In 1954, Sir John Verity lost his job because he won an argument. It was in his ninth year in office as chief justice of colonial Nigeria. Sir John arrived in Nigeria in October 1945 from British Guyana, where he had served in a similar position since 1941. At the time, Nigeria was still a unitary system under colonial rule. 

Two years before Sir John arrived in Nigeria, the Native Courts (Colony) Ordinance of 1943 had created a “Supreme Court of Justice” for the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Taslim Elias, the distinguished academic who was destined to play a significant role in the administration of law and courts in post-colonial Africa, described the structure of the colonial court system that Sir John met on arrival in Nigeria as comprising “a Supreme Court, which is the highest court for the territory. It consists of two parts, a Divisional Court and a Full Court (as in the West African colonies), or a High Court and a Court of Appeal (as in several other colonies such as Jamaica, Singapore and Kenya), or simply a High Court (as in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia).”

That system had existed with modest adaptation since the Amalgamation in 1914. In his Amalgamation Report in 1919, Frederick Lugard, Nigeria’s founding governor-general, pointed out that it was made up of a chief justice and puisne judges who “sat at certain places and visited on Assize the ‘District Courts.’”

Six years into Sir John’s tenure as chief justice, in 1951, the colonial government turned the country into a federation. Two years later, one of the issues to engage the constitutional conference that began in London was the implication of this new structure for judicial administration. As the conference began, the delegates – mostly politicians who preferred in the language of the day to be called “nationalists” – advocated the decentralisation of the judiciary. Sir John opposed the proposal, venturing with what proved to be accurate foresight, that such a step “might lead to judges and magistrates becoming tools in the hands of politicians” and “might eventually lead to the control of the judiciary by the executive.” 

The conference relocated to Lagos in 1954 where the politicians overwhelmingly approved the proposal to regionalise the judiciary. Having lost the fight over the future of the judiciary that he led, Sir John opted to take early retirement from the office of chief justice. He was the penultimate English man in the role. 

In the reorganisation of the court system that followed upon the conclusion of the constitutional conference, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was created in 1954. The regions had high courts from which appeals could go to the FSC. The highest court for the country remained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. 

By 1963, the nationalists fighting for independence one decade earlier had metamorphosed into political incumbents seeking control of the courts (like their colonial predecessors). The privy council had effectively ruled in favour of the opposition Action Group (AG) on whether the regional governor could remove renegade premier, Ladoke Akintola, without a formal vote in the regional parliament. 

Confronted with the loss of a prized ally helpfully decimating the ranks of a loathed political foe (like a certain minister is doing today for the ruling party), the then-ruling federal coalition led by the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), legislated the privy council out of existence, abolished the Judicial Service Commission, and made the Supreme Court Nigeria’s apex court. Sir John’s prophecy had become a reality. 

Although the 1963 Constitution enabled the court to sit “in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint”, the supreme court has functioned from its seat, first in Lagos when it was the capital city for the first three decades after independence and, thereafter, from Abuja, the current federal capital. The fortunes of the court have waxed and waned in symmetry with the political economy of Nigeria. Unlike other courts in the country, there are no divisions of the supreme court. 

For much of its life, the supreme court was an all-comers affair for appeals “on questions of law.” As the claims on the court’s judicial bandwidth rose and the political economy of the country grew more complex, it was predictable that its docket would increase. The sensible thing to do was to reform the law governing access to the Supreme Court – as well as its doctrine – to keep pace with the increasing demand for the rarefied attention of the court and preserve its authority. This was not done.

Instead, since the onset of the current elective dispensation in 1999, the supreme court became preoccupied with electoral and political disputes. Among the many consequences from this, two are notable. First, the preoccupation of the court (and of the judiciary below it) with political and electoral disputes increasingly tasks its credibility. Second, the resulting prioritization accorded by the court to political cases has created an intolerable backlog to which there is no sensible solution under the current system of judicial administration. The result is that appeals not involving senior politicians or election results vegetate interminably in the bowels of the supreme court with no reasonable chance of getting heard. 

It is right that this situation should engage the attention of senior lawyers and senior politicians. Manu Soro, the member of the house of representatives representing Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi state, has decided to bell the proverbial cat. On World Anti-Corruption Day, 9 December 2024, his bill for supreme court reform was gazetted. 

The bill proposes – among other things – to authorise the establishment of five regional divisions of the supreme court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters. The bill comes complete with a political geography of the proposed divisions: Umuahia (Abia state) to serve the south-east; Bauchi (Bauchi state) for the north-east; Uyo (Akwa Ibom) for the south-south; Lagos (Lagos state) for the south-west; and Kano (Kano state) for the north-west. The declared objective of the bill is “to enhance access to the highest justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court”.

Commendable as it is for the initiative, this bill is plainly misguided for many reasons. First, it misconceives and mischaracterises the mission of the supreme court. Second, it has no diagnosis for the problems that ail the supreme court and, to the extent that it evinces any, offers no reasonable solution to them. Third, it offers a misplaced geographical and genealogical solution for a crisis of jurisdictional sclerosis and unimaginative judicial administration that it is unable to see.

The most charitable anyone can be about this bill is that it is hare-brained. The solution that it offers is guaranteed to make the situation worse, not better. It will also disestablish the court because a “supreme court” that sits in judicial divisions will be neither apex nor supreme. 

The crisis of appellate throughput and its consequences which presently afflicts Nigeria’s supreme court is too serious to be banished to post-codes defined by geographies of genealogy. To address it, the supply of appeals to the court will need to be constrained significantly. The administration of the court needs to be overhauled and professionalised, and case management needs attention too. The one thing the court cannot afford is precisely what this bill seeks – to cannibalise it into a collection of judicial Bantustans.

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

….says he has many reasons to thank God at sixty

The immediate past Governor of Ekiti State, Dr Kayode Fayemi on Sunday said he enjoys a cordial relationship with the incumbent Governor of the state, Mr Biodun Oyebanji, stressing that their relationship is based on mutual love and respect as well as shared commitment to the development of the state.

He said Governor Oyebanji has made him proud by his exemplary leadership and demonstrated capacity in terms of all round development of the state.

Dr Fayemi who stated these during a thanksgiving Mass commemorating his 60th birthday, at St. Martins’ Catholic Church, Isan- Ekiti, commended Governor Oyebanji for his inclusive leadership style, which he said had fostered stability, progress and development in the state.

He said Governor Oyebanji has carried on with the vision of the founding fathers of the state by ensuring that governance is not hindered by political divide, adding that he could not have wished for a better successor in office.

While appreciating God for attaining 60 years old, the former Governor said his 60th birthday serves as a moment of reflection and a time to rededicate himself to the service to the people. He also reaffirmed his commitment to the development of Ekiti State in particular and Nigeria at large.

"I am a product of grace and I have so many reasons to be thankful to God at sixty.

“I also want to thank our Governor for making me proud. it could have been otherwise. Things could have gone awry but he is also a product of grace and that is why in spite of the travails that one might experience in the world of politics, we have a very cordial relationship based on mutual love and mutual respect. So, all these things you read on social media are for your entertainment.

"Many will wonder why Governor Segun Oni is here. When he was doing his birthday, I spent the entire day with him and Governor Fayose too would have been here without hesitation if he was around. That is Ekiti, the vision we have always had is a state that will not be separated by political divide, we might belong to different political parties, but there is one party that we collectively belong to, that is the Ekiti party, Ekiti Progressive Party and our Governor is carrying on with that".

In his remarks, Governor Oyebanji, while admitting that former Governor Fayemi’s 60th birthday is a celebration of life, dedicated to service and excellence, described the former Governor as a visionary leader whose contribution to the state remained unparalleled.

The Governor maintained that the people of the state are immensely proud of the achievements of the former Governor and remain deeply indebted to him for his transformative leadership.

"The only thing I am going to say is to thank you for your support and for handholding me. Thank you so much for all you have done for Ekiti people, thank you so much for all that you have done for your mentees all over the world, and I thank Erelu Bisi Fayemi and Folajimi for sharing you with us. We are proud of you, Ekiti people are immensely proud of your achievements, it has been sixty years of progressive impact", Governor Oyebanji said.

In his homily titled awareness of God's goodness, the Catholic Bishop of Ekiti Diocese, Most Rev Felix Ajakaye, described the former Governor as a unique man whose has been a testament to service to God and humanity.

Bishop Ajakaye, while highlighting Fayemi's unwavering commitment to the principles of integrity, justice, and selflessness, noted that these virtues have guided his leadership and personal life.

Dignitaries at the event include, the first civilian Governor of the State, Otunba Niyi Adebayo, former Governor Segun Oni, Deputy Governor, Chief (Mrs) Monisade Afuye, wife of the Governor, Dr Olayemi Oyebanji, Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Adeoye Aribasoye, former Deputy Governor of Ekiti State, Prof Modupe Adelabu; former deputy Governor of Oyo State, Chief Oladokun.

Others are former Minister of Education, Prof Tunde Adeniran; Chairman, CAVISTA Holdings, Mr John Olajide; Chairman, Afenifere Renewal Group, Hon Wale Osun; Chairman APC Ekiti State, Barrister Sola Elesin; serving and former members of National Assembly, members of the state Executive Council, members of the State House of Assembly.

The Chairman, Ekiti State council of traditional rulers, HRM Oba Ayorinde Ilori- Faboro led scores of other traditional rulers to the event.

Bello, son of Nasir el-Rufai, former governor of Kaduna, says it is not his place to mediate the dispute between his father and Uba Sani, the incumbent governor of the state.

Bello, a member of the house of representatives, said this in an interview with BBC.

Recent political developments indicate that el-Rufai and his successor, Sani, are not on good terms.

Both politicians recently traded blame over the handling of public funds in the state.

In June 2024, the Kaduna assembly recommended the probe of el-Rufai over allegations of public funds diversion and money laundering.

Some of el-Rufai former cabinet members have been charged in court over alleged corruption.

Speaking during the interview, Bello said while he is not against a probe, it shouldn’t be a tool for a witch hunt.

“It is not a bad thing to investigate but it should be done with clear intention and not to humiliate anyone or because someone has offended you. But if you are doing it for selfish reasons, Allah will judge. Allah will forgive your frailties, but will not overlook the harm you inflict on someone,” he said. 

He said that the rift between his father and Sani is not as serious as reported, suggesting that it may have been exaggerated.

“It is not pleasant for us, even if someone is my enemy, I do not like to see him fighting another enemy. I want peace,” he said.

“Marriages break up; friends stop being friends; it is just a matter of leaving the relationship despite all the conflicts that arise.

“None of them (Sani and el-Rufai) told me anything about the conflict, I just realised that it’s over now.”

Asked if he could reconcile his father with Sani, Bello retorted: “It is not my job. My job is to focus on helping the people of Kaduna north constituency.”

“I like peace and maintaining trust. For me, there is no one who is better than Mallam Nasiru politically. He only puts his work first and there is no one I want to be like him. He is my father, a father is a father.”

Bello added that he was surprised that people expected him to speak on the matter.

[TheCable]

Last week, Nigeria successfully recorded 3 events that greatly excited many citizens. They were obviously events that many people must have wished could continue without stop. One of them was the conviction and imprisonment of Ignatius Uduk, a professor at the University of Uyo (UNIUYO)who was found guilty of electoral malpractices.  Uduk, who served as a returning officer during the 2019 general elections in Essien Udim State Constituency, was specifically indicted for announcing and publishing false election results. This makes it 2, the number of professors that have so far been convicted for electoral fraud. The first conviction which took place in 2021, was that of one Peter Ogban, a professor of soil science, at the same UNIUYO, and a returning officer in the 2019 general elections in Akwa Ibom North-West District. He was jailed for tampering with election results.

The apparent implication of the development is that it is not every professor that has integrity. The unending examination malpractices in different universities in the country ought to have been a reminder to the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC to be circumspect in appointing just any professor and other academics to the sensitive assignments of conducting different segments of elections. It is in fact worse that many of those who get appointed to do the job patently lobbied for it. In other words, they had ulterior motives in seeking to be part of the sensitive assignments – the appointment of such ‘hustlers’ is an incurable risk. It is therefore hoped that INEC will depart from its fixation that academics are necessarily the best hands in the management of elections.

Some professors may be excellent but there are others that are deficient in character.  But who were the beneficiaries of the fraud committed by Uduk and Ogban? Was any effort made to search for what such beneficiaries did to the professors that pushed them into the temptation of electoral fraud? Did our security agencies try to identify the quantum of material benefits which beneficiaries offered the convicts? These questions are relevant if indeed, the nation is really anxious to reduce electoral frauds. Not much can be gained through scapegoating or complete focus on election officials with no attempt to investigate those who initiated the fraud and for whose sake others committed electoral malpractices. If such beneficiaries who successfully coerced professors into doing wrong were prosecuted would they not have also compromised judges?

From what history suggests, the beneficiaries may never have been arrested at all but if they had been held and allowed to face prosecution, it is more likely that they would have wriggled out of the case. But if some of them had been unlucky to face trial before Justices Agustine Odokwo and Bassey Nkanang and perhaps a few other credible judges, they would have been in jail by now.  The point to be made therefore is that Nigerians are excited to see that the judiciary we have all been blasting for some time now still has judges that are forthright. Such judges are the ones to be rewarded for genuine and committed performance instead of those who are being favoured simply because they are friends and or relations of top political office-holders. 

However, there is need to recall that what gave room for the judges to excel was the presence in INEC at the time of Mike Igini the most credible Resident Electoral Commissioner of the decade. If Igini who was in charge of elections in Akwa Ibom State had like some of colleagues allowed himself to be compromised, there would have been no trial of electoral fraudsters anywhere. Otherwise, how do we explain the fact that despite the numerous electoral infractions in different parts of the country, it was only in Akwa Ibom that actors were made to account for their deeds. Although everyone knew Mike Igini to be incorruptible, he was not rewarded with a reappointment to the headquarters of INEC as a national commissioner. Instead, political party chieftains prayed daily for his exit. Is it not persons of exemplary conduct that deserve renewal of appointment?

Another major landmark of the week was the request by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the Senate to approve the termination of the appointment of 3 Resident Electoral Commissioners RECs namely: Yunusa Ari (Adamawa) Nura Ali (Sokoto) and Ike Uzochukwu (Abia). The 3 RECs had been accused of false declaration of election results as well as bribery and corruption. Nigerians are happy that the accused persons are finally being held accountable and are in fact currently facing prosecution. But will the judges handling their cases be as diligent and forthright as the Akwa Ibom judges? If not, our current celebration may be cut short if the prosecution of the suspects is allowed to be marred by nebulous charges. It is not unusual to find a situation where it is the prosecution itself that helps to frustrate the trial of some accused persons. Until the prosecution of the 3 former RECs ends, not much can be said for now. 

The last of the 3 exciting events also concerns the role of President Tinubu in intervening to stop embarrassing conflicts. This time around, there is electrifying joy in the decision of the president to sack two Vice Chancellors and to reshuffle the governing councils of some tertiary institutions. The most remarkable of the events is the sacking of Professor Aisha Maikudi who was described by many university professors of her University of Abuja as not qualified to become Vice Chancellor. At a point Forty-three (43) Senate members of the University raised concerns over her controversial appointment, citing manipulation of the selection process. In an open letter to the President in his capacity as the Visitor to the institution, the Senate members called for the immediate dissolution of the University’s Governing Council in view of widespread irregularities, which they claimed undermined not only the credibility of the VC’s appointment but also the integrity of the institution.

The grave allegations in the open letter included ‘several key issues, such as improper composition of the Governing Council, breaches in appointment guidelines, intimidation and harassment of Senate members, and a flawed, rushed selection process.’ Tinubu’s decision to sack the Vice Chancellor has exceedingly calmed frayed nerves according to some staff of the university. In particular, it appears a wise decision to have also appointed a new acting Vice Chancellor and provided a space of 6 months for normalcy to return to the campus. As if to avoid a repeat of the lack of level playing field for applicants seeking to be VC, the president has directed that the new acting VC shall not be eligible to apply. Tinubu has taken similar steps in some other institutions especially the University of Nigeria Nsukka whose acting VC was similarly sacked just as the governing council was virtually reconstituted.

 While commending the President for his interventions in the crises in the universities, it is a matter for regret that the appointment of VCs has of recent taken the same tempo as the selection of a political party flag bearer for an election through party primaries. The implication of this is that virtually everything in Nigeria has become politicised. The president may become distracted if it becomes one of his routine schedules to resolve conflicts in academic institutions in the country. To get away from this distraction, the president must conclude his present intervention by penalizing all those involved. Sacking the VCs involved is good but not enough. Members of affected governing councils should not just be rotated; those responsible for the crises must be visibly sanctioned.  

Another remarkable thing that government must do with universities is to appoint knowledgeable members to their councils. The opportunity should not be used to reward party chieftains who are not qualified either in character or learning to be elevated into the policy making cadre of academic bodies. Otherwise, universities would become trading centres and avenues for contract awards which are the only things that can satisfy the avarice of politicians. There is also the need to stretch an intervening hand to Ministries, Departments and Agencies MDAs where many persons are currently appointed into technocrat positions for which they are ill-equipped. Politicians have no business being part of day to day running of government bodies, they should be part time board members if we want peace in our public organizations that can sustain the joyous mood of the last one week.

A few days ago, Felix, a childhood friend that I had not seen or heard from since we both left secondary school in Jos (he went to St. John’s College whilst I was to St. Murumba College) called me up from the blue.

After all the usual felicitations he commended me for attaining national prominence the way I did despite the ‘ordinariness’ of our foundation coming out of Jos. Of course, I knew what he meant.

I have probably been the most hyped and most visible retired sports person in Nigerian sports. My time in professional sport and life since retiring, almost half a Century of both connected to the media in one form or the other, have kept me constantly in public eye.

Felix considered me a very successful business man in the field of sports. And he said so in a few words.

The situation is that even when I was playing football on a full- time basis as a Civil servant in Oyo State, I was so afraid of the uncertainty of life-after-sport that I veered early into business, buying and selling sports kits, beer, soft drinks, cement and nurtured a good name and even aspects of the media, none of which I was formally trained for.

From my personal observation, the life-after-sport of former fa- mous sports persons, were not good adverts. So, in my mind some form of business (I was not going to practice Mechanical engineering because I had no deep passion for it) was the answer to guaranteeing a successful life after the glitz and the glitter of a career in sports.

So, I understood what Felix was talking about. Optically, the image I conjure in public is of a very successful and probably very rich retired person. He even wondered how much I must be worth by now, in Dollars and Pounds.

He was right. By now, following decades of my restlessness in the business world, doing this and doing that, I should be swimming in the pool of international currencies. But I am not. Occasionally also, I would wonder why I am not in the material class of millionaires and billionaires even as I have carefully nurtured a good name and kept a clean reputation that should put me in that category. Yet, I still struggle to float above the waters of survival. My life is an optical illusion of material ‘success’ in the classic sense of it.

The reality now, however, is that despite my huge unquantifiable ‘success’, the past 4 days have revealed to me why I would be a great model for ‘how NOT to start and run business’. Put more succinctly, my business life, copied, would be a perfect model for ‘how to fail in business’. It has been a complete antithesis of good business model.
In the past 4 days, I have come to realize there were missing ingredients in my foundation, the things I did not do right at the start of my venture into that uncharted, dog-eat-dog world. I was without proper grounding, without any formal or informal training, and without guidance into what was characterized by uncertainty, constant changes, unending challenges, and dangerous minefields in business. It’s been like a life-time ago since I retired from an active sports career. It’s been over 4 decades of foraying into business.

But it is now, after 3 days of sit- ting in a classroom and listening to a young man called Adeola Badmus of Piston and Fusion Business Academy, that took several of us ‘students’ (manage- ment and Directors of StillEarth Holdings where I humbly serve as a Director) through a Master Class course in Business Strategy and Planning, that I have been humbled by learning that I could have been a very successful multi-billion Dollar busi- nessman today armed with the lessons and teachings from that 3-day course.

I wish I knew, eons ago when my talent in football was just sprout- ing, a little of what I have just learnt in 3 days.

I wish I had the sense then to have sat at the foot of a mentor or a teacher, and listened to tips on basic, tested principles that would have prepared me adequately, cushioned my chances of failure, and mitigated against certain risks attendant in every business.

I have been thinking about these things in the past 3 days as my eyes opened reality and to the traps that caught generations of gifted and once-famous sports persons. Knowing these essentials would have freed thou- sands of sports stars from the landscape littered with stories of hardship, neglect and penury in the evening of life.

I wish I had been better prepared for the future in my own youthful years as access to what I experienced these past four days will mitigate the risk in the adventurous route most superstar athletes take and fail.

I am on the board of a conglomerate – StillEarth Holdings. They offered me the opportunity to return to the classroom and to be reborn.

So, after 3 days of life-changing lessons I have set a new mission for my life.

My mission now is to replicate the model of going to the class- room to prepare young budding gifted boys and girls mainly in sports and entertainment, whose lives are clouded by the prospects of fame and fortune for nurturing in order to sustain for a life time.

I have found out late that the classroom is a strong and safe tower that all can run back to in order to reset the buttons of the principles of succeeding in business.

I shall start to do something about the last 4 days – a program in my secondary school, SOCA, for the young athletes about to graduate and go into the world in the chase of fame and fortune, and arm them with knowledge and information about the business world, the simple principles, the obvious pitfalls, the practices to be avoided, the regular training they need in order to ensure that their lives after sports lead to material successes counted in Dollars and Pounds. It was a fantastic experience going back to the classroom.

Lifestyle and beauty influencer Layefa Ebitonmo has shared her candid experience with undergoing a Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL), a popular cosmetic procedure designed to enhance body shape by transferring fat to the buttocks. The outspoken content creator detailed her journey in a video on her YouTube channel, addressing misconceptions, family reactions, and the recovery process.

Ebitonmo revealed that she paid ₦2.1 million for her surgery in 2022. Despite initial concerns from loved ones, she remained resolute in her decision.

“I didn’t really mind if my family didn’t want me to do it. It is something I wanted to do for myself. And I did it. It’s my decision. Am I a child?” she said, emphasizing her autonomy.

She also shared emotional moments from her recovery, recalling how her mother was deeply worried about her well-being.

“My mum used to call every day in the hospital. Every two seconds, she would ask, ‘Is she okay?’ When she called me and saw blood on my neck, she screamed ‘Jesus! I am coming to Lagos now.’”

While acknowledging that the post-surgery experience can be uncomfortable, she debunked myths surrounding the procedure, particularly the belief that it affects fertility.

“It’s a misconception that one won’t be able to have a child after doing BBL. That is the one thing I can say I did my research on.”

Ebitonmo’s openness adds to the growing conversation around body enhancement procedures, personal choices, and societal perceptions of beauty.

[Vanguard]

The House of Reps has received proposals to create 31 new states across the country. Amazing. If every proposal sails through (which I doubt), that means we will end up with 67 states since we currently have 36 of them. That would mean 67 state governors, 67 state cabinets (with thousands of commissioners, special advisers and special assistants), 67 houses of assembly (with thousands of lawmakers and their aides) and, how do I say this… 67 motorcades full of the latest models of bullet-proof SUVs. With almost every state trying to build a “cargo” airport, we could end up with more. On a different note, someone said with 31 new state capitals, grassroots development will be faster.

At this point, let us take a short journey into history. Nigeria started out in 1914 as an amalgamation of two units: the Northern Protectorate and the Southern Protectorate. Each protectorate was made up of provinces — which are mostly states today — and native authorities — which we now call councils. Nigeria practically ran a unitary system for decades, with the colonial government devolving certain powers to the native authorities for administrative purposes. As nationalism grew and Nigerians became more politically active, internal fault lines also became obvious as politics was played largely along narrow geographic and ethnic lines. There was no Nigeria as a constituency.

By 1946, Sir Arthur Richards, the governor-general, decided that Nigeria was essentially a country of three ethnic groups, so he created three regions: Northern (Hausa/Fulani), Western (Yoruba) and Eastern (Igbo). Every region had vast minorities, but the political construct was that Nigeria was built on a tripod: Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba. In 1947, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the sage, wrote ‘Path to Nigerian Freedom’, famously saying Nigeria was “a mere geographical expression”. Awo basically argued for stronger regions to make the federation work and to build a stronger entity from the geography. He criticised Sir Arthur for not consulting Nigerians before producing the constitution.

Nonetheless, Richards’ attempt at federalism started an evolution. With the criticisms and comments by Nigerians, his successor produced a more broadly accepted constitution, the MacPherson Constitution, in 1951. Nigerians were widely consulted and the constitution led to limited self-rule in the 1950s, when Awo became premier of the Western Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello premier of the Northern Region, and Prof Eyo Eta premier of the Eastern Region. Lagos retained its independent status as the federal capital. We maintained this three-region federation until after independence. It was in 1963 that Western Region minorities got what they agitated for: the Midwestern Region.

Indeed, the minorities in the regions wanted their own administrative units. The Henry Willinks Commission, set up in 1957 by the colonial government to look into the demands of the minority ethnic groups, harvested these sentiments nationwide. One thing that has been clear in Nigeria’s history is that the minority ethnic groups have always expressed misgivings about being subsumed and subjugated by the larger groups — particularly the tripod. When the Gowon administration created 12 states from the four regions in 1967, it killed two birds with one stone: fulfilling the desires of minorities to have their own states as well as weakening the breakaway Eastern Region.

In 1976, the 12 states became 19 under Gen Murtala Muhammed. We did not create more until 11 years later. That was in 1987 when Gen Ibrahim Babangida added two. As we prepared to transit to democracy, he added another nine states in 1991, taking the total to 30. And in 1996, they became 36 states under Gen Sani Abacha. Regardless, the agitation for more states has been non-stop. Those who had initially rejoiced soon started feeling marginalised in their new states. Today, we have 31 proposals on the table of the House of Reps. If the proposals succeed, maybe we would be thinking of 774 states in the distant future. It appears every local government would fancy becoming a state.

Why this unending clamour for new states? I’ve already mentioned the major reason: people feel marginalised in their current homes and would prefer a state where they would dominate. They don’t say the second part openly, but that is a driving force. I have looked at the list several times and I can see no other reason for some people to be clamouring for a state other than the desire to be a big fish in a small ocean rather than a small fish in a big ocean. There is a feeling that if they have their own state, they will no longer play second fiddle. However, the clamour is usually officially anchored on the need for “grassroots” development — which is a legitimate objective, in any case.

Will new states address complaints of marginalisation? That is not a sure thing. Even in states that look homogenous, there are internal divisions. In Ogun state, for instance, the Yewa subgroup of Yoruba complain that they have not produced a governor. If you go ahead and create Yewa state (it was not proposed, by the way), there will still be some tendencies there that will feel marginalised in another eight years. We will start to see divisions along the lines of Ado-Odo/Ota, Ipokia, Yewa South, Yewa North and Imeko Afon. The more you atomise a society, the more you magnify latent differences that were previously not so obvious. They could be religious, historical or lingual.

Will the creation of new states solve development problems? There can’t be a straight answer to that. Some states may prosper and become viable, but others may struggle. As things stand today, many states are not a going concern. If they were businesses, they would have been shut down long ago. Internally generated revenue (IGR) in many states is mainly from government contracts and personal income taxes of civil servants. The IGR cannot pay the bills. The federation allocation — which deploys a formular to make sure no state is fiscally left behind — is the saving grace. The irony, though, is that every proposal for a new state comes with lofty claims of potential self-sufficiency!
Will the creation of new states satisfy those clamouring for the restructuring of Nigeria? This is a question I cannot answer if I am asked. I have been listening to the proponents of restructuring and what I think I hear them say all the time is that we should go back to regions which, by the current configuration, would mean the six geo-political zones. One faction of the restructuring movement wants us to do away with the 36 states so that we would have only six houses of assembly, six governors, six cabinets — and six convoys of the latest bullet-proof SUVs. I do not believe this faction will accept state creation as it may end up defeating the purpose and practice of ethnic nationalism.

Under their restructuring model, the entire Yoruba ethnic group, for instance, will come under one governor. That means the people of Egba, Awori, Ekiti, Ife, Ijesha, Ijebu, Igbomina, Oyo, Ondo, Owo, Ikale, Eko and Oke-Ogun (some will even include Okun) will now have one governor and they will be happy ever after. It is a bit complicated. Oke-Ogun people are already complaining that they are being marginalised in Oyo state and that they have not been allowed to produce a governor. When will it reach their turn if the entire Yoruba groups come under one governor? From their proposal, it seems to me that the Oke-Ogun people actually want more states. I could well be very wrong.

And now to the most important question: will new states be created? Maybe that is where we should have started the discussion from. If you noticed, only military governments have been able to create states — and by fiat. Yet, the Midwestern was created in 1963 under the Tafawa Balewa administration but that is a topic for another day. However, under the 1999 Constitution (as the case was under the 1979 Constitution), it would be easier for Manchester United to win the 2024/2025 English Premier League than to create a new state in Nigeria. The conditions are so stringent that it will take an unusual cooperation and self-sacrifice of the political elite nationwide to make it happen.

Section 8 (1) says: “An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of creating a new State shall only be passed if – (a) a request, supported by at least two-thirds majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new State) in each of the following, namely – (i) the Senate and the House of Representatives, (ii) the House of Assembly in respect of the area, and (iii) the local government councils in respect of the area, is received by the National Assembly; (b) a proposal for the creation of the State is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated.” Let us take a pause.

Now, in the event that the process gets there, we will go into a very costly and cumbersome stage as required by Section 8 (1) (c) which says “the result of the referendum is then approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly”.  Please read again. That means a referendum held in 36 states! Also, a simple majority of 36 houses of assembly must support it. We can then finally move to Section 8 (1) (d) which says “the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly”. The framers should have simply told us not to bother with state creation!

Don’t take my word for it, but I do not know of any governor that would, with his eyes open, allow his state to be divided under him. If the proposals were to improbably pass the early stages, the critical approval by 36 houses of assembly will be difficult to come by. I would rather propose that an extra state is created in the south-east as a political consensus to address the imbalance. We can also create more LGAs across the federation if we are truly interested in grassroots development. Finally, it is important for every state to consciously promote justice, equity, accommodation and peace as we continue this tedious nation-building process. Atomising Nigeria is definitely not the solution.

And Four Other Things…

BASIC EDUCATION  
The federal government is considering making 12 years the basic education in Nigeria. In case this sounds Greek to you, it means before you can get a school certificate, you must have finished senior secondary school. If I understand it well, that means we will now have Year 1 to Year 12. Rather the 6-3-3-4 (four years for tertiary education), it will now be 12-4. I think I get the idea. Nobody uses primary school leaving certificate anymore, so terminating your education after six years does not serve any purpose. Maybe it will make you go further. However, stakeholders must buy into this. There will be trade-offs, so we must not rush except the pros outweigh the cons. Homework. .

SPEED AND SENSE
It has finally happened. The Lagos state ministry of transportation has installed cameras to monitor speeding and manage traffic flows in some parts of Lagos. For now, Alapere and Mobolaji Bank Anthony Way will be monitored by speed cameras with a fine of N50,000 hanging over whoever speeds above 80km/h and 60km/h respectively. E-police will catch red light violators at Nurudeen Olowopopo Road, Alausa, with a fine of N20,000. I knew it would come to this one day. I can assure you that Lagos state will make billions of naira from this. But I am curious: will the cameras and e-police also catch government vehicles and security agencies? They break the law the most. Watching..  

TO BE FRANK
I was very worried recently when some people started a social media campaign purporting to promote Mr Frank Mba, a deputy inspector general of police (DIG), for the position of inspector general of police (IGP) which is not vacant as Mr Kayode Egbetokun is in situ. I happen to know Mba very well. I know he is very close to the IGP, so this media campaign must be hurting him badly. Unfortunately for those promoting a certain narrative about him, IGPs are not appointed on the basis of posts and reposts. It is a political appointment. There is no waiting list. The political authorities can choose as they like. If these internet warriors truly love Mba, they should stop hurting him. Wisdom.    

NO COMMENT
Mr Kabiru Turaki, former minister of special duties and inter-governmental affairs, has been arraigned in court on false marriage, adultery, and other offences. He denies all counts. He is accused of deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, adultery and criminal intimidation “contrary to sections 383, 387, and 389 of the Penal Code.” He allegedly cohabited with Ms Hadiza Musa Bafta in Abuja. He was accused of renting a place for her at Guzape and making her believe he was married to her and continuously having sex with her which produced a beautiful baby girl. Turaki allegedly threatened to use his influence and position to terminate the lives of mother and child. Wonderful.

An unwritten paradox has defined the United States up to this moment. It is the only country loved by most of those who have never set foot on its soil. It is also the one nation most despised by many who have not visited it. Loved and hated in nearly equal measure by people across the world. The return of Donald Trump to the White House is about to change all that for the worse. There is a growing wave of people around the world who are beginning to hate America with passion because of the actions of Mr. Trump. It is not hatred for Americans as a people but for the actions of its new government.

The day after Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports from Canada,  spontaneous boos greeted the playing of the American national anthem at most sporting venues across  Canada. Previously, Canadians used to hail at the Star Spangled Banner. Similarly, hostile  street marches in Mexico and other Latin American countries greeted the arrival of planes bringing home deportees from the United States. Most of those Latin Americans who went to America as illegal immigrants went there in quest of the American dream, in search of a better life for themselves and their children in a land that had been historically touted as God’s Own Country, a place of gold and goodness.

Many of them may not even have paid attention to the fine points of migrant documentation as a condition for embracing the good life promised by the lure of America.  Now they are being hoarded home in plane loads of unfulfilled cargo and broken dreams. Some are returning home in manacles and leg iron, humiliated for the crime of dreaming.  Worse still, even the innocent are being mass branded as criminals and gangsters, carriers of poison in their blood with which they went to poison the perfect American stock.

This is not the moment to dispute the rhetoric of the new old man in the White House. Nor is it a time or even proper to query the right of sovereign states to protect their borders or define their national interests. It is only a moment to contemplate what damage Mr. Trump’s actions are likely to do to the image and conception of America in the minds of the peoples and nations of the world.

Tariffs have been slammed on many significant nations. China, Mexico, Canada.  The European union countries have been threatened with tariffs and other hostile acts of American economic nastiness. For instance, a purely domestic land legislation matter in South Africa has been greeted by indecent hectoring and bad language from the White House. South African leadership has responded in kind, indicating that bad manners is not the exclusive preserve of any nation irrespective of its gravity and the reach of its guns.

Plane loads of angry deportees  have been delivered to Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia, Venezuela and other Latin American nations. Mr. Marco Rubio, the new Secretary of State has travelled round to places like Panama to warn them of the bad days coming. Going round the world with a single message of threats to sovereign nations seems to be the new diplomacy from Washington.

Mr. Trump had earlier pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization thereby shrinking the volume of resources available to the poorer nations of the world for medicine and primary healthcare. Without any notice, the poor of the world have been rudely told to “look out for yourselves”. In the same vein, Mr. Trump, in the pretext to cut the costs of American government, has sent out his new billionaire friend. Elon Musk, to physically shut down the long standing department of USAID –United States Agency for International Development. Its work force of over 10,000 is being reduced to an inhuman 250. An agency established more than 40 years ago by late President John F. Kennedy as a bearer of development assistance for the poorer segments of the world is being shut down without notice or a humane programme. Its American and international work force is being suddenly laid off work while its worldwide stretch of humanitarian programmes is being shut down. The millions of mouths it previously fed will now go without food. The sick that depended on USAID medical outreach to continue living are being left to die  slow avoidable deaths. An epidemic of deprivation is being deliberately unleashed on the most vulnerable segments of our global humanity.

For President Kennedy and those who came after him and maintained the tradition of United States assistance to the poor and vulnerable, agencies like USAID were agencies of soft power, instruments for the projection of American power as a force for good and an instrument to help heal a world damaged and injured by the Second World War and the injustice of global inequity. But suddenly, these agencies of good are now being terminated crudely and rudely by a leadership propped up by democracy itself in a place of hope and original goodness.

Add to this potential well of international anti-Americanism, the groundswell of domestic ill will that is already being bred by the tsunami of firings and layoffs in many government departments in America itself- environmental activity departments, the FBI, the military, the DEI departments and those whose employment they facilitated. Not to talk of the hundreds of thousands through the value chain of agricultural and industrial production and those whose employment depended on the work of the illegal immigrants – farm hands, food processors, grocery shop packers and loaders etc.

This groundswell of brewing anti-Americanism is of course in addition to long standing and existing anti-American feelings around the world. In the Muslim word, that negativity towards the United States and its foreign policies and shows of power around the world over time is axiomatic. In Iran and Yemen, in Iraq and Lebanon, in Syria and a good number of the new Middle East states, America is merely tolerated because of its economic aggression  and cultural omnipresence.

This fertile ground of anti-Americanism in the Arab world is only being fertilized by recent US policy overtures. Take the latest proposal of Mr. Trump to purge the disputed Gaza strip of its indigenous Palestinian population  by relocating them to other Arab countries. This  disguised land grab and ethnic cleansing is being greeted globally by the international community as a further  deepening of the injustice against the Palestinians. It is also seen as an unjust strengthening of the colonialist oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation.

Even in the best of times, Arab fundamentalist anti-Americanism is both cultural and historically unavoidable. America as an efflorescent outgrowth of Western civilization. It is therefore essentially a Judeo-Christian manifestation of human civilization. To that extent, it remains antithetical to the values espoused and long cherished and pursued by the contrary Islamic civilization.

Similarly, Chinese anti-Americanism remains a latent force. Chinese do not need to make any special effort to cultivate an anti-American attitude. The Confucian ethos is inherently in competition  with the classic Western ethos most lavishly displayed by the United States as a global power. It is a power with a civilizational muscle and undisguised global dominating aspirations. To the Chinese state and public psychology, then, America is and has always been a competing power for world domination.

To the Chinese, anti-Americanism is part and parcel of a long standing global competition. For Mr. Trump to fire up that perennially latent sentiment with a 10% tariff on Chinese imports into the United States is to further weaponize a pre-existing sentiment. This is the reason why the retaliatory tariff regime by Xi Jinping was greeted with universal applause by a cross section of the Chinese public.

Anti-Americanism in Russia is alive and recent. In the aftermath of the Cold War, successive administrations in Moscow have carried on with the anti-American mindset except for the brief spell under Mikhail Gorbachev which was essentially a transitional regime. Vladimir has no problem with being inherently anti-American. He can operate a pseudo-capitalist economy for purposes of trading with the rest of the world. But in terms of values and global power competition, Russia is unashamedly anti- American and anti Western for reasons of power competition and ideology. An inherently authoritarian ethos on the basis of which Russian power is being groomed cannot but be counter democratic.  Even Mr. Trump’s inherently authoritarian manners do not impress the Russians as anything approaching the existent of the Russian establishment.

To carry his untidy trade war of tariffs to Europe will tempt to export anti-Americanism to an unlikely destination. Europe’s link to the United States is both ideological and strategic. In terms of global security the United States is joined to Europe at the hips. The trans Atlantic corridor has historically served as both a cultural and common defense bond. More importantly, the economic link between the US and continental Europe is also a cultural bond. A tariff war may breed anti-Americanism in Europe but will hurt both sides deeply.

For us in Africa, the Trump stampede could be damaging from the perspective of the little trade that has been thriving between some African countries and the United States since the passage of Bill Clinton’s AGOA trade agreement encouraging the export of African goods to the United States. The fear here is that though the volume of trade between the US and

Africa remains negligible, Mr. Trump’s primordial racism might tempt him to want to punish some “s-hole” counties with punitive trade measures.

MY people have a saying, to wit, what is rumbling in the bush is coming to the main road; so, wait for it there! And not just wait for it, prepare a net to catch it! Otherwise, if you allow it to come upon you unprepared, you will be done for! Last week, we highlighted on this page three inter-related criminal activities with the same motive of destabilising and unhinging the South-west before the 2027 General Elections. They are the clamour for the introduction of destructive and disruptive political Sharia in the South-west by elements who, regardless of any flowery language employed, do not mean well for the region and its people; the influx of bandits, Boko Haram and ISWAP terrorists into the region; and the upsurge in the activities of cultists and kidnappers, thereby rolling back the successes against insecurity that the region’s political leaders had achieved through blood and sweat with the introduction of the Amotekun security outfit, snatched at great costs from the jaws of Fulani cabal’s strident opposition during the Muhammadu Buhari administration. There must be a reason for all of this for, as they say, there is no smoke without a fire. Someone said to me it is all about unseating the sitting president in 2027.

I have no issue at all with anyone being seated or unseated; political offices in a democracy are not for life but are tenure-barred. Even autocrats, dictators, and sight-tight leaders get removed from office by one cause or the other. And we have seen enough of the evils of military rule never to wish such upon ourselves again. In the same manner, I do not wish that the destruction and bestiality being witnessed in some parts of the country—the North and East especially—should come anywhere near the South-west. Mercifully, knowledgeable opinion moulders from the South-west have been quick to take the wind off the sail of the few rabble rousers stoking the fire and fanning the embers of political Sharia. State governors of the region had also been quick to act. Declaring quite emphatically that there is “no place for Sharia in Ogun State”, the governor, Dapo Abiodun, warned the agent provocateurs that their ill-conceived and ill-motivated action would amount to illegality – for which there would be a penalty. His Ekiti State counterpart, Biodun Oyebanji (aka BAO), warned against “activities that may negatively affect the state government’s policy of peaceful coexistence… and hinder the prevailing peace and fester hostilility in the State”. Oyebanji left the malevolent promoters of political Sharia in the South-west in no doubt that he, as the Chief Security Officer of Ekiti state, would not “hesitate to invoke the full weight of the law to protect the Constitution of the Federation and maintain peaceful co-existence in the state”.

 In Oyo State, where the brouhaha over political Sharia first emanated (in Oyo town to be specific), Gov. Seyi Makinde read the Riots Act to the proponents in a broadcast. He was quoted as saying:  “About the establishment of Sharia Court in Oyo town, people may try, but for us, I swore to uphold our laws and the Constitution of Nigeria. If their actions are within the law, fine. If not, they should expect that I will insist the law must be followed” Of course, no law backs their decision to fish in troubled waters. So, tails between their legs, the trouble-makers backtracked in the face of the law. What it means is that they were only testing the waters and flying kites. The question we must ask ourselves is: What are the benefits of Sharia in the places where it is in operation that recommends it to the misguided elements promoting it in the South-west? Sharia in the Muslim North is only for the poor and downtrodden. They are the ones that have their limbs amputated; after which they are offloaded—or they offload themselves – on the South where they come begging for alms. Were Sharia to be effectively and uniformly applied in the Muslim North, I make bold to say that many of their influential and powerful men and women—yes, even women!—would long have had their limbs severed!

With Sharia, the North is the poverty capital of the world. With Sharia, they are the most educationally backward sections of the country. With Sharia, they are the section of the country ravaged by VVF (Vesicovaginal Fistula). With Sharia, they are the harbingers of almajiris. With Sharia, some of the humongous pen-robberies ever witnessed in this country have been traced to them. What are the benefits of Sharia to the Muslim North that some South-westerners want us to also enjoy? Elections are rigged as blatantly in the Muslim North as they are in other parts of the country. The bloodletting in that part of the country in the name of religion surpasses what was witnessed during the country’s civil war. So, what is the good thing that Sharia, as enforced in the North, has wrought to make some people thirst for it like David longed for water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem (2 Samuel 23: 15)?  Anway, the Constitution, Section 41 (1), guarantees to every Nigerian the freedom of movement; so, lovers of Sharia can relocate to where Sharia is in operation and enjoy it to the hilt without endangering the peace and tranquility of other Nigerians. Fortunately, many of the South-westerners advocating for Sharia are men of means and can easily relocate to states where Sharia of their choice is in operation. It is trite that one man’s rights stop where those of another start.

 Next is the reported invasion of the South-west’s forests by terrorists and bandits moving (or fleeing, as they say) from the North. But why should the South-west be their destination of choice? Is it because the South-west is seen as the least weaponised section of the country and, therefore, the most vulnerable? Or has it something to do with the political permutations by those who, less than two years out of power, have become so irascible and desperate to have “their” power back, willy-nilly? Whichever is the case, and whatever other reasons may account for the recent upsurge in this invasion must be tackled head-on. No one leaves fire on his roof and goes to bed. Gov. Makinde first raised the alarm early in the new year when he said he got an intelligence report that “during my birthday retreat, bandits had camped less than two kilometres from where I was staying. This underscores the seriousness of the situation”. Yes, it does! It is better imagined than felt what would have happened had the bandits struck! This is the same Makinde who, a fortnight thereafter, lost his elder brother! My condolences, Your Excellency!

In response, OPC leader, Gani Adams, has spit fire, warning that the South-west would be too hot for “terrorists and members of ISWAP” to hibernate or carry out their criminal activities. He added that OPC and other private security networks, including the traditional or local hunters, awaited the government’s support and mobilisation to get cracking. I counsel that all hands must be on the deck. Again, in response, the Amotekun Corps mobilised over 2000 personnel to comb South-west forests and flush out the criminal elements hibernating there. Is there anyone who doubts the security reports that South-west forests are awash with bandits and terrorists? Recent upsurge in kidnappings and other criminal activities in the region provide abundant evidence. Only last week, 10 travellers were reportedly kidnapped in the Owo axis of Ondo State. In fact, Owo and its environs have become a danger zone, being a fertile ground for cross-border kidnappers who have made life unbearable for the people. Something urgent must be done. As if that was not enough headache, cultists painted the ancient town red last month, killing, maiming and destroying life and property. In response, the state government clamped a dusk-to-dawn curfew on the town; it is yet to lift it. The Olowo of Owo led his chiefs to place a curse on the cultists, their supporters and sponsors. As good as these  initiatives are, they can only be temporary measures.

In the entire South-west today, and not in Owo or Ondo state alone, cultism—and youth restiveness -has become a time bomb. And the reasons for these are not far to fetch. A new debased culture—the “jeun s’oko” culture – the breeding ground of area boys and girls, area fathers and their ‘alright, sir’ foot soldiers – grew steadily and stealthily with the new political leadership of the South-west since the 2000s, trampling the Yoruba “Omoluabi” culture of old. Politics of primitive capitalist accumulation and of obscene display of ill-gotten wealth has become the order of the day. If you can’t beat them, joining them has become the credo. The JAPA syndrome used to afford everyone an escape route but with Donald Trump and the wave of anti-immigration rhetorics and actions sweeping across the United States and Europe, the slamming in our face of this window of opportunity for those anxious to escape the hellhole that Nigeria has become will exacerbate the desperation of our people. Take the statistics and you will find that the South-west has far more of its population in the Diaspora than any other part of the country. Therefore, the South-west will suffer more now that the JAPA opportunity is receding.

If we fail to prepare a net for the rumblings and other eventualities itemised above, we will have ourselves to blame. The time to act is now!