IN his 1994 book, The Impossible Country: A Journey Through the Last Days of Yugoslavia, Brian Hall related his encounters with Serbs, Croats, and Muslims – real people, likeable people – who had been overcome with suspicion and anxiety about one another.

He painted the tragic picture of a country, its politics, its history, and its seemingly insoluble animosities. Reviewing the book, Atlantic Monthly, the iconic American magazine founded in 1857, said it was “a tragic portrait . . . presented with sympathy and frequently with humor . . . (of) a disparate people who were never united except by their resentment of a foreign conqueror.”

The question that concentrates my mind each time I read Hall’s book is whether Nigeria, like the ill-fated Yugoslavia, has become an impossible country. Why is it that nothing works in the real sense? Why are there statesmen who hanker after public good? Instead, there is a glut of wayward, errant political actors and there is a world of difference between the politician and statesman because as James Freeman Clarke, the 19th century American author poignantly noted: “A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of his country. The statesman wishes to steer, while the politician is satisfied to drift.”

Nigeria is drifting and every issue is viewed from the prism of politics, which is why the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, July 11, 2024, granting financial autonomy to the 774 local governments in the country will also become a problem sooner than later.

Why? Because those who went to Court to procure the judgement have their eyes on the next election rather than the next generation.

In the unanimous judgement of its seven-member panel, the Supreme Court upheld the suit brought by the Federal Government to strengthen the independence of LGs in the country, by granting them financial autonomy.

Insisting on what it termed the demand of justice which requires a progressive interpretation of the law, Justice Emmanuel Agim, who read the judgement said: “It is the position of this court that the federation can pay local government allocations directly to the local governments or through the states. In this case, since paying them through the states has not worked, justice demands that local governments’ allocations from the federation account should henceforth be paid directly to the local governments. I hold that the states’ retention of local government funds is unconstitutional.”

By granting financial autonomy, the Supreme Court ordered the Federal Government to pay the 20.60 per cent monthly allocation of the 774 LGs directly to their exclusive accounts and not to accounts controlled by governors. The Court also ruled that state governors do not have the power to dissolve elected LG councils and replace them with caretaker committees as that violates Section 7(1) of the Constitution.

The judgement was well received by many. Senator Orji Uzor Kalu, former governor of Abia State, ululated thereafter: “The Supreme Court judgement on the autonomy of local governments is one that should be hailed and applauded, especially for the courage and independence shown by the judiciary. The Supreme Court being a policy court did what is right and beneficial to the society.”

Those in Kalu’s corner have a point. Since 1999, governors have made a mess of the local government system by not only fiddling with the allocations to the Joint LG Accounts, but also, contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which states unequivocally that local governments must be democratically elected, continue to run them with caretaker committees.

But some Nigerians like Chief James Ibori, former governor of Delta State, demur.

Ibori, who together with Kalu belong to the Class of 1999-2007 governors with President Bola Tinubu, said on the contrary, the judgement is a coup against true federalism.

“Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” Ibori lamented, adding: “The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism. The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of local governments under any guise whatsoever. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.”

Ibori believes that if the judgement subsist, it will erode the powers of the state governments and give more powers to the Federal Government, contrary to the principles of federalism. This, he contends, will be a dangerous precedent because “if the federal government can directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this as a tool for political leverage.”

That is the crux of the matter – lack of political altruism. While it is true that governors have made a mess of the purpose for creating local governments, Tinubu, who created 37 local council development areas in Lagos, is not a great apostle of local government autonomy.

So, the judgement is more political than legal. Could it be that the executive railroaded the judiciary into handing Tinubu control of local governments for the purposes of 2027 elections?

But how far can the president go? He who pays the piper dictates the tune. Even if elections are conducted, as long as the state governors control the State Independent Electoral Commissions created by section 197 of the Constitution, there is not much anyone can do. They will decide who wins elections at that level and LG autonomy will continue to be a mirage.

In fact, in their brazenness, most governors routinely dissolve SIEC boards put in place by their predecessors and reconstitute them with their own loyalists as soon as they assume office.

The credibility and quality of elections into local governments have to be sorted out if LG autonomy is to be guaranteed. But how can that be when the Secretary of Local Government and other key administrative staff are appointees of the state government? Besides, the state Houses of Assembly which exercise oversight on local governments are still strongly tied to the apron strings of their respective governors and could be used to witch-hunt any LG chairman or councillor who fails to do the bidding of the state governors.  

Some have suggested that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, should be saddled with the responsibility of conducting LG polls. But with what the Professor Mahmud Yakubu-led INEC has become, there is little or no difference between SIEC and INEC.

And that takes me back to Brian Hall’s book. Nigerians are right now overcome with suspicion and anxiety about one another, a disparate people never united, not even by their collective misery inflicted on them by the ruling class – their oppressors.

To make matters worse, there are no statesmen. All we have are desperate politicians adept at gaming the system, people will do everything to win the next election even if it means pulling down the roof on everyone and everything. So, it does not matter what the Supreme Court rules or what the Constitution actually says, Nigeria will remain an impossible country as long as the status quo remains. 

In Anambra state, insecurity seems to grow every time an election approaches. This is a discernible and unsettling pattern. The Anambra state governorship election is up around late 2025, which is approximately a year away. As the election approaches, kidnappings and other violent crimes increase, contributing to the ongoing situation of insecurity. It’s now a perfect correlation that can be seen and examined to propose remedies.

The year 2024 is painting a very different image from 2023, which was quite calm, especially near the end of the year when there was only one incident at Uga during Christmas. As the months get closer to the guber election of 2025, insecurity is increasing once more.

If the state’s elections coincide with insecurity, it indicates that politicians and their agents are the ones responsible. Furthermore, the government cannot attempt to propagate insecurity while actively combating it. Given that governments exist primarily to ensure the safety and well-being of their citizens, doing so would be foolish and unhelpful.

Going by this assumption, politicians who are desperate and use criminals to win elections before, during, and after appear to be at it again. The people who commit violent crimes in Anambra state are the UGM, ritualists, cultists, and others. They collaborate with politicians in their desperate attempts to rig elections to win at any cost, which results in apathy and the diversion of the people’s mandate to the riggers.

Politicians have an abhorrent and reprehensible ability to use violence and illegal activity to win elections. As they do this, the government is compelled to devote greater resources to combating insecurity; money intended for salaries, social amenities, and other necessities will have to be diverted to combat insecurity and uphold law and order.

That’s not where it ends. Rich people in the state are discouraged from returning home and making investments because of the pervasive sense of insecurity. In addition, residents of Anambra state are moving to Asaba, Ogun state, Abuja, the coast of West Africa, and other locations.

Anambra is missing out on all of this, while the economy of the areas their wealthy sons and daughters flee to prosper and cash out. Ndi Anambra, for instance, are rapidly developing Asaba because they find comfort and security there. Because of the desperate politicians in Anambra who will stop at nothing to seize control of the state and be able to allocate its riches as they may, many Anambra residents now relocate there with their families instead of remaining in Anambra state.

Nigerian politics in general and Anambra specifically are following this hazardous trend. The majority of politicians are career politicians who do not have another forwarding address. Those who have succeeded as well as those who failed in business are turning to politics to survive. They are battling for control over the riches of Anambra state to use the same for revitalising their businesses.

Therefore, to these politicians, politics is mostly about achieving personal goals rather than serving the public interest. Development is likewise a secondary concern for these politicians, whose main concern after assuming power is how to maintain their position of authority. Funds intended for development are diverted for reelection, retirement into luxury, and godfathering roles to their cherry-picked successors, to ensure an unending supply of funds from state resources to them.

This has been the shameful pattern in Anambra politics, to which the state owes its relative underdevelopment until Chukwuma Soludo became governor and started a fundamental reset that the politicians vehemently oppose. Rather, they would prefer a governor who will share the state’s resources and open the coffers, leaving schools crumbling, growth stalled, and healthcare devoid of physicians, nurses, and drugs.

Elections should typically be decided based on ideas and performance records of the incumbents, as politics is typically a contest of ideas. But ideas and performance have little or no room in Nigerian politics, especially in Anambra. Politicians would rather take advantage of the electoral umpires, especially those who oversee election security and declaration of results to rig the results.

Ultimately, the state or country is forced to operate under a so-called democratic system without holding a true election, which results in the placement of grossly incompetent individuals in important posts. These are people who have grabbed the mandate of the people and run with it. Politicians from Anambra have a history of shady dealings and notoriety, but what worries the most is how they intend to use insecurity to rig elections and cement their hold on power—do or die.

This is a passionate plea to the government about the complete deployment of tech and specialised operatives to the fight against crime, and also a plea to the desperado-politicians who would not hesitate to ruin Anambra state to gain political power. Politicians ought to aspire to be like statesmen who care more for future generations than the next election.

The blood these politicians are spitting through the criminals they have armed and sent into the field is calling out to God for retribution, and God will hear and respond when the time is right.

It is equally necessary to discuss how full deployment of tech can reduce the security concerns in the state and the country, while applauding the Soludo government for its enormous security strides and urge the governor not to relent or be deterred. What I recommend is to have the state under full satellite-like coverage throughout, round-the-clock monitoring of all main routes from a covert central source, and fast response squads stationed at all major entrances and exits as well as inter-LG roads, all linked by communications.

In this manner, any incident occurring anywhere in Anambra state can be quickly observed and reported, and the area can be sealed off until the offenders are located and apprehended. The project will cost billions and will require Anambra billionaires to contribute to the development and implementation of the mother security architecture. It is simple and achievable and something similar is already in Edo and accounting for the state’s very low insecurity rating.

Lastly, may the politicians of Anambra choose the politics of ideas above the politics of bitterness. They must give Soludo the freedom to fully carry out the excellent plan he has painstakingly crafted to revitalise Anambra and restore prosperity and livability to the state. In just two years and a few months under Soludo’s leadership, Anambra state is already transforming for the benefit of Ndi Anambra.

No well-meaning people play politics with security. Anambra politicians shouldn’t.

Dr. Law Mefor, an Abuja-based forensic and social psychologist, is a fellow of The Abuja School of Social and Political Thought. He can be reached via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; Twitter: @Drlawsonmefor.

Airlines’ operations in countries like Singapore, the United States and Australia have been disrupted due to a major global cyber outage affecting services.

The massive information technology (IT) outage, which began in the early hours of today, also affected banks and media outlets.

More to follow…

[TheCable]

Governors have been acting tongue-in-cheek in their reactions to last Thursday’s verdict of the Supreme Court, which stripped them of their suffocating grip  over the money meant for local governments in the country. As a collective, the governors unreservedly endorsed the judgement. Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum and Kwara State Governor, AbdulRazak AbdulRahman, who spoke on behalf of the governors, said the forum welcomed the apex court’s ruling granting financial autonomy to the councils, describing the verdict as a relief from the burden on the governors. Addressing State House Correspondents on the matter after a meeting with President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa, Abuja on Friday, Governor AbdulRazak was flanked by the Chairman of All Progressives Congress Governors’ Forum, Hope Uzodimma, and Chairman of Peoples Democratic Party Governors’ Forum, Dr Bala Mohammed, suggesting they were all in agreement with Governor AbdulRasak in his pronouncement.

“Our Attorney-General has applied for the enrolment order, which we will study carefully. But by and large, governors are happy with the devolution of power in respect of local government autonomy. It relieves the burden on governors. Our people really don’t know how much states expend in bailing out local governments, and that’s the issue there,” Governor AbdulRasak said, adding that his government in Kwara State had never tampered with local government funds.

However, it was learnt that the governors were not happy with the decision of the federal government to take them to court and are merely playing to the gallery. For instance, a few days after the NGF Chairman spoke, Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, who is of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, described the case as a distraction. He questioned the sustainability of local governments receiving allocations from the federal government. Speaking with members of the Nigerian Union of Journalists in Ibadan, Oyo State, the governor said: “They said there is a judgment of the Supreme Court on local government autonomy. I think it is just a distraction. We must face the real issue that we have. The issue that we have is that we are not producing enough. We are not productive. Maybe it may be part of the problem, we want to have value for what is being shared but our problem is productivity.”

The Senate, in a motion by the then Chairman of the Senate ad-hoc committee on Constitution Review, Ovie Omo-Agege, said during plenary that 27 out of the 36 state assemblies had forwarded their resolutions on the constitution amendment bills to the National Assembly. Presenting his committee report, Omo-Agege said 35 bills satisfied constitutional provision, having been approved by not less than 24 state assemblies. Nine bills could not scale through. Prominent among the bills voted against by the state parliaments was the one seeking to grant financial and administrative autonomy to the country’s local governments. Also among the bills that did not sail through are the ones seeking the abrogation of state-local government joint account and establishment of local government as a tier of government, meaning a majority of the state assemblies, and by extension the governors, never wanted local governments to have absolute freedom.
It’s perhaps in realisation of this, and the overarching need for local governments to be financially empowered to cater to the challenges at the grassroots that President Tinubu took upon himself the crusade for financial autonomy for the local governments. He mandated the Attorney-General of the Federation and Justice Minister, Chief Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to institute a case against the governors at the Supreme Court.

“In this case since paying them through states has not worked, the justice of this case demands that the local government allocations from the Federation Account should henceforth be paid directly to the LG councils,” the apex court ruled. On the dissolution of democratically elected councils and appointments of caretaker committees by governors, Justice Agim held that it is a mandatory duty of the state governments or governors, under Section 7 (1) of the Constitution, to ensure their existence. “A democratically-elected local government is sacrosanct and non-negotiable,” the court added.
This landmark judgment is a critical step forward. It has now become imperative for the governors to file behind President Tinubu in ensuring that local councils become an independent and self-governing tier of government. The governors’ buy-in is important because when the chips are down, the state chief executives will still play an influential role in the election of local government chairmen. The governors must understand that to ensure genuine grassroots development and further strengthen our democracy, the local governments must be empowered financially.

There is also the matter of ownership of lands and granting of development plans in the states. Asiwaju Tinubu as Lagos governor filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine who had the power to control urban and regional planning in a state. Two of the issues determined were: whether the ownership rights of the federal Government over land in state territories include the power to control and regulate town planning and physical development in relation to such land.  And, whether all approvals, permits, and licences granted by the 1st defendant (federal government) or any of its agencies for any construction, building or physical development, or use of land in Lagos without the consent of the plaintiff are not illegal, null, and void. The Supreme Court granted the states power to grant building approvals and other development plans in the states where such federally-acquired lands are domiciled while not denying the federal government the right to also acquire lands in the states.

Importantly, the Nigerian Fiscal Policy and Tax Reform Committee led by Mr. Taiwo Oyedele is still busy working on comprehensive tax reforms, including reforms to the country’s value-added tax (VAT) and other taxes that will restructure the system and further advance fiscal federalism in the end.
Back to the issue of LG autonomy. There is still more work to be done. Like the state governors, the National Assembly must take concrete legislative actions to support the vision. The laws governing local government elections must be reworked to transfer the responsibility of conducting these elections to the Independent National Electoral Commission as opposed to the state independent electoral authorities, which are only independent in name. This legislative initiative is crucial to eliminating the undue influence of state governors over the local government election process and ensuring the integrity of the polls. This change will be a significant move in complementing President Tinubu and Supreme Court’s efforts towards achieving genuine local government autonomy and enhancing democratic governance in Nigeria.

Speaking when he hosted some Yoruba elders on April 16, 2024 at the Presidential Villa, President Tinubu had pointed out that the matter of restructuring would be systematic, saying when the economy is properly on a firm footing, steps would be taken on restructuring so that it will be on a solid footing. “As I said in Akure, our approach to it would be as if a baby is learning how to walk. If the baby is rushed, it will fall,” he had said.

•Rahman is a Senior Presidential Aide.

In Washington DC on Monday, 30 April 2018, then President Muhammadu Buhari and his host, then United States President Donald Trump, addressed a joint press conference to mark the end of the two-day visit of the Nigerian leader.  Buhari made some requests, among which was the US assistance in getting weapons and equipment to support Nigeria’s fight against the deadly Boko Haram terrorists that were rampaging the Northeast zone of the country. Interestingly, it was not President Trump’s promise to assist Nigeria that caught my attention, but his response to an unrelated question posed by one of the White House correspondents, Cecilia Vega of ABC News. She veered off to the turbulent issue of the Mexico border closure which was top on Trump’s political agenda.

True to his style, Trump took his time to explain to the audience the imperative of strong border security.  He described the proposed wall as a critical measure to enhance national security, arguing that it was essential to stop illegal immigration as well as drug and human trafficking. The closing statement by Trump was instructive. He emphasised that ‘any country that cannot secure its borders cannot control its own territory or ensure the safety of its citizens’. For the visiting Nigerian president, that message was either lost or not properly assimilated.  

Many factors have been attributed to the spate of insecurity in Nigeria over the past decades. Some of these are the rise of extremist groups, ethnic and religious tensions, economic disparities and poverty, weak governance and corruption, armed banditry and criminal gangs, as well as the effects of climate change that is fuelling farmer-herder clashes. In recent times, people have also referred to the activities of illegal miners in collaboration with some foreign groups. These factors have given rise to the activities of several non-state actors with unrestricted access to sophisticated weapons and ammunition used to regularly perpetrate violence against innocent people and members of the security forces and agencies.  In dealing with the threats, the country must be able to analyse the strategic centre of gravity of the violent non-state actors to enable it to provide appropriate response in both kinetic and non-kinetic forms.  

In tackling the spate of insecurity especially across Northern Nigeria, it appears that there has been no specific consensus, careful analysis and identification at the political level of what the strategic centre of gravity of the threat is, or it is simply overwhelmed with the intricacies of dealing with centres of gravity that could trigger political complexities and dimensions. The reason is obvious; anyone schooled in the business of crisis and violence management would understand without equivocation that in Nigeria today, what gives the various armed groups their strength is the unrestricted access to weapons and ammunition.  This is the centre of gravity of the armed groups and bandits, which the government must focus and direct its attention.  This can fundamentally be achieved by addressing the issue of our porous borders and the several swathes of unoccupied spaces across the country.  
On record, Nigeria has a total of 84 crossing points along the borders, many of which are unmanned. The terrain along the borders facilitates unofficial crossings in several areas apart from the official crossing points. Since the emergence of Boko Haram Terrorist activities with their firepower, many of the crossing points along the Northeast borders have been abandoned with the insurgent group enjoying freedom of action. Only recently, the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael Institute’, a leading think tank and academy on international affairs raised an alert on the increasing presence of violent extremists in the Kainji Lake National Park, many of whom infiltrated through Benin Republic. It further observed the re-emergence of the extremist groups with Nigerian connections in some parts of Benin Republic.  

Over time, the battle against insurgents and bandits has assumed a relentless cat-and-mouse game, heavily complicated by the porous borders and extensive unoccupied spaces.  This provides numerous hideouts and escape routes from which bandits can easily slip through and flee to other unoccupied areas and sometimes across the porous borders when faced with intense pressure from the military.  The ease with which bandits cross into neighbouring countries not only exacerbates the challenge, but also provides them opportunity to regroup and rearm to launch new attacks once the military’s focus and attention shifts elsewhere.  This vicious cycle of violence and evasion makes it difficult for security forces to establish long term stability in most of the affected areas.  

In his book ‘When States Fail: Causes and Consequences’ published in 2004, Robert Rotberg examined the multifaceted phenomenon of state failure, identifying its root causes among which is the inability of the state to control its borders.  Porous and unprotected borders exacerbate internal security threats which lead to unregulated flow of weapons, insurgents and contraband. Rotberg’s analysis underscores the diverse perspective that the failure to secure borders is both a symptom and a cause of state collapse. Nigeria is obviously not a failed state; the latter is, however, the fear and reason why conscientious and timely efforts are necessary to rejig our border security arrangement so that the effects of the porous borders do not allow the country to degenerate into a failed state.
 Nigeria’s current border security arrangement leaves much to be desired.  It is grossly inadequate to secure the country from threats and intruders especially around the Northern borders. The Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo acquiesced to this while inaugurating a 13-man Integrated Border Governance Committee in September 2023, to develop a plan to adequately secure Nigeria’s borders. The violence often unleashed on the citizens by well-armed extremist groups and bandits who infiltrate the borders has shown that the nation can no longer rely on the Nigerian immigration and Customs Service alone for the security of the borders.  Those criminal groups who violate the borders and fizzle into the adjoining unoccupied spaces within Nigeria to take abode have shown overwhelming capability that the two agencies cannot match.  

To address the gap, Nigeria must develop an integrated border security system that would combine physical security measures with modern technology, like strategies used in the US, Turkey and India.  It must consider the use of ditches, walls, wire barriers, surveillance devices and armed drones where necessary.  Nigeria could also emulate India and the US, where border security force is established to deal with infiltration of terrorists, arms smuggling and illegal trafficking of people along the borders.  Now is the time to build a credible, robust and bellicose border security guard force that will be well equipped to serve as the primary focus in the overall integrated border security arrangement. In addition to its primary task of securing the borders, the border guard force would also provide security and protection to the existing border control agencies and enable them to perform their duties without hindrance.  The border security guard force which must be well resourced could be placed directly under the Nigerian Army or the Defence Headquarters to prevent issue of rivalry and enhance coordination.

•Olawumi, a retired Major General of the Nigerian Army and former NYSC Director General is a member of THISDAY editorial board

Last week, the Honourable Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General of Ondo State, Dr Kayode Ajulo SAN, joined the Chief Judge of Ondo State, Hon Justice Ayedun Odusola as well as other stakeholders in the administration of Justice to visit the Correctional Centers across the State where a total number of 57 inmates were released. 

During the visits, 15 inmates were released in Akure; 18 in the Ondo male facility; six at the Ondo female facility, and 18 at Okitipupa, unconditionally.

According to the Chief Judge of Ondo State, it was the first visit ever by any AG of Ondo State for such a purpose. 

Those who were pardoned in Olokuta Custodial Centre include an 81-year-old man, Isiaka Momodu, who had been standing trial for two years and three months over unlawful carnal knowledge; the duo of Odeh Friday, 35 and Peter Ufomadu, 30, awaiting trial for alleged robbery and conspiracy for more than five years; Ismaila Abdulrasaq, 36, standing trial for three years was released for lack of witnesses; Emmanuel Ianna, 32 standing trial for two years over conspiracy.

Other inmates released include 65-year-old Prophet, Taiwo Komolafe, Dele James, 38”; Danladil Kuku, Peter Sunday, Emmanuel Isaac, Ayomide Oladeji, Wale Olaolu, Ola Ojo, Joseph Amos,45; and a teenager, Essan Doland, all charged for stealing.

In Ondo, 57-year-old, Ayo Odunsi and Sola Ayemibo who were standing trial for alleged murder were pardoned based on legal advice from the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), while Training Ebegbe and Okutu Elokumo, 32 charged with kidnapping were released unconditionally on critical health ground.

At the female custodian centre in Ondo, those released were; a 29-year-old nursing mother, Grace Akinsanmi charged with stealing and was released on humanitarian grounds, Yusuf Sherif 39, who was standing trial for concealing the death of a newborn baby for two years while Opeyemi Oguntimoju, 32; Olasunkanmi Kolawole, Joy Anthony and Bukola Oyatunde who were charged for stealing were pardoned.

Others released were: Adams Isiaka, 33; standing trial for unlawful possession of firearms, Edet Ezekiel, 25; charged for beach of peace, Samuel Kastin, Gbenga Dadeni, 44; Mukaila Yisa, 28; Tunde Ibrahim, 41, Philip Samuel, 28; Samson Paul, 25; Joseph Okon, 25; Emmanuel Okuti, 34; Emmanuel Peter,22; John Fanen, 34; Biliaminu Muhammed, 42 all charged for stealing.

In Okitipupa, a 63-year-old Muhammad Basiru charged with kidnapping was pardoned on health grounds, while Sunday Miracle, 20; Segun Adeniran, 30; James Anthony, 23; Goodness Sunday, Ibrahim Isaiaka, Adeluwoye Imoleyin, 21; Eze Emmanuel and other 10 inmates standing trial for stealing were released unconditionally.

This act highlights the State government led Governor Aiyedatiwa’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair treatment within the correctional system. It is a progressive approach to justice and rehabilitation within Ondo State, marking a new chapter in the State's commitment to humane and equitable legal practices.

The pardon not only offers a second chance but also reflects the government's dedication to upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

Action Group on Free Civic Space (AGFCS) is a loose network of individuals and different organizations working on different issues, but collectively committed to defending the civic space in the country.

The Action Group on Free Civic Space (AGFCS) urges the Lagos State Government to uphold impartiality and non-discrimination in its criminal justice administration, especially with respect to the criminal charges brought against Fredrick Nwajagu, aged 67, known as 'Eze Igbo' of Ajao Estate”. Mr. Nwajagu was arrested in April 2023 for allegedly threatening to invite members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to Lagos to protect Igbo properties. This ‘statement’ was made in response to the persistent threats and attacks on Igbos and their properties in Lagos during the Lagos State governorship election in 2023. In a viral 49-second video, Nwajagu called on IPOB to protect Igbo shops and properties against these incessant violent attacks.

Arrested by the Department of State Services on April 1, 2023, Mr. Nwajagu was charged with misconduct likely to cause a breach of peace. The police prosecution claimed that Mr. Nwajagu’s statements inviting IPOB to Lagos contravened Sections 168 (d) and 411 of the Lagos State Criminal Law, 2015. A Lagos magistrate ordered his remand pending legal advice, and the case was adjourned to May 3, 2023. The Lagos State Government later charged him with terrorism under Sections 12(a) (c), 18, 21, and 29 of the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act, 2022.

What remains visible in Nwajagu’s case is the glaring shadow of selective application of security laws, inconsistent with the principles of impartiality and non-discrimination. Nwajagu issued the alleged threats in response to the violent attacks on Igbo people in Lagos State by certain persons that remain free till date. These provocative and violent attacks aimed at disenfranchising the targeted ethnic groups and influencing political choices during the 2023 elections in a particular direction. It is absurd that while Nwajagu languishes in prison, the initial attackers have neither been arrested nor prosecuted. In contrast, the Nigeria Police downplayed the initial threats and attacks, dismissing them as a joke.

The Nigerian constitution expressly prohibits discrimination and envisions a society founded on justice, equality, and non-discrimination. Nwajagu’s case not only demonstrates a brazen disdain for constitutional protections, but exemplifies deeply-entrenched application of selective justice and ethnic discrimination in Nigeria’s criminal justice system. The failure to arrest and prosecute those who attacked Igbos in Lagos in the first place, while swiftly arresting and prosecuting Nwajagu, fuels suspicion of ethnic bias. Selective justice undermines the rule of law, breeds resentment, and fuels social strife. The authorities must ensure that all individuals who break the law, regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation, are held accountable.

Therefore, the AGFCS calls on the Lagos State Government to demonstrate impartiality and non-discrimination in its criminal justice administration by withdrawing all charges against Mr. Nwajagu and releasing him, as he has already spent over 15 months in prison awaiting trial. We urge the Governor of Lagos State to direct the Commissioner of Justice and Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi in the case, ensuring Mr. Nwajagu's immediate release from prison.

Signed:

1. Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre, Lagos

2. Centre for Community Empowerment in Conflict and Peacebuilding, Kaduna

3. Foundation for Environmental Rights Advocacy and Development FENRAD Nigeria, Abia State

4. Partnership for Social and Environmental Development Initiative- P4SEDI. Cross River State.

5. Centre for Justice, Empowerment & Development (C4J), Port Harcourt, Nigeria

6. Open Society on Justice Reform Project, Lagos

7. Citizen Centre for Integrated Development and Social Rights - CCIDESOR, Imo State

8. Foundation for Livelihood Advancement, Imo State

9. Vision Spring Initiatives, Lagos

10. Ojena Foundation, Imo State.

11. Spaces for Change, Lagos

12. Human Rights Social Development and Environmental Foundation (HURSDEF), Rivers State

13. Centre for Human Rights Advocacy and Wholesome Society (CEHRAWS), Aba, Abia State

14. Global Organization For Youth Enlightenment and Development GOYED, Anambra state.

15. Institutional and Sustainable Development Foundation, FCT Abuja

16. Initiative for Safety Security and Educational Development in Nigeria. IPSSED Network, Enugu

17. Divine Era Development and Social Rights Initiative (DEDASRI), Enugu

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has affirmed Dr. Asue Ighodalo as the duly nominated and authentic governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State.

In a Judgement delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, on Wednesday, the Court declined jurisdiction in the Edo PDP candidate's case involving a forged voter's card.

The Court held that the allegation of a forged voter’s card is not one of the requirements for disqualifying a governorship candidate under the Nigerian 1999 Constitution.

The suit was filed by the impeached deputy governor of Edo State, Philip Shaibu, Anselm Ojezua, and one other.

Justice Omotosho held that the suit, being a Pre-election case, was filed outside the 14 days allowed under Section 285(9) of the Constitution.

The judge ruled that even though forgery or non-possession of a voter’s card was a disqualifying factor under Section 182 of the Constitution, the plaintiff failed to prove that Ighodalo forged his voter’s card as alleged by the plaintiffs.

The honourable justice therefore dismissed the case for lacking in merit.

Recall that Asue Ighodalo emerged as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in a keenly contested primary election that held on February 22, 2024, at the Samuel Ogbemudia Stadium in Benin City, Edo state.

He polled a total of 577 votes, beating 10 other aspirants to clinch the party’s ticket.

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has affirmed Dr. Asue Ighodalo as the duly nominated and authentic governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State.

In a Judgement delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, on Wednesday, the Court declined jurisdiction in the Edo PDP candidate's case involving a forged voter's card.

The Court held that the allegation of a forged voter’s card is not one of the requirements for disqualifying a governorship candidate under the Nigerian 1999 Constitution.

The suit was filed by the impeached deputy governor of Edo State, Philip Shaibu, Anselm Ojezua, and one other.

Justice Omotosho held that the suit, being a Pre-election case, was filed outside the 14 days allowed under Section 285(9) of the Constitution.

The judge ruled that even though forgery or non-possession of a voter’s card was a disqualifying factor under Section 182 of the Constitution, the plaintiff failed to prove that Ighodalo forged his voter’s card as alleged by the plaintiffs.

The honourable justice therefore dismissed the case for lacking in merit.

Recall that Asue Ighodalo emerged as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in a keenly contested primary election that held on February 22, 2024, at the Samuel Ogbemudia Stadium in Benin City, Edo state.

He polled a total of 577 votes, beating 10 other aspirants to clinch the party’s ticket.

In “Finding long-lasting solutions to Nigeria’s woes”published on 11 June, 2024, I commented on a post sent to me by a comrade and classmate at “Great Ife”, Wale Olajire Ajao, titled “The role of the public space in a democracy” In it, I disagreed with Wale that critics do not necessarily have to offer suggestions; the role of defending the government, he said, rests squarely on the shoulders of the public relations managers of the government. Today, I am honouring my pledge to publish Wale’s treatise in full (with little editing because of space constraints) and to further explain why I disagree with some of his views. Read on:

“Public space can be defined as any medium or avenue made available for citizens to express views on the public affairs of a society. Such mediums could be above-the-line, below-the-line or on-line channels. Among above-the-line channels are magazines, newspapers and electronic mediums like radio and television. One of their major characteristics is that a vast or mass audience can be reached at a time. For example, Tokyo Daily in Japan or Washington Post in the USA can circulate up to five million copies daily. Below-the-line channels include leaflets, posters and interpersonal communication channels such as letters or intra-organization communication channels like house journals or newsletters and other new media avenues like WhatsApp group where up to two hundred members of the platform can exchange ideas by chatting up one another. On-line channels are usually new media avenues like e-mail, Facebook, X and WhatsApp. On-line channels can disseminate information faster than traditional media like newspapers and magazines . New media can also reach the vast majority of communication consumers more than newspapers and magazines. Electronic channels, however, can reach the audience faster than any new media channel.

The common characteristic of any public space channel is that it is an avenue for the exchange of ideas. In effect, in the public space there is bound to be advertisement and dis- advertisement of ideas. This is so because in the public space, it is ideas and opinions that are in competition; not the owners of the ideas or opinions. Views compete for attention in the public space. It is clear, therefore, that in a democracy, the public space is open to all the stakeholders to express their views. In popular language, the right of a stakeholder to express his or her opinion on any issue of public interest is what is described as the citizen’s fundamental human rights. This means that each citizen has an equal right of access to the public space. No citizen has a right to inhibit another citizen from expressing his opinion. Therefore, the first thing all users of the public space must accept is that each citizen has equal access or equal right to the public space whatever their opinion. In effect, it is clear that all users of the public space cannot have the same opinion on an issue. Therefore, the first condition for a proper use of the public space is that all users must allow others to express their views without harassment or intimidation. One major demand which the public space makes on all users is what is known as the right of reply. Just as every citizen has a right to express his opinion, it is also the right of everyone to reply to whatever has been put in the public space which they agree or disagree with.

One very clear role of the public space is that it gives everyone the right to react to whatever they agree or disagree with. This means, for example, that if Mr. Julius Akpojiovi is fond of writing only negative things about Nigeria, other users of the public space can respond by publishing what is good about Nigeria. That is how to use the public space. Whenever someone expresses an opinion that is not acceptable, those who disagree have the right of reply. Democracy thrives on difference of opinions because it provides for the right of expression and right of reply. In a democracy, no one should abuse another person just because of difference or divergence of opinions. The public space can accommodate everyone because it has provided freedom of speech or freedom of expression as well the right of reply. It is an abuse of the public space to abuse or attack someone just because of his or her opinion. All a good user of public space has to do is to exercise his right of reply whenever and wherever he deems it necessary. When stakeholders refuse to abide by the freedom of speech and the right of reply, they endanger democracy by unwittingly resorting to gagging the press or polluting the public space. When people are threatened or attacked just because of their opinion, the society loses because it is when two opposing camps engage in a debate that stakeholders can have a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

One common manifestation of abuse of the public space is to resist or be openly intolerant of dissenting opinions. Critics of the government are often regarded as enemies of the government simply because they criticized the government. Supporters of the government often say that those who criticize the government should come up with alternative views or suggestions for the government to consider. But the rules of the public space do not include making suggestions to the government. In other words, a critic who does not have suggestions to make to the government has not violated the rules of the public space just because he did not make suggestions to the government. In fact, his duty is not to make suggestions. His duty is to criticize. If someone has made destructive criticism, the media officers of the government or those supporting it may choose to exercise their right of reply. No more no less!

The beauty of democracy is that the traditional media law has a way of dealing with mischief-makers who deliberately publish falsehoods against the government or fellow citizens. There is the law of libel; there is also the law of defamation targeted at any medium which publishes libelous information. The fact that new media has been making it difficult to punish those who publish falsehood is the reason governments all over the world are calling for new laws to regulate it; just like it obtains for Facebook, X, WhatsApp, etc. With new media, so many things can be thrown into the public space by anonymous authors. In fact, new media has turned everyone into a journalist, which is not so with the traditional media because not everyone acting as journalists in new media today was trained to be one. Newspaper editors will not accept for publication many of the materials we see on new media because they are not ethical and are injurious to society and the public space.

In effect, new media is potentially capable of abusing the public space because it is abusive of people with dissenting opinions; it also contains falsehood or deliberate distortion of facts and figures. In Europe and America, more and more people are calling on the government to look for ways of streamlining the use of new media. In fact, in China and some Asian countries, new media is not licensed to operate. One other common source of abuse of the public space is when non-experts on a subject insist that everyone on a platform must accept his view as an authority on the issue at hand . Such persons often easily resort to abusing people with dissenting opinions.

In conclusion, the most important role of the public space is that, in a democracy, it allows everyone to speak their mind without fear of intimidation. The public space provides for freedom of expression and the right of reply, both of which make abuse or attack unnecessary. This is more so as there are ready laws to tame offenders”.

The only aspect of this beautifully-crafted piece that I disagree with is where Wale posits that critics need not provide suggestions; I think they should for many reasons. One: It will drastically reduce the number of ignoramuses who simply jump on board, especially on social media, to run their mouth. Two: The suggestions they make will let us know the stuff of which they are made. Three: Those in government do not have a monopoly of knowledge; therefore, suggestions from all manner of places will be of benefit to everyone. Four: Scriptures say in the multitude of counsel, there is safety (Proverb 11: 14). So, counsel and advice cannot be too much. Five: It is a known fact that many of those who walk the corridors of power seldom tell our leaders the truth. Leaders are often cut off from reality; they get caged. A high-ranking senator made this same allegation recently. Six: Since we all have a stake in getting our problems solved and making our country better, offering possible solutions is one way of contributing our own quota to making the country great. If, truly, the rules of the public space is as Wale has said, then, it should quickly be amended to put a burden on critics. Otherwise, criticism just for the sake of criticism is mere hot air; a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing! Apologies, William Shakespeare! Aside from political partisans, skit makers and comedians qualify as some of the most vicious violators of the rule of the public space. How to rein them in without violating their freedom of speech is a challenge.

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump on July 13 at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania has sucked the oxygen from the debate on President Joe Biden’s fitness for a second term. The discussion will resurface, but Democrats should forget it. The party is stuck with Biden.

The odds are daunting. It must feel like a difficult marriage heading for a shipwreck. However, with only four months to the election, facing the odds is the only way to overcome them. Expectedly, Biden doubled down on his decision to run after the presidential debate with Trump left the president looking like the victim of a car crash.

He has tried to redeem himself several times and has snagged on his speeches every time. Yet, despite his frail health, stumbling speeches, and the mocking caricatures in the media, Biden insists he would stay in the race.

“I know I’m not a young man,” Biden said after the debate with Trump. “I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but I know what I do know — I know how to tell the truth!”

Stuck on him

As doubts about his fitness persist, one truth that he weighs is whether it’s in his party’s best interest to run. With a heavy heart, it’s fair to say that the answer is yes. Democrats are stuck with Biden. However worrying the prospects of a defeat – particularly a defeat to Trump – might seem, Biden’s candidacy still gives the party the best chance to win or rebuild.

Some think Biden should let Vice President Kamala Harris run. She has received support from members of Congress, especially from her state of California, women organisations, progressive activists, and sections of the Asian American community.

Her supporters have given reasons, from her relatively younger age to the likelihood that, given her background as a prosecutor and Attorney General, she would pay more attention to issues like criminal justice reform, immigration and healthcare. Others have added that her ethnic nationality would bring diversity to the ticket and energise Latinos, Asians and Blacks, who are increasingly important demographics among voters.

Others, like Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Michigan governors, have also been mentioned as possible Biden replacements, but none would appear as viable as Harris. Yet, for all the promises she offers, there are many reasons Biden, instead of Harris, remains the Democrats’ best card.

Remember Hilary?

Hilary Clinton, former First Lady and Secretary of State, apart from being a senator, a white woman and one of the best-kept secrets of the deep state, could not defeat Trump in 2016 because America was not ready. It was unprepared to discard the bogey of an “evil” Clinton dynasty. It was – and still is – unprepared for a female president.

Sure, more women are serving in the US Congress today, and voters’ attitudes toward having a female president have slightly improved. But not so fast when a woman of colour is on the ballot.

We never know what might have happened if Hilary challenged Trump again in 2020. But she declined not only because the previous contest had left her with deep emotional scars but because the Democratic party had also come to the inevitable conclusion that in what was supposed to be a post-modern society, gender – and the elephant in the room, race – remained a big issue.

It’s unlikely that Harris would succeed where Clinton failed, a hint that may also be responsible for Michelle Obama staying out of the race despite her popularity in the opinion polls.

Harris’ bonafide

Harris’ slim chance against Trump has little to do with her credentials. She was a former Attorney General and senator from California who formed a bipartisan coalition to enact a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure to remove every lead pipe in the US. She has also been on the frontline to reform the healthcare system, especially among the vulnerable, and reduce gun violence, among other things.

On a typical day, Harris is an asset to the Democratic party and might still be for some time. But this November election is an unusual one. America is deeply divided, and trust in politics is so severely broken that a Wall Street Journal poll indicated that even though this is the first presidential rematch in five decades, nearly 10 per cent of voters are still undecided.

That shouldn’t be because voters have records to judge the contestants: Trump, the demagogue, cut taxes for the middle class and massively removed regulations, among other things; Biden, on the other hand, has recorded two crucial years of job growth in a long time and managed to keep the economy steady, despite the supply chain disruptions of COVID-19. Inflation has taken a significant toll on families but could have been worse.

The jury is out on voters’ feelings, especially where it matters most: their pockets. Although the demographics of the undecided population – less educated, less wealthy, less politically aware and engaged, less interested in politics, but definitely more diverse – should favour Harris, the “silent voters” or “hidden Trump voters” who blindsided pollsters and torpedoed Clinton eight years ago are still alive and well.

Teflon Trump thrives in scandals. Today’s Feeble Joe is not the same Biden who faced Trump four years ago and got away by the skin of his teeth. While he is weaker, frailer and poorer even at sharing his accomplishments in the last four years, his opponent, Trump, has been emboldened by his worst excesses. The race for the US presidency is a match-up between horror and uncertainty.

Strength in weakness

Yet, Biden’s weaknesses, especially his common touch – not Harris’ strengths – are the Democrats’ most potent weapon against a candidate who would lie, cheat, inflate, incite and routinely invent stories to get by. It’s a hard thing to say, but Biden, with all his frailties, is the medicine for Trump’s demagoguery.

Biden stepping down at this time will further weaken and divide the Democrats, giving them very little time to rally before the election. And if the worst, a Trump victory happens – which I think is improbable – then the party would have the chance to rebuild from its potentially less fragmented ruins.

What’s in it for Africa? Heads or tails, not a lot. Trump made clear that it was America first and last and the rest of the world, especially Africa, was shithole. Some still romanticise the Biden Senate years, when he spoke against apartheid, railed against injustice in the Middle East and pursued global peace through multilateralism.

A new Biden

That was then. The Biden of the last four years has massively funded Ukraine’s senseless war with Russia, a meat grinder if ever there was one, and paid scant attention to Africa. He has also proved utterly ineffective in getting Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the killings in Gaza.

The election in November is not about Africa. It’s about whether an exceptional country that lost its way in 2016 – with horrific consequences for the rest of the world – is determined to lose it yet again.

Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP and author of the new book Writing for Media and Monetising It.