Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Trafficking and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Prof. Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, has condemned the recent killings in Benue State, describing them as a grave crime against humanity.

Ezeilo said the killing of over 200 people in the state by suspected Fulani herdsmen was a horrific and inhumane attack that must not go unpunished.
“This massacre must not go unpunished. We need to understand the root causes and ensure accountability,” she said.

Ezeilo described the tragic incident in Benue as a reflection of the escalating insecurity across the country.
According to her, the massacre underscores the failure of government to protect lives and property, adding that the right to life is sacrosanct and constitutionally guaranteed.
“It is intolerable that communities remain exposed and vulnerable while perpetrators of such atrocious crimes operate with apparent impunity,” Ezeilo stated.

Calling for immediate action, she urged the Federal and State Governments, as well as security agencies, to live up to their constitutional responsibilities by prioritising the safety of citizens.

She also demanded a thorough investigation into the attack and swift justice for the victims.
“Every Nigerian life matters. The government must act decisively and transparently to restore peace and rebuild trust in the system,” she said.

[DailyPost]

Nigerian comedian and actor, Woli Arole, has sparked debate on social media after strongly criticising women who opt for surrogacy despite being physically capable of carrying a pregnancy.

In a post shared on his Instagram page on Monday, Arole described such choices as misguided and influenced by “wokeness” and modern ideologies that, according to him, undermine divine purpose.

He wrote,”Listen carefully. It is a blessing for a woman to carry her baby in her womb.

“That’s how God wants it. Don’t let wokeness derail you.

“Unless for medical reasons, she can adopt options like surrogacy, IVF and all.”

While acknowledging the need for assisted reproduction in cases of infertility or health challenges, Arole condemned surrogacy as a matter of personal preference.

He dismissed the notion that women should be free to choose surrogacy simply based on autonomy or convenience.

“You can’t say, ‘my body, my decision. I don’t feel like carrying a child. I want surrogacy.’

No!! Your body is God’s temple!!” A role said.

The comedian further argued that the womb is a sacred gift meant to fulfill a divine role, not something to be bypassed for lifestyle reasons.

“Don’t let wokeness derail you. Your body is God’s temple.

“Surrogacy is not something you just choose!! There’s a reason God gave you a womb,” Arole added.

His comments have since stirred reactions online, drawing both support and criticism over his stance on women’s reproductive choices and the broader conversation around bodily autonomy and evolving family structures.

[Punch

“If you forget where you are coming from, do not forget where you are going”— African proverb

It is 32 years since June 12, 1993. 

Millions of young Nigerians know the date as Democracy Day, a day politicians make speeches and  Nigerians ask for more from their democracy. Until 2018, Democracy Day was May 29th, the day our elected presidents and governors are sworn-in every four years after intensely contested elections.

 In 2018, President Buhari moved it up to June 12, quite possibly to gain political capital from series of events that represented the best and the worst of Nigerians. On this day, millions of workers stay at home, many at the expense of earning the daily income to feed the family. Newspapers write strong editorials reminding Nigerians why June 12, now Democracy Day, is significant. 

Historians and actors directly involved in the events that created June 12 have argued so violently over the substance and the details of June 12 that it has come to represent the character  of our written history as a nation: all-comers versions of real events that deprive us of solid nation-building blocks.

This year’s Democracy Day lived up to tradition. It was about speeches by politicians and widespread grumbling over the quality of our democracy by the citizenry. A threatened national protest to demand good governance flopped, sending signals that even hardened activists are losing steam. Governments heaved sighs of relief at empty streets and sleeping security personnel, as Nigerians voted with their feet in favour of the day’s meal, not ideals and values. There were  mentions of June 12, 1993 when the nation came closest to having the best election in its history, under the most undemocratic context. It was aborted at delivery by a military unable to read signs.

That reckless impunity by the military set into motion a chain of events that showed a smattering of remarkable personal courage, unmentionable levels of opportunism and betrayals for which the nation is still paying a price. The national outrage over the first step to restitution for democratic governance was, sadly, gradually ethnicized and transformed into a gross injustice against Yoruba people. One version of history will record another injustice done to Abiola, even more offensive than the abortion of an election he would have won. This was the hijacking of his mission to provide leadership as a Nigerian, not a Yoruba person. Then, champions of democratization and close allies of Abiola fell over themselves to partake in the spoils of the crime. A few others who had stepped up to resist the outrage were alienated for coming from the wrong part of the country, and they walked away. Key players stretched the aborted election into a struggle for democracy and built themselves as its champions.  The military blundered on, with pronounced complicity of many civilian politicians. The ghosts of 1993 haunted the military for five more years until it ran into a dead end. In between, Abiola, ‘Yar Adua, Abacha and a few others had paid for their parts with their lives. Others grew in stature while in exile. Many moved away, frustrated by suffocating primordialism. The military ran itself out of space and out of ideas. It rushed a terminal programme, with a pronounced element of placating Yoruba people, by this time, identified as the aggrieved people.

Thirty years on, June 12 has become just another of many days Nigerians are asked to take a holiday. A raging debate is going on around our severely damaged country with leaders being held as prime suspects. The relationship between elected leaders since 1999 and the struggles to build a sustainable democratic culture and system is uncanny. Obasanjo was the unlikely beneficiary of a struggle he had nothing to do with.His presidency was product of an alliance involving an exhausted and exiting military, key players of the Northern political establishment and a faction of Yoruba political elite. He contested against the candidate of another faction of the Yoruba elite which felt entitled to crown its own Yoruba beneficiary of Abiola’s legacy. President Tinubu was with the latter, but had enough standing and resources to win the governorship election in Lagos.

Obasanjo started his presidency with almost the entire South-West’s back turned against him. It says a lot about the power of political power that in the four years of his first term, he had turned almost the entire region round to support him, except Governor Tinubu in Lagos who remained implaccably opposed to him to the end. Obasanjo conjured a successor in Umaru Yar ‘Adua, younger brother of his friend Shehu Musa  Yar’Adua who also had to make the supreme sacrifice in the struggle to oust the military permanently from power. ‘Yar ‘Adua’s deputy finished his term and won his own term. He in turn was defeated by Buhari, himself an earlier beneficiary and casualty of the military’ grip when he ruled as military head of state from 1983 to 1985.

Tinubu’s ‘Emi lokan’ in 2022 was not, therefore, without some foundation. He had been part of the democratization struggle for 30-odd years. He stood with Abiola in trying moments. He propped up NADECO all the way to the departure of the military. He stood firm in defying Obasanjo’s roller coaster, digging deep into a stubborn streak to survive multiple attempts to make him and Lagos fall in line.  He loaned Malam Nuhu Ribadu, then Vice President Atiku Abubakar his political platform to contest the Presidency. He successfully paired his party with Buhari’s CPC to form the APC and win Buhari’s two terms. He survived multiple schemes by people who owed him a lot, to frustrate his campaign. He gambled on a Muslim-Muslim ticket, earning for himself a huge chunk of the North and South-West to win the presidency.

It would appear that June 12 has turned full circle to settle, at least for now, on Tinubu. How will the spirit of June 12 judge President Tinubu today? Will it look hard to recognize the person behind an enormous range of power and influence lording it over a severely distressed country? Will it scream when it sees him in an orgy of self-glorification, having pubic buildings, airports,  schools and  roads named after him just two years into a presidency? Will it recognize the schemer and visioner when it sees him at the heart of a political strategy that recommends eating up the opposition and laughing in its face, even when the race is only half-run? Will June 12 see Tinubu as its traitor or a worthy ambassador?

 One more word….

Happy 90th birthday to a Nigerian I hold with the greatest respect and admiration, my role model, Chief Sam Amuka.

 My best wishes, Sir.

….Tinubu-Shettima ticket sacrosanct, despite fracas —APC

More facts emerged yesterday regarding the reasons that triggered the brawl, which disrupted the North-East Consultative Meeting of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in Gombe State, on Sunday, as key political actors began to speak on the matter.

Vanguard learnt from credible stakeholders in the North-East that mistrust has existed among the governors over who should replace Vice President Kashim Shettima, amid speculation that President Tinubu may not run with him again in 2027.

It was gathered that while some of those opposed to Shettima’s retention as Tinubu’s running mate in 2027 based their position on what they termed the “ineffectiveness of the Muslim-Muslim ticket,” others consider him a “dull politician” who has failed to speak up when it mattered most.

Among those in that camp are individuals pushing for either the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, or another northern candidate to replace Shettima in the next election.

Others, who still prefer a Muslim as running mate, support the current Governor of Gombe State, Inuwa Yahaya, to be considered for the number two position. However, they had not openly presented the proposal until the zonal meeting provided an opportunity.

Although the brewing opposition to Shettima was relatively unknown to many stakeholders, the issue has remained a topic of quiet debate among the three APC governors in the zone.

To prevent the matter from spilling into the public domain, the governors of Yobe, Gombe, and Borno reportedly held a series of meetings aimed at ensuring that the disagreement over Shettima did not surface publicly before, during, or after the Gombe meeting.

It was learnt that the purpose of the meetings was to adopt a unified position indicating that stakeholders from the six states of the North-East were unanimously backing both President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima for re-election in 2027.

A top politician and former governor from one of the states who attended the meeting said:
“The governors were divided over the endorsement of Shettima. Only Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno agreed to the idea, while the governors of Yobe and Gombe remained neutral.

“Indeed, the three governors held multiple meetings in an effort to adopt a common position to present to stakeholders, but they could not reach a consensus.”

No cause for alarm

Meanwhile, the Deputy National Chairman (North) of APC, Ali Bukar Dalori, has said there is no cause for alarm in the party’s National Vice Chairman (North East), Mustapha Salihu’s endorsement of President Tinubu for a second term in the 2027 general elections-without mentioning Vice President Shettima as running mate-during the party’s Zonal Consultative Meeting held in Gombe State last Sunday.

Dalori said among others, “I have read in various national dailies about the outcome of our APC North-East Zonal Meeting in Gombe Sunday. Yes, I agree there was a fracas where some people felt aggrieved and hurled objects at Hon. Mustapha Salihu, the APC National Vice Chairman (North East), because he did not mention Kashim Shettima’s name after endorsing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for a second term in 2027.

“But whether Salihu did it intentionally or not, I want to assure the people of the North-East and Nigerians in general that there is no cause for alarm. Salihu is entitled to his political opinion.

Ganduje endorses joint ticket

Also reacting, the Senior Special Assistant on Public Enlightenment to the National Chairman of APC, Oliver Okpala, condemned the attack on Dr Ganduje, during the meeting.

In a statement he said: “There is no space for violence in Nigeria’s political landscape at present. Party members should adhere to the civil tenets of political decency, decorum, and comportment in their political engagements.”

Okpala praised Ganduje’s leadership, saying: “The National Chairman of the APC is a father to all. Since assuming office, he has worked to unite members and shown love to all. His relationship with both the President and Vice President is solid-like the Rock of Gibraltar.”

“Even when Dr. Ganduje tried to diffuse the tension by reminding them that it is a joint ticket, these individuals-who seemed recalcitrant by nature-refused to see reason or accept his sincere explanation.
“He emphasized that the North-East produced Nigeria’s number two citizen and that the APC values the zone. The President and Vice President are constitutionally joined as one ticket-yet they still refused to listen.”

[Vanguard]

The Katsina government has reacted to the recent peace deals between repentant bandits and authorities in the state.

Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Nasir Mu’azu, Katsina commissioner for internal security and home affairs, clarified that the state government is not negotiating with bandits.

Last weekend, Ado Aleru, a wanted bandit leader, resurfaced at a peace meeting in Bichi community, Danmusa LGA of Katsina state.

Aleru, who has been on the police watchlist since 2020, with a N5 million bounty on his head, was seen in a video addressing community members, government officials, security personnel, and traditional leaders.

The meeting was attended by personnel of the Nigerian Army (NA), Danmusa LGA officials, and religious and traditional leaders.

Some bandit leaders surrendered and embraced peace during the meeting.

In recent times, peace meetings with bandits have been held in other LGAs, including Jibia.

‘WE’LL DEAL WITH REPENTANT BANDITS IF THEY RENEGE ON AGREEMENT’

Mu’azu said while the state government would not engage in negotiations with bandits, it would offer them the chance to reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens if they drop their arms.

The Katsina commissioner said some communities in Jibia, Batsari, and Danmusa LGA recently held productive discussions with repentant bandits.

He added that if the ex-non-state actors renege on their promises, the government will deal with them.

“The position of government is very clear, from ab initio, the government of Katsina under Dikko Radda will not negotiate with bandits,” he said.

“If the bandits feel the need to drop their arms and come forward, the government is ready to give them the opportunity to live like every normal citizen of Katsina state.

“We are very lucky that bandits in Jibia and Batsari LGAs came forward, through their messengers, and initiated discussions with the leadership of their communities.

“Alhamdulillah, the discussions were robust and we are having peaceful activities in both Jibia and Batsari LGAs.

“Last week, bandits in Danmusa LGA also sent a messenger to their communities. There was also discussion and it yielded another form of peace deal with the LGA authorities as well as all the communities in Danmusa LGA.”

The Katsina commissioner said intermittent attacks will continue on bandit hideouts in Kankara, Faskari, Sabuwa, and Dandume.

“We will give them the opportunity for them to continue with normal activities but in case of them reneging their promises, we are going to deal with them as we used to,” he said.

[TheCable]

In his 2025 Democracy Day address to the nation, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu delivered a solemn and reflective tribute to Nigeria’s democratic journey, anchoring his message on the enduring legacy of June 12, 1993, a day widely regarded as when the freest and fairest election in Nigeria’s history was held. Central to the President’s message was the acknowledgement and recognition of the sacrifices made by heroes and heroines of democracy, both living and dead.

Among the most significant moments of his speech was the posthumous conferment of a national honour on Professor Humphrey Nwosu, the man who chaired the National Electoral Commission (NEC) and conducted the historic 1993 presidential election. Until now, Professor Nwosu had remained largely uncelebrated by the state, despite his instrumental role in organizing and supervising an electoral process that defied the entrenched culture of electoral fraud and impunity that characterized Nigeria’s past.

President Tinubu’s recognition of Professor Nwosu represents not just an act of justice but a symbolic restoration of truth in the nation’s political memory. By honouring the late Professor, the President corrected a historical oversight that had relegated a courageous public servant to the margins of national acclaim. Nwosu’s leadership in deploying the Open Ballot System and presiding over what was widely seen as a peaceful, credible, and transparent election was a watershed moment in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. Yet, for decades, the state had been hesitant to accord him due recognition, largely because the outcome of the election was annulled and politically suppressed.

In honouring Nwosu, President Tinubu gave voice to a long-suppressed national conscience and affirmed that the truth, no matter how long buried, would eventually emerge. It was a profound gesture of reconciliation with the past and a forward-looking affirmation that Nigeria would never again allow those who protect democracy to be forgotten or punished for doing the right thing.

The President’s words were not only an affirmation of democratic ideals but also a recommitment to the principle that the Nigerian people must remain the ultimate custodians of power. By highlighting Nwosu’s contribution alongside that of Chief M.K.O. Abiola and other martyrs of June 12, Tinubu subtly reinforced the narrative that democracy is neither an abstract concept nor a mere routine of elections. It is a hard-earned trust forged in the crucible of struggle, sacrifice, and national aspiration.

In this light, the 2025 Democracy Day was more than a ceremonial occasion. It was a redemptive moment. A time when a long-neglected chapter of national history was finally reopened and written with justice, honour, and gratitude. For Professor Humphrey Nwosu and all those who stood for truth when it was most dangerous to do so, Nigeria’s democracy now bears the imprint of their courage, publicly affirmed at last.

Paul Nwosu PhD wrote from Awka.

I sincerely propose the convocation of Special Police Constabulary Unit (SPCU), given the palpable insecurity and the lukewarm attitude of the governors to establish State Police.

Luckily the Special Police Constabulary Unit (SPCU), is expressly stated in Sections 105 -109 of the Nigeria Police Act 2020.

My recommendation is that the SPCU should be well equipped with sophisticated arsenal to contain kidnappers, terrorists and insurgents at the grassroots, without authoritarian antics.

Also the Special Constabulary Police Units nationwide should be funded by Federal and State Governments, jointly recruited from indigenes of the given state in collaboration with the governors and large input from the local community vigilantes. 

SPCU should be strewn with scant Federal strings if possibly funded directly from the Federal Account Allocation Commission (FAAC), with specific deductions from Federal, State and Local Governments allocations. This will provide efficiency and necessary moderation, so that the Governors are not rendered helpless.

My proposal is consequent upon a worrisome alarm that few months ago we jubilated when the National Economic Council (NEC) informed Nigerians that majority of the 36 State Governors had in bipartisan manner endorsed the establishment of State Police. 

Albeit we have not heard from the same National Executive Council (NEC) since April 24, 2025 meeting to date, thus exhibiting nonchalance mindset to such urgent national security policy. 

Their communique after the meeting was a tepid statement, “For your information, state police was part of our agenda today, unfortunately because of time demands after a very long meeting. You know we have been here for a very long time, because of the presentations, we were unable to get to that.” His Excellency, Bayelsa State Governor Douye Diri submitted. 

Now with over 200 brothers and sisters of ours killed in Yelwata; is the above statement not alarming that despite the gruesome insecurity in our dear country, the National Economic Council has on the issue of State Police gone on voicemail? 

My dear countrymen, now that our Emperor Governors are hesitant to convoke State Police, do we in all intents and purposes make altruistic sense to beg them.

In good conscience can we put our dear Governors in control of arms, when we know that they hate alternative views, most illiberal, and have scant regard to the rule of law doctrine?

Therefore, Special Police Constabulary is the answer and will perform similar functions if not better, because they will be better jointly funded. 

Mr Osita Okechukwu 

Foundation Member of APC

Let me state that, while I have no interest in joining issues with anybody, and I do agree that not just the Judiciary, but the legal profession as a whole, and most other sectors and institutions in Nigeria, even the family, require deep cleansing and possibly, a reset; but, in trying to do these repairs and moral rearmament, constructive, and not destructive criticism is required. The latter’s name is self-explanatory – it is destructive and counterproductive, achieving nothing but the enhancement of toxicity in more ways than we can count, all over the country. 

I recall seeing something on social media during the Buhari administration, in which Malam Nasiru El-Rufai had been asked why, as Governor of Kaduna State, he had made a u-turn on his stand about paying ransom to kidnappers to free abductees. Before his tenure as Governor and as a strong member of the opposition, Malam El-Rufai had stated that Government must do whatever it takes to free victims. As Governor, he recanted and said Government must not pay ransom to kidnappers. He then added that, even if the incumbent Government is doing well, as the opposition, they criticise their policies even if they are good! This type of attitude which is what we see from disgruntled Politicians and those who have an axe to grind, is unhelpful, dangerous, destructive criticism. Such critics use it as a means to discredit and breed enmity between the public and those who they criticise, in order to sway the hearts of the same people to their own side. Certainly, the goals of betterment that should be achieved, will not be reached by disgruntled Politicians, ethnic ‘gingoists’ (pretending that they are fighting for the implementation of Federal Character as per Section 13(3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, when they were silent when their own ethnic groups held the best positions), those who have an axe to grind because the 2023 elections didn’t favour their candidates, and rumour mongers spreading falsehood and bile to the unknowing public, igniting the flames of hatred and generally heating the polity. And, this is certainly not what Nigeria needs. 

For instance, the Hausa/Fulani (though different are lumped as one), Igbo and Yoruba ethnic groups, have always been considered to be the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria. Take for example, INEC, FEDECO, ECN, or whichever name the Nigerian Electoral Commission has been known by. From its establishment in 1959 to date, the Commission has never been headed by a Yoruba man. Someone had told me that the rationale behind INEC, was that none of these aforementioned three majority ethnic groups should ever head the Commission, to allow for better objectivity/impartiality from the Head of the Commission. But, when this rule was broken in 1989 and 2005 by appointing two Igbos as INEC Chairmen, Prof Humphrey Nwosu and Prof Maurice Iwu respectively, I don’t remember hearing any outcry against it, at least, not concerning their ethnicity. Similarly, in the last 15 years, the Commission has been headed by Prof Attahiru Jega and then Prof Mahmood Yakubu who is about to complete his second term (first in INEC’s history to do two terms), both possibly Hausa/Fulani. If President Tinubu appoints a Yoruba man as INEC Chairman, he will be accused of ‘Yorubanisation’, even though out of the three major ethnic groups and the three Southern zones, the Yorubas (Southwest) are the only ones who have never been appointed as INEC Chairman. But, my question is, how progressive is this kind of thinking? Should it be about tribe, or the brightest and the best for the job? I believe that the latter is the correct answer, whatever the person’s ethnic origin. 

And, before anybody goes up in arms to say that they could use the same argument that the Southeast hasn’t yet produced a President in this Republic, we cannot ignore the fact that election and appointment are two different things. And, it appears that Politicians in the major political parties, including those of Igbo origin, aren’t committed to producing an Igbo President. The Igbo Presidential Aspirants must emerge from party primaries as the Presidential candidates of the major parties. If this had been the case in the 2022 PDP and APC Primaries, the electorate would have voted for one or the other Igbo candidate. Unfortunately, even the Igbo delegates in these two parties didn’t vote for their people!

Unsubstantiated Allegations Against the JSC

On Friday, I saw a post made by a platform called “The Nigeria Lawyer” on social media, citing posts by Prof Chidi Odinkalu accusing a Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC) of impropriety for being at Protea Hotel, Edo State, and allegedly being in the company of the Edo State Attorney-General, coinciding with the time when an appeal was  lodged at the Supreme Court against the Edo State Governor by the PDP Candidate, following the Edo State Gubernatorial election. The video of the gentleman who was allegedly named as the JSC, circulated to buttress the point was unclear, and even though the silhouette of a man could be seen, the identity of the man couldn’t be properly ascertained in the video that made the rounds. And, even if indeed, it was the JSC in the video, it was clear that his arrival at the place was in broad day light, and that he was alone, not in the company of anybody. 

My first observation is that, it is interesting that the video that is strangely being used to push a narrative that the JSC went to meet AG Edo for some shady meeting in the night, showed only a man during the daytime, and not two people, the man and the AG. If the video was meant to corroborate the narrative that was posted about the JSC, it did not, at least not for me, a Lawyer of almost 34 years standing, or any Lawyer worth his salt, as the video doesn’t even reach the level of circumstantial evidence. It only showed that the man in the video, even if it was the JSC, arrived at a place. 

In Ayinde v State (2023) LPELR-60153 (SC) per Amina Adamu Augie, JSC the Supreme Court held that “…the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling, and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt”. I submit that the video posted by Prof Odinkalu, certainly does not meet the threshold set in Ayinde v State (Supra) – it wasn’t cogent, compelling, unequivocal or complete – far from it! Aside from the fact that it only showed that the person in the video entered a lobby, and certainly proves nothing but the fact that he entered the place, the statement which has since been issued by the Supreme Court that the JSC had sought and obtained the permission of the CJN to attend a funeral in Benin, trumps any other unsubstantiated hypothesis proffered by Prof Odinkalu. 

I recall that when the Supreme Court judgement in Sunday Jackson’s murder case was delivered, Prof Odinkalu issued a statement in which, like so many others, he showed his dissatisfaction with the decision affirming Mr Jackson’s conviction for killing Mr Bawuro, a Fulani Herdsman. In his submission on the Jackson case, Prof Odinkalu made a statement which showed that he didn’t verify his facts fully, nor could he have read the 5 judgements in the case, or that, if he did, he preferred to suppress the fact that the Head of the Panel, Hon. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC had delivered a dissenting judgement allowing Mr Jackson’s appeal, setting aside his conviction and recommending that the Adamawa Governor exercise the prerogative of mercy in his favour. Instead, Prof Odinkalu stated thus: “The miracle in this case, is how the court reached a unanimous judgement”; this part of his submission, was absolutely false. In a bid to bash the Supreme Court, spread bile and further turn the public against the Judiciary, Prof Odinkalu, didn’t mind disseminating a lie. What veracity can we then attach to his statements without proof or irresistible circumstantial evidence, if he is able to disseminate a blatant falsehood which could easily be verified by reading the judgements in Jackson’s case?

Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Federal Republic of Nigeria

Though the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Federal Republic of Nigeria 2016 (CCJO) may be considered to be somewhat of a derogation from some of the fundamental rights guaranteed Nigerians, such as Sections 39(1), 40 & 41(1) of the Constitution, that is, freedom of expression, association and movement (also see Section 45(1) of the Constitution and Rule 5 of the CCJO), as it has robust rules regulating the behaviour of judicial officers in Nigeria, the rules are designed to uphold the integrity of judicial office. If attending the funeral of the Mother of a recent President of the African Bar Association with the permission of CJN (see Rule 14.3 of the CCJO) is considered to be controversial by Prof Odinkalu and the Nigeria Lawyer, because Justices are no longer allowed to travel nor visit places for fear that they may run into litigants that have cases in their courts, then all judicial officers should never go anywhere, even the hospital or places of worship, aside from sitting in their courts! 

There is obviously a remedy for this in Rule 12.1 of the CCJO, which allows judicial officers to disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality can genuinely be questioned. Litigants may also apply to Heads of Court for their matters to be reassigned, where they allege bias on the part of the Judge. In the 2019 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal at the Court of Appeal, that is, Atiku Abubakar v Muhammadu Buhari, the then President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa voluntarily withdrew from sitting on the Panel, or maybe not so voluntarily, because the Petitioner had also applied for her Lordship to recuse herself from the case because her husband and son were card-carrying members of the APC, and at the time, her husband was also a Senator-elect on the APC platform. See the case of R v Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 K.B. 259 where the Court held that “Justice must not only be done, but also seen as done”. Also see Rafiu Womiloju & Ors v Ogisanyin-Anibire & Ors (2010) LPELR-3503(SC) per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC (later CJN) on what must be established to prove allegations of likelihood of bias. 

Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners

Part IV of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 (LPA) Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC) sets out how the Legal Practitioner should conduct relations with the court, and Section 31(1) thereof provides that a Lawyer shall treat the court with respect, dignity and honour. The RPC, nevertheless, recognises the fact that a Lawyer can have a complaint against a judicial officer, and provides that such complaint should be made to the appropriate authorities (see Section 31(2) of the RPC), instead of scandalising judicial officers in public without ample evidence. 

As Lawyers, Officers in the Temple of Justice, it is not only our duty but our training, not to be reckless in our utterances, and refrain from hurling false/unsubstantiated allegations at people/judicial officers which may tend to damage their reputation, bringing them down in the estimation of right thinking members of society without proof, when we know that, in law, this is called defamation. They may even be attacked physically by members of the public, with these kinds of unproven/false damaging narratives. In Emmanuel v Felix & Ors (2022) LPELR-57960(CA) per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JCA (as he then was) the Court of Appeal held thus: “The tort of defamation aims at punishing and thereby, discouraging the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person. The Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines defamation as ”the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation”. 

Conclusion 

It appears that by their utterances and publications, Prof Odinkalu and the Nigeria Lawyer have issued defamatory statements against the JSC and the Supreme Court. A person who wasn’t shy to push a false narrative that the Sunday Jackson judgement which was a split decision, was unanimous, just to disparage the Supreme Court, would be only too glad to disseminate any photos or videos of a clandestine meeting between the JSC and Edo AG if indeed, any such thing exists. The video circulated, goes to no issue. This is not to say that the Supreme Court, all JSCs or all judicial officers are perfect. No. Judicial officers need to take their judicial oath and the CCJO more seriously, as indeed, there are bad eggs within their ranks – some corrupt, some inept. But, my point is that, we cannot tar everybody with the same brush of iniquity, or frame them with guilt without proof, simply to scandalise them. Such destructive behaviour only further erodes public confidence in the Judiciary, and does absolutely nothing to improve it.

A good deal of bad behaviour perpetrated by Lawyers, especially the Senior ones – forum shopping; filing multiple actions; filing frivolous cases (see Section 14(1), (2)(e) & 32 of the RPC) and bringing the courts into odium and opprobrium with their abusive statements, particularly when they lose a case, qualify not just as defamation, but also as professional misconduct/infamous conduct – see Section 11 of the LPA on penalties for unprofessional conduct. Maybe when the LPDC becomes more up and doing in its duty to deal with erring legal practitioners, will we begin to see restraint and better behaviour from Lawyers. 

The way to bring about positive reform of the Judiciary, is not by spreading rumours. Holistic measures must be taken, including creating a better, transparent recruitment process of judicial officers based on merit and integrity, while the NJC must concentrate on instilling discipline and not sparing erring judicial officers. And, the way to bring about progress in the country, is not by entrenching ethnic division, but rather, by pooling our resources together, and united, facing the issues that confront us as a country. After all, poverty and hunger, are not tribalistic – they affect everyone.

Hon Justice Lawal Uwais, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, died on the 6th of June  2025. He was 89.

 In the annals of Nigerian constitutional history, few jurists have left a legacy as enduring and transformative as that of Hon. Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais.

 While his tenure on the Supreme Court bench was the longest in the Court’s history, it was his years as Chief Justice—from the twilight of military rule to the dawn of the Fourth Republic—that would define his judicial legacy.

Presiding over the Supreme Court during a fragile transition from authoritarianism to democracy, Uwais steered the Court through some of the most consequential constitutional battles in Nigeria’s federal evolution. Between 1999 and 2007, his Court was called upon to adjudicate in at least a dozen cases where state governments challenged the Federal Government’s overreach, testing the very boundaries of Nigeria’s federal structure.

 The disputes involved radical, novel, and far-reaching constitutional questions that demanded intellectual clarity, institutional courage, and unwavering fidelity to the Constitution.

Justice Uwais rose to that moment with  principled resolve. Without drama or personal posturing, he insisted that the Constitution—not political convenience—must always prevail. His judgments reflected a deep understanding of federalism not as a theoretical ideal, but as a living structure requiring balance, accountability, and mutual respect between the tiers of government.

Among the questions the Uwais Court was called upon to resolve was whether State governments could lawfully sue the Federal Government over constitutional disputes. In AG Ondo State v. AG Federation (2002), the Court affirmed this right unequivocally, holding that states had standing to bring legal action against the centre when federal laws or actions appeared to breach the constitutional order. It was a foundational ruling that affirmed judicial redress as a legitimate tool of federal self-defence.

When Lagos State challenged federal authority over urban development and physical planning, the question that arose was who truly controls land use and planning within a State’s territory, especially where federal lands are involved? In AG Lagos State v. AG Federation (2003), the Uwais Court held that the State government retains exclusive legislative and executive authority over urban and regional planning, even in respect of federal land located within its boundaries. The federal government, the Court ruled, must obtain necessary development permits from the state in accordance with its planning laws—an important assertion of territorial autonomy.

The boundaries of fiscal federalism were tested on the issue of ownership of oil revenues derived from offshore wells. In AG Federation v. AG Abia State (No. 2) (2002), the Court determined that offshore natural resources—particularly those beyond the 200 nautical-mile limit belonged not to the littoral states but to the Federation as a whole. This decision placed constitutional boundaries on resource control claims while paving the way for the derivation formula to be refined in subsequent fiscal arrangements.

Controversy also surrounded the power of States to create new local government areas. In AG Lagos State v. AG Federation (2004), Lagos had established 37 new Local Governments Areas. While the Court acknowledged the State’s authority to create such entities through enabling legislation, it stressed that these new councils could not be recognised as constitutional local government areas—and thus could not receive direct federal allocations—until their existence was ratified by the National Assembly via listing of the newly created local governments in part 2 of the First Schedule to the Constitution.

Of even greater moment was the courts  determination that the President lacks the constitutional power to unilaterally withhold funds due to existing local governments, underscoring that no tier of government may be arbitrarily denied its lawful entitlement from the Federation account.

The Uwais Court also addressed the question as to whether the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could lawfully impose additional registration criteria on political parties beyond what the Constitution prescribes. In INEC v. Musa (2003), the Court invalidated several provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC’s guidelines that required evidence of national spread, physical offices in 24 states, and electoral victories as conditions for continued registration. It held that only the requirements stated in Section 222 of the Constitution—namely a registered office in Abuja, a defined party name and logo, and  membership open to all—were valid. Any further conditions imposed by statute or regulation were declared ultra vires and struck down, thereby widening the democratic space for political participation.

Equally pivotal was the Court’s clarification of legislative powers over primary education. In AG Ogun State v. AG Federation (2002), the Court ruled that primary education fell within the domain of concurrent legislative authority, meaning both federal and state governments had the constitutional competence to legislate in that field. This reaffirmed the cooperative nature of Nigerian federalism, where shared responsibilities do not imply subordination.

 In Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002), the Court confronted the tension between executive immunity and the rule of law. It held that while governors enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution while in office, they are not shielded from investigation. The distinction was critical: although they cannot be tried until they leave office, law enforcement agencies such as the police or EFCC may investigate alleged misconduct, thereby ensuring that accountability mechanisms are not frozen by immunity provisions.

The Court also pronounced on the independence of state legislatures from gubernatorial interference. In Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2004), the Court ruled that the governor has no role in the internal affairs of the House of Assembly, including its choice of leadership. Any attempt by the executive to influence the appointment or removal of a speaker constituted an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative autonomy and violated the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Perhaps the most far-reaching judgment of the Uwais era came in AG Abia & 35 Others v. AG Federation (2005), where the Court considered whether the Federal Government could deduct various “first-line charges” from the Federation Account before distributing revenue to the states and local governments. The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of Section 162 of the Constitution, holding that revenue must be distributed strictly in accordance with the formula approved by the National Assembly. Except for deductions expressly permitted—such as the 13% derivation for oil-producing states—all other first-line deductions, including payments to the NNPC for joint venture operations, external debt servicing, and even funding for the National Judicial Council (of which the Chief Justice was chair), were declared unconstitutional.

Remarkably, the Court ruled that although the NJC enjoys constitutional financial autonomy, it must receive its funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not directly from the Federation Account. In doing so, the Uwais Court placed the integrity of the Constitution above institutional interest—even its own.

For Justice Uwais, the Constitution was clearly not merely a ceremonial document. He understood it as a living covenant that bound all arms of government—and all levels of government—to a shared discipline. The Court he led did not shy away from calling the Federal Government to order, nor did it allow States to overreach their bounds. In his quiet, resolute way,  his Lordship elevated the authority of the judiciary and deepened Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

He will be remembered not only as the longest-serving Justice of the Supreme Court, but as one who laid critical foundational stones in the evolving legal architecture of a true federal republic.

The judgments delivered by the Uwais court  continue to shape Nigeria’s democratic journey and will remain beacons of principled adjudication for generations to come.

•Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, is immediate Past Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria – June 15, 2025