from increases could deter consumers in the short term, potentially leading to bearish price movements in company stocks.

Spike in finance costs 

Finance costs for major FMCG companies in Nigeria surged by 133.3% year-on-year, reaching N1.074 trillion in the first nine months of 2024, compared to N460.22 billion in 2023.

• Companies such as Champion Breweries, International Breweries, Nigerian Breweries, BUA Foods, Dangote Sugar, NASCON, Unilever, Cadbury, and Nestlé are facing mounting pressure from increased foreign exchange losses, challenging debt profiles, and rising interest rates.
• This significant increase underscores the broader economic challenges impacting these companies. Nigeria’s economy has been grappling with rising interest rates, driven by the central bank’s efforts to combat inflation, which has made borrowing more expensive and increased the cost of servicing debt.
• Additionally, the devaluation of the naira has resulted in substantial foreign exchange losses for companies with dollar-denominated liabilities.

For FMCG companies, these issues are further compounded by declining consumer purchasing power, which limits their ability to pass on rising costs to consumers.

Market trend in 2025  

The Consumer Goods Index is experiencing a strong upswing in 2025, following a year-to-date performance of 54.44% in 2024. This bullish momentum is marked by significant price increases driven by strong rallies in key individual stocks.

• The year 2025 began with the index at 1,743.4, quickly surpassing the 1,800 mark to reach 1,809.1 by the fifth week.
• However, a slight pullback in early February brought the index down to 1,733, reflecting a decline of over 3.60% from its previous high of 1,809.1.

Despite this setback, the index experienced a rebound, aided by a rise in heavyweight stocks during the week ending February 21, 2024.

For February 2024, the index achieved a 1.70% month-to-date performance, finally ending the month at 1,839 with a market volume of 14 million shares.

[Nairametrics]

Peter Obi, in a statement on Sunday in which he reacted to the various happenings in different parts of the country, said Nigerian leaders are engaging in frivolities while various national issues of utmost importance are left unattended. 

Touching on the allegations of sexual harassment between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio, to the Lagos House of Assembly speakership saga, to the recent Supreme Court judgement on the Rivers State political crisis, Obi submitted that what is coming out of the three arms of government is disgusting and uninspiring.

He further appealed that the leaders of the three arms of government should avoid undue interference in happenings at the state levels.

Instead, the former Anambra State Governor urged Nigerian leaders to take urgent steps in addressing the myriad of challenges facing the country and its citizens.

Obi also accused Nigerian leaders of neglecting serious governance in favour of political rascality, thus making a mockery of leadership.

He concluded that Nigerians deserve better and that the leaders must take urgent steps to correct the various irregularities.

In his words, “It is deeply troubling that Nigeria’s political leadership is rapidly descending into an embarrassing spectacle.

“We are at a time when our nation faces the highest levels of actual and multidimensional poverty, soaring infant mortality rates, millions of out-of-school children, one of the most insecure and hunger-stricken nations on earth, grappling with escalating insecurity and countless other challenges.

“One would expect our leaders to be focusing and sacrificing solely on providing urgent, transformative solutions to this myriad of problems but not necessarily.

“Instead, the national discourse is consumed by trivialities, whether it is allegations of sexual harassment or budget padding in the National Assembly, controversies surrounding State Houses of Assembly speakership, reckless Court judgments threatening to destabilize or deprive the State of funding to provide needed services to the citizens.

“What is coming out of the three arms of government, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary is disgusting and uninspiring. The Executive show of negative power as seen in Osun state, the reckless Judiciary pronouncement on Rivers State that is capable of threatening democracy plus the embarrassing scandal from the National Assembly all combine to give a gloomy picture of our democratic journey.

“Leaders in these three arms should avoid undue disruptive interference in affairs of sub-national government activities.

“Urgent steps should be taken by the leadership of the three arms to stabilize our polity and stem politicians from defecting to parties where they feel it will be easier to rig them into office.

“This reckless neglect of serious governance is a grave disservice to the millions of Nigerians who deserve competent, accountable leadership focused on solving real problems.

“The blatant display of political rascality, coupled with widespread irregularities, paints a distressing picture of a leadership that has abandoned its core responsibility to the people and is making governance resemble a theatrical performance rather than a serious commitment to public service.

“While citizens bear the crushing weight of various hardships due to misgovernance, those in power prioritize personal interests and political gamesmanship over the nation’s well-being.

“This mockery of leadership is not only unacceptable, it is a betrayal of the people’s trust.

“Nigeria cannot afford to be governed like a reality TV show while millions suffer for so long. It is time for leadership rooted in character, competence, capacity, consistency, compassion, and urgency—leadership that prioritizes education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation.

“Anything less threatens the nation’s stability, undermines the present, and betrays the nation’s future.

“A new Nigeria is POssible! -PO.”

[NaijaNews]

Former Governor Achike Udenwa of Imo State has said Nigerian elections can be bought by those who have enough money.

Speaking on State Affairs, a podcast hosted by On-Air-Personality, Edmund Obilo, the number one Imo citizen between 1999 and 2007, lamented the role of money in Nigeria’s electoral process.

Udenwa said the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and security agencies can be influenced.

“Unfortunately, our society has grown to such a level where if you say vote for me, I am no longer asking what you can do. What are your antecedents? What type of character do you have? We don’t ask such questions again,” he said.

“Even if I don’t vote for you, you can buy your way through if you have the right amount of money,” he said.

Asked if politicians could buy INEC, the police, the army, and even the electorate, he responded, “You can buy everybody.”

Udenwa, who is a member of the Peoples Democratic Party Board of Trustees, also blamed the ruling All Progressives Congress for the ongoing crisis in the PDP.

While acknowledging that the PDP has internal challenges, he maintained that external forces were contributing to the party’s instability.

“There are external hands trying to destroy the PDP through internal sources. We are still battling the problem, and I believe PDP will not be destroyed,” he said.

[DailyTrust]

A political group, Team New Nigeria (TNN), has unveiled its symbols and reaffirmed its commitment to forming a political party aimed at addressing Nigeria’s challenges, including hardship and insecurity.

During the public presentation at Kano Pillars Stadium, TNN President Modibbo Farakwai introduced the group’s motto, “Unite and Rebuild the Nation,” and its slogan, “Greater Nigeria.”

The group’s flag features green and white colors, with an image of hands held together in red at the center, and “TNN” written in white on a black background.

Farakwai explained that the green color represents growth, responsibility, and sacrifice; white stands for peace, redemption, and unity; red signifies solidarity, courage, and love; while black symbolizes emancipation, justice, and honor.

He also inaugurated a state harmonisation, structure, and mobilisation committee for the North-West states of Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kaduna, Jigawa, Sokoto, and Zamfara. This committee will oversee political activities and coordinate the formation of 13-man steering committees in each local government area.

Farakwai emphasized that TNN has already registered 43 million members and is prepared to establish a political party that will promote human rights and good governance.

In his remarks, TNN’s National Chairman, Prof. Garba Waziri, urged committee members to strengthen grassroots political structures, ensure public participation in decision-making, and uphold integrity to unite the country.

[DailyPost]

…threatens nationwide protest

The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has vowed to resist any plan by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) to further increase electricity tariffs by migrating other electricity consumers to Band A.

The congress threatened to mobilise its members for a nationwide protest should the regulatory agency go ahead to implement any fresh tariff increase in electricity.

It also warned telecommunication companies not to go back on the 35 per cent increase in telecommunication services agreement reached on February 21, 2025, between it and the Federal Government through the Joint 10-Man Committee.

The NLC decided during the National Executive Council meeting in Yola, Adamawa State, where it also commissioned some Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) driven Mass Transit Buses for the North East Zone.

In a communique issued at the end of the NEC meeting and signed by NLC President, Joe Ajaero and General Secretary, Emmanuel Ugboaja, the Congress said: “NEC unequivocally rejects the ongoing sham reclassification of electricity consumers by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), which seeks to forcefully migrate consumers from lower bands to Band A under the guise of service improvement while, in reality, imposing unjustified extortion on the masses.

“This systematic exploitation, sanctioned by the Ministry of Power, is nothing short of economic violence against the working class and broader Nigerian populace. It is evident that the ruling elite, acting as enforcers of global monopoly capital, are determined to further deepen the misery of the Nigerian people through incessant tariff hikes, increased taxation, and relentless economic strangulation. Whereas inflation has soared, wages remain stagnant, and the cost of living has become unbearable, the ruling class continues to transfer the burden of their fiscal irresponsibility onto the already impoverished working masses.

“NEC-in-session warns that any attempt to announce further electricity tariff increases will be met with mass resistance.

“Consequently, the Congress resolves to immediately mobilise for a nationwide protest should the Ministry of Power and NERC proceed with their exploitative plan to further hike electricity tariffs under any guise. The NLC shall not stand idly by while the Nigerian people are subjected to the unholy machinations of capitalist profiteers and their state collaborators.”

It added: “On the 35% Tariff Hike in Telecommunications Services: NEC acknowledges the agreement reached on February 21, 2025, between the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the federal government through the Joint 10-Man Committee, which reduced the initially proposed telecommunications tariff hike from 50% to 35%. However, Congress remains vigilant, recognising the long history of infidelity.

“NEC categorically warns that should the implementation of the agreement on March 1, 2025 not be as agreed, the National Administrative Council (NAC) is mandated to immediately deploy all necessary instruments to enforce compliance in line with the February 10th, 2025 Central Working Committee (CWC) directive.”

The NLC called on all affiliates, industrial unions, and progressive allies to remain on high alert and fully prepared to engage in decisive mass action against all anti-people policies of the state.

“The Congress reiterates that no society can sustainably develop under a regime of corporate plunder and neoliberal enslavement. The Nigerian working people must, therefore, remain resolute, organized, and uncompromising in the collective struggle for a fair and equitable Nigeria where the dominance of fat cats at the expense of the masses will be greatly reduced to create a socioeconomic balance,” it added.

Comprising five of the country’s 36 states, south-east Nigeria is the site of resilient atrocity. In the eight years from the middle of 2015 to the end of 2023, the monitoring coalition, Nigeria Mourns, confirmed about 3,000 killings in this theatre from open source records, but unofficial estimates suggest that there may be up to five killings missed for each counted. The worst of the killings have occurred since 2019, and the worst hit state in the zone over that period is Anambra.

Many erroneously date the origins of this to the radicalisation of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in the aftermath of its proscription in 2017. In reality, the escalation has lasted for over a quarter of a century, dating back approximately to the assassination in Enugu in 1998 of Igwe Amobi IV of Ogidi.

The annual Conflict Barometer by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research identifies the south-east as one of eight different conflicts of concern in Nigeria, describing it as a “violent crisis of secession” and ranks it on a par with the crisis of armed pastoralism in the Middle Belt of the country; ahead of the crisis of resource militancy in the Niger Delta; and only below the Boko Haram insurgency in the north-east and the armed bandits in the north-west of Nigeria.

Three framings define the crisis in south-east Nigeria in popular narrative. One is that it is about secession. A second is that most of the fatal incidents connected with it are perpetrated by “unknown gunmen”. The third is that the response to the situation is predominantly kinetic. Each of these is flawed. Together, they miss the underlying issues, with the result that they have turned an otherwise manageable crisis into an interminable atrocity.

Let’s begin with the first. The simplicity of the secession narrative is appealing at both the emotive and pecuniary levels. The former unites other Nigerians with subliminal appeal against a historical “Igbo question”. The latter enables the managers of expeditionary military deployments in the region to finagle more money for themselves using the excuse of preserving Nigeria’s territorial integrity. This would not be so if the situation were to be understood as a policing preoccupation with crime and criminality.

What’s the reality? IPOB’s business model does not stand a snowball’s chance in hell in any of the truly deadly sites of atrocity in south-east Nigeria. Awkuzu, host to the most horrendous atrocities in the region, is the site of “Nigeria’s most brutal police station” where hundreds, if not more, detainees have been killed extra-judicially. In Obosi, the ancient city on the banks of the Idemili River; and in Awka, the state capital, hundreds of young men routinely exterminate one another in murderous inter-cult and inter-gang warfare. In Ogbaru, located between the banks of Oguta Lake and the floodplains of River Niger, organized gangs mobilize deadly violence in sophisticated operations to rustle hydrocarbons. Lokpanta, the point along the Enugu-Port-Harcourt motorway where all the states of south-east Nigeria come close to sharing common borders, is an ungoverned territory where commercial kidnapping meets atrocity liquidation. None of these square with the convenience or simplicity of the secession narrative or with its profitability.

Turning to the second popular narrative about the situation in south-east Nigeria, the mythical “unknown” perpetrator is a figure of considerable antiquity in Nigeria. It has been around since the inconclusive judicial inquiry into the attack on Fela Anikulapo-Kuti’s Kalakuta Republic in February 1977, which blamed the incident on the “unknown soldier”. In 2011, the traditional ruler of Ihembosi, a community in Anambra State, was disappeared by “unknown gunmen.” They were also to blame in the violent abduction and subsequent disappearance in May 2014 of Chike Okoli, former Commissioner in the same state.

The legend of the unknown perpetrator in Nigeria has over the years emerged as both metaphor and measure of what is widely seen as state incapacity and leadership indifference to the scourge of impunity in the country. Far from an affirmation of unknown actors, Nigeria’s legend of the unknown perpetrator signposts a sense of popular despondency or loss of belief in the capacity of the state to end impunity for atrocities.

In the face of these tendencies, therefore, the third idea that the country or region can shoot its way out of this crisis is worse than wishful thinking. The complex landscape of drivers and factors in the situation in south-east Nigeria does not lend itself to such over-simplifications. To reprise a useful metaphor, it is more deserving of a scalpel than a hammer.

Over 24 months from 2022 to 2024, Bianca Ojukwu, the current minister of state for foreign affairs, and I together led a Truth, Justice and Peace Commission (TJPC) into the causes of the crisis in south-east Nigeria, the perpetrators, the consequences and possible solutions. The commission met and consulted with hundreds of victims and witnesses, including the security services, community leaders, clergy, politicians, vigilante elements, as various armed militias in the region.

Two things were evident. One is that the situation in the south-east is fundamentally a crisis of governance and of popular lack of belief in the legitimacy of many in political office in the region. The second is a clear desire on the part of most people to recover their communities and address the tasks of reconstruction and healing from the traumas of the violence.

There are no easy answers to these, but there are common threads. Rather perversely, the perpetrators who insist on rendering the region uninhabitable and the security providers who feed the secessionist trope are both engaged in a mutually profitable joint enterprise. Neither wishes insecurity in the south-east to end. This is why the audacity of Governor Chukwuma Charles Soludo in enacting the new Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025, is welcome because it evinces a durable solution to the crisis. The law establishes a complementary security provider for the state called “Agun’echemba” (sentinel at the gate) and launches Udo g’Achi (peace shall reign) targeting atrocity insecurity.

Several aspects of the new law have come under scrutiny. In particular, section 18 which targets transactional ritualism has drawn attention, with claims that it lacks the clarity required to pass constitutional muster and discriminates against traditional worship. For context, the TJPC which I led met twice with Juju priests. Separately, I met privately with some senior exponents of the trade. They were united in acknowledging that some amongst them had chosen to parlay their skills in support of atrocity insecurity and made detailed proposals, including asking the government to help root out such practitioners, prohibit infiltration, and regulate and support legitimate practitioners.

The TJPC report diagnosed this phenomenon as “transactional accultism”, which it identified as enabling “violent cultism” and “the crisis of insecurity”. The report argues that this is “a major component of the psychological armor plate of impunity” providing the perpetrators of the violence with deadly rituals which lead them to believe that they have “an aura of both impenetrability to projectiles and invincibility in the field of atrocity, an immense psychological boost in an environment of impunity.”

The law also targets the compounded deficit of legitimate political leadership as an underlying driver of the crisis of insecurity in the region. In 2005, the New Humanitarian reported on the situation in south-east Nigeria that “rigged elections increase disenchantment”, explaining that sympathy for separatism “has been growing since the general elections of April and May 2003, which were marred by widespread allegations of vote rigging.” Officeholders who are widely seen as lacking legitimacy are liable to be compromised when confronted with atrocity insecurity. Instead, they get reduced to belligerents instrumentalizing the violence rather than seeking to end it. In this law, Governor Soludo shows he is different.

Above all, this law also addresses the need to rebuild the capacity to administer criminal justice fairly and effectively, beginning with responsible policing; capable magistrates, coroners and the office of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP). In many states in the region, the police have been rendered destitute of confidence, denuded of the trust of communities. Similarly, most magistrates are desolate and DPP’s offices in the region are unfunded, leaving prosecutorial personnel at the mercy of self-interested parties or of adversaries who threaten them into being ineffectual. The result is that in much of the region, all sides glamourise summary, arbitrary or extra-judicial killing as the solution to crime or deviance, disagreement or dissonance.

None of these is easy to implement. As a programme, it confronts organized opposition from those who have profited so far from the over-simplification in a single narrative of secession that has bedeviled the search for solutions to the situation. The present government of Anambra state has demonstrated single-mindedness ending this. For that, it deserves support and other states in the region can adapt this model.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Peter Nwaebonyi, deputy chief whip of the senate, says Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has a history of making “reckless and false allegations of sexual harassment against prominent figures”.

Nwaebonyi said the sexual harassment allegations tabled by Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi central, against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is a desperate attempt to divert attention from legitimate disciplinary proceedings.

The rift between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan began following a recent seat reallocation in the red chamber.

Akpoti-Uduaghan firmly resisted her new seat placement after the rearrangement, claiming the move was intended to stifle her voice.

The issue came to a head on Friday when Akpoti-Uduaghan accused the senate president of attempting to make sexual advances toward her in his office and home.

The allegation triggered responses from prominent Nigerians, including a lawsuit by Ekaette Akpabio, the senate president’s wife, while others demanded an investigation into the claims.

Bukola Saraki, former senate president, who voiced his concern in the controversy, said the senate ethics committee must conduct a transparent probe of the allegations.

Saraki added that “both parties must submit to the investigation, fully cooperate with the committee, and stake their claims before it.”

‘SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, DIVERSIONARY STUNT’

Reacting to the controversy, Nwaebonyi said Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims were “politically motivated” and aimed at manipulating public sentiment.

He claimed that her allegations surfaced only after she was summoned for disciplinary action, questioning why no prior complaints were made within the senate or to female colleagues.

The lawmaker acknowledged Saraki’s call for transparency and protection but found the comparison between his experience and current allegations against Akpabio “flawed.”

“In Saraki’s case, the matter revolved around his official duties as Senate President— specifically, an accusation concerning the importation of an official vehicle,” Nwaebonyi said.

“The claim was factually incorrect, and Saraki, knowing this, subjected himself to scrutiny to clear his name. It was an administrative and procedural issue directly tied to his office, and a swift resolution through the Senate Ethics Committee restored confidence in the institution.

“In contrast, what we have before us today is a case of personal, unsubstantiated, and conveniently timed accusations— claims of sexual harassment that supposedly took place over a year ago but surfaced only after the accuser was summoned for disciplinary action.

“There was no prior complaint, no record of distress, no mention to her husband, and no disclosure to female colleagues in the Senate.

“Instead, the accusation was unleashed only at the point of reckoning, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from legitimate disciplinary proceedings.

“If we take Saraki’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would be establishing a dangerous precedent—one where any gold digger or habitual liar can throw out an unsubstantiated allegation and expect the Senate to come to a halt while they are entertained.”

The deputy chief whip further described Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations as “wild claims, media noise, and no evidence.”

Nwebonyi also questioned why the female lawmaker never addressed the issue in the red chamber and noted that she was appointed chairperson of the senate committee on local content before the alleged harassment.

While reaffirming Saraki’s concerns about senate integrity, Nwebonyi insisted that the institution must not be manipulated by “baseless allegations.”

He asked Akpoti-Uduaghan to pursue legal action if she had legitimate claims rather than using the senate and the media as a “shield against accountability.”

“This case, however, is about a personal vendetta and a desperate attempt to escape disciplinary action — the senate must resist the temptation to legitimize a distraction campaign designed to avoid legitimate scrutiny,” the Ebonyi lawmaker said.

He, however, implored the senate and Nigerians to remain focused and not allow blackmail to dictate the institution’s agenda.

[TheCable]