OTHERS' VIEWS

OTHERS' VIEWS

When white smoke curled into the Roman sky and the world learned that the College of Cardinals had elected Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost, Pope Leo XIV—an American—it was met with mixed emotions across Africa. For many, particularly in Nigeria, it stirred a sense of cautious hope layered with curiosity. However, it also raised questions about whether a pontiff shaped by the wealth, power, and contradictions of the United States could truly understand the depth of Nigeria’s struggles and the weight of its aspirations. Could he effectively address the wounds of a country still healing from centuries of colonisation, exploitation, and spiritual marginalisation?

Yet as days passed and the new Pope began to speak—not in abstractions, but in words charged with moral clarity and historical awareness—Nigerian Catholics began to feel a surprising resonance.  Nigeria  with the second largest population of Catholic population in Africa  is home to significant church influence. From rural churches in Ebonyi to urban dioceses in Lagos and Kano, conversations shifted. What started as distant interest has evolved into an emerging conviction: that Pope Leo XIV might be the global moral voice Africa, and Nigeria in particular, has long yearned for—not because he is perfect, but because he appears willing to listen, learn, and lead with compassion.

The emergence of an American Pope now could mean a lot for global Christianity. It is coming at a time of great moral possibilities for a world in active realignment. Can democracy go awry while morality remains intact? Can an American political leader destabilize the world order while an American pope preaches unity and peace? Pope Leo XIV has a heavy moral burden. He can only discharge it by emulating Pope Francis, by drawing closer to the masses to emphasize our common humanity over and above the clashing swords of global big powers and political showmanship.

Sister Benedicta Okeke of Onitsha captured this shift in a post-mass conversation: “You can’t imagine how healing it is to hear a pope acknowledge colonialism not as a thing of the past but as a system whose aftershocks still affect our people. When he said, ‘Africa’s poverty is not a divine mystery but a human-made injustice,’ I wept. For once, our pain was not dismissed as charity fodder. It was treated as a matter of justice.” Recalling Leo XIV’s inaugural homily in which he condemned “the old and new empires that bleed the global South,” her words distilled decades of frustration among believers who have watched multinational corporations extract resources. At the same time, local communities remain poor. In that moment, she said, “our wounds were not invisible anymore.”

Nigeria is home to a significant proportion of the world’s poorest populations. A pope who places the poor at the centre of his teachings reaffirms the Church’s mission of compassion and solidarity. Pope Leo XIV’s unwavering focus on social equity and economic justice will resonate deeply in Nigeria, where poverty, inequality, and limited access to healthcare and education persist. His leadership could redirect global Catholic aid priorities towards Africa, inspiring international donors and Catholic organisations to intensify their commitments to humanitarian efforts. His voice could also encourage local Catholic communities to build stronger, self-sustaining social ministries that reflect the Church’s preferential care for the marginalised, instilling a sense of inspiration and motivation in believers nationwide.

The new Pope’s empathy for migrants struck another chord. His bold defence of migrant rights, a stance that has reverberated among Nigerian migrants worldwide, is a testament to his global perspective. In a modest flat in Milan, Chidozie Umeh shared a message with his local parish group: “The Pope’s bold defence of migrants made me feel visible for the first time in many years. When he said ‘no human being is illegal,’ it wasn’t just a slogan—it was a lifeline.” For thousands of Nigerians enduring racism, statelessness, and institutional neglect in Europe and North Africa, the Pope’s stance is more than symbolic. It is a form of pastoral advocacy that they rarely receive from their home or host governments. For Nigerians navigating uncertain legal status in Europe or the Middle East, Leo XIV’s stark defence of migrant rights is surely a lifeline.

But the promise of Leo XIV’s papacy is not confined to words. Its echoes are beginning to shape the ground realities of faith communities across Nigeria. In Enugu, some Catholic faithfuls have begun mobilising funds for mobile health clinics in underserved communities. The Pope’s emphasis on structural justice—not just acts of mercy—has pushed them to reimagine healthcare as a right, not a luxury. Similar ripples are felt in Jos, where some youth leaders recently mobilise agricultural  cooperatives: They’re starting a community farm project because the Pope reminds them that the Eucharist must extend beyond the altar, and charity begins in the parish.For these Catholics, papal words are seeds that must germinate in local initiatives.

A broader theological implication of this papacy is its impact on representation and hope. For many Nigerians, the election of an American pope signals that the papacy is no longer a preserve of European tradition. If a man from the United States can lead the Church, then perhaps Africa’s turn is not far, and this is no longer a distant dream. It is a possibility. The notion of a future African pope—once whispered in seminaries as wishful thinking—is now discussed with cautious realism.

And it’s not only about leadership at the top. This new papacy concerns cultural legitimacy. Our liturgy—our drums, our dance, our call-and-response chants—have always been considered secondary, something to be tolerated. But now, the Pope himself has said African worship is not an imitation of Catholicism; it is Catholicism. Diversity is no longer a concession; it is the soundtrack of Catholic universality. It is a testament to the Church’s recognition of its global congregation’s richness and diversity.

The most pressing issues Pope Leo XIV has thrust into the spotlight are Christian institutions’ credibility, accountability and transparency. Nigeria is no stranger to ecclesiastical scandals, financial opacity, and misplaced priorities. But now, voices within the Church are rising with renewed confidence. Leo XIV’s insistence on public diocesan audits should reverberate in Nigeria, where some parishes keep opaque books. The Pope’s zero-tolerance stance emboldens Nigerians to ask hard questions of bishops. In a country where corruption routinely hollows out institutions, a transparent Church could model the good governance the state so often lacks.

This sense of empowerment extends into diplomacy and development, where the Pope’s background as an American could prove strategically beneficial. If this Pope speaks directly to U.S. lawmakers about ethical foreign policy, it could change how aid is delivered and how conflicts are addressed. He understands both African suffering and American power. The hope is that he could serve as a moral interpreter between Africa and the West—a bridge with a conscience.

Leo XIV’s personal familiarity with Africa deepens these hopes. Nigerians still recall the Pope’s past visits to Jos and other cities. We feel he understands our reality, which means he can interpret our needs to audiences in Washington and Rome alike. That bridge-building potential implies that the pontiff could unlock U.S. philanthropic networks for dialogue programmes across Nigeria’s religious fault lines.

That potential is especially resonant in economic and environmental justice circles. If Pope Leo XIV addresses debt injustice or the exploitative structure of global trade, Washington will not ignore him. He’s not just a theologian. He’s an insider with prophetic courage. In the oil-polluted communities of the Niger Delta, some activists assumes that when the Pope shines the papal spotlight on our creeks, maybe then the oil giants will remember we are people, not just pipelines. The notion that a spiritual leader could steer profit-driven decisions may seem utopian, yet history is full of encyclicals that nudged governments toward unexpected reforms.

However, the Pope’s impact on domestic reform may be most transformative. Inspired by his message, parishioners in Yola’s St Theresa’s Church recently drafted an open letter urging their governor to publish a transparent and people-focused budget. In southern Kaduna, where violence has claimed countless lives, Father John Yakubu confessed: “This Pope challenges us priests to leave our comfort zones. We are called not only to preach, but to walk beside victims—to be visible where pain is present.” When moral authority radiates downward through the ecclesial chain, it can animate laity and clergy alike to confront entrenched dangers.

All these voices converge on a single conviction: the Church’s relevance in Africa will depend on how deeply it listens to Africa. An American pope who learned compassion amid his nation’s contradictions may be uniquely positioned to foster that listening. He stands at the confluence of Washington’s power, Rome’s tradition, and Africa’s youthful dynamism. If he can channel those currents into a river of justice, he will do more than make history—he will help heal it.

For now, Nigerians keep watch, balancing hope with realism. They know that papal exhortations do not automatically translate into legislative victories, access to education, healthcare or clean water taps. But they also know that culture often shifts on the hinge of imagination, and Leo XIV has already widened that imaginative horizon. As youth leader Blessing Iyorah stood in her cassava field outside Jos, she captured this new spirit best: “Faith isn’t an escape plan. It’s a construction manual. The Pope has given us blueprints. Now we must build the kingdom—right here, right now, with our own hands.” And in that soil, under the sun of central Nigeria —amid prayer, planning, and prophetic courage—the significance of an American pope for Nigeria might be taking root.

The National Judicial Council (NJC) recently made a significant move that may reshape the future of judicial appointments in Nigeria. For the first time in a long while, the NJC invited members of the public to comment on the suitability or otherwise of candidates shortlisted for appointment into various judicial offices across the country. This new openness in the recruitment process deserves commendation and, if sustained and properly managed, may herald a new era of transparency, public trust, and judicial accountability.

This commendable initiative aligns with global best practices. In developed democracies, judicial appointments are not cloaked in secrecy. Instead, they involve wide-ranging consultations, including public hearings, where interested citizens and stakeholders contribute insights or raise concerns about the integrity, competence, and past records of potential judicial officers. This is because the judiciary is not just a branch of government; it is the final arbiter of justice and custodian of the rule of law. Judges must, therefore, not only be competent but be seen by the public to be above board in character and impartiality.

By allowing the public to contribute to the vetting of judges, the NJC has shown its willingness to deepen democratic participation and rebuild public confidence on the bench. This is especially crucial in a country like Nigeria, where the judiciary has faced intense criticism, some justified, others frivolous. Giving citizens a voice in the selection of judges ensures that appointees are not only well-qualified in law but also known to be men and women of integrity by the communities they serve.

However, for this laudable process to achieve its desired objective, certain safeguards must be put in place. First, the process must be transparently conducted and brought to a logical conclusion. Where public objections are raised against a nominee, the grounds should be properly investigated, and the outcome is made public. Where allegations are found to be baseless, the candidate’s name must be cleared and protected from reputational harm. Equally, if the concerns are valid, the candidate must be disqualified, and the appointing authorities should be bold enough to uphold merit over sentiment.

Second, there must be accountability for those who abuse the process. The NJC rightly requires that any petition or objection be supported by a sworn affidavit. This is a wise step. Those who deliberately peddle falsehoods or file frivolous petitions against judicial nominees must be held accountable through perjury charges. 

The process of cleaning and strengthening the judiciary should not be hijacked by mischief-makers or used as a tool for vendettas. Public participation must go hand-in-hand with responsibility.

In conclusion, the NJC’s decision to open up the judicial appointment process to public scrutiny is a progressive move that deserves widespread applause. It shows a readiness to embrace transparency and to allow the people who are the ultimate beneficiaries of justice to have a say in who sits in judgment over them. We believe that this will not be a one-off gesture. Let it evolve into a permanent feature of our judicial system, supported by fairness, transparency, and discipline. The judiciary stands to gain, and so does the entire Nigerian state.

In this instance, the people and the system are announced as the winners.

 

Dr. Monday O. Ubani, SAN is a legal practitioner and public affairs analyst.

The election of Cardinal Robert Prevost as the 267th Pope started with the comical. Days before his election on Thursday May 8, United States President Donald Trump roused a lot of criticism across the world after he posted an AI-generated image of himself as the Pope. The image which the President posted penultimate Friday features him wearing a traditional bishop’s attire: a white cassock and pointed mitre, and a large cross around his neck.

Coming curiously as Catholics were still mourning the passing of the much-loved Pope Francis, who died on 21 April, and in the thick of preparations for the solemn Conclave to choose a successor, many did not see the joke that Trump was trying to pass on. It was a rude distraction; as amusing as it was offensive to believers of the Christian faith. Particularly, the New York State Catholic Conference openly accused Trump of mocking the faith.

Less than a week later, after the mantle of leadership of the Catholic church fell on Cardinal Prevost, it was tempting to look back at Trump’s ‘silly joke’ and juxtapose it against the pure coincidence of his emergence as indeed, the first pontiff born in the United States. The 69-year-old Pope was born in Chicago but his place of birth is insignificant compared to his global mission, where he leads the flock of over 1.4 billion Catholics.

Pope Leo XIV

He has assumed the name Pope Leo XIV and is expected to build on Pope Francis’ reforms, especially his concerns for peace and social justice. His first remarks from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica centred on peace and for a church that is engaged with the modern world. Last Friday in the Sistine Chapel, he officiated his first Mass as pope, laying out his direction in his first homily where he spoke about peace and justice and renewed commitment to the Gospel. In the mass attended by the other 132 cardinals who chose him on the second day of the conclave, he pledged to work for a united church and appealed to them to humble themselves in the manner of Christ. These give clear indications of where his priorities lie.

For a man who spent much of his career as a missionary, his election has prompted an outpouring of optimism across the globe as world leaders show eagerness to work with him in finding solutions on global issues. His commitment to be a faithful administrator of the church will not just be in keeping faith with the direction of his predecessor but also an effort to unite the church towards its key purpose.

Originally from Chicago, he has spent most of his career as a missionary in Peru and has dual Peruvian nationality. He became a cardinal only in 2023. Considered a centrist, he was a strong backer of Francis’ 12-year papacy, especially his devotion to social justice issues; however, he is not seen as open to the LGBTQ+ community the way Francis was.

Late Pope Francis is remembered for key priorities that shaped his papacy: care for the marginalized, environmental responsibility, and reform within the Church. He consistently called on Catholics to return to the heart of the Gospel, which he believed involved serving the poor, protecting the Earth, and renewing the Church’s structures to better reflect compassion and humility. These concerns placed him in strong moral dialogue with the world and within the Church itself.

Pope Francis’s emphasis on caring for the poor and the excluded was central to his mission as he consistently sided with migrants, refugees, and victims of economic injustice. This same concern is shared by the current Pope Leo, whose recent statements have emphasized fairness and the Church’s duty to uplift the forgotten. Pope Leo has spoken about inclusive development, echoing Francis’s belief that true progress must center around human dignity and the people’s welfare, and advocating for a more synodal Church that encourages deeper participation by the laity.

Though their approaches may differ in style, their shared vision for a just, merciful, and outward-looking Church remains clear. Circumstances have also changed, as Pope Leo XIV comes at a period of great strife across the globe, with wars in Europe between Russia and Ukraine; in the Middle East between Israel and some Arab nations and in Asia between India and Pakistan. As the world welcomes the new pontiff, expectations are high that the present Pope will reflect, advance, and possibly expand the legacy of Pope Francis by continuing to prioritize the search for peace, compassion for the marginalized and deeper reform in the church.

This article was first published in Sunday New Telegraph on Sunday, 11th May, 2025.

A man, convinced his wife was unfaithful, visited a village juju man for answers. The diviner demanded sand from the man’s yard for a ritual. Two weeks later, the man returned with the sample. After incantations, the juju man revealed shocking truths: the man’s children were not his, his daughter was entangled with five men, and his wife carried his brother’s child. Instead of despair, the man laughed. He confessed he’d forgotten his own soil and dug sand from the juju man’s compound. The diviner’s horrified cry—“JESUS CHRIST!”—echoed the irony: the rot was not just in one home, but in the very ground of the “healer” himself.

This allegory mirrors Kenya and Nigeria—two nations where citizens and leaders alike dig into each other’s “compounds,” blaming systemic decay on the other, only to find corruption, debt, and disillusionment are shared burdens. Their stories, separated by geography but united by post-colonial paradoxes, reveal a haunting truth: the poison is not “out there” but in the soil beneath their feet.

Kenya drives on the left, Nigeria on the right—a superficial distinction masking deeper parallels. Kenya’s British colonial legacy left a Westminster-style democracy and tea plantations; Nigeria’s amalgamation of British and French influences birthed a fractured federalism and oil dependency. Yet both nations inherited extractive institutions designed to serve foreign masters, now repurposed by local elites.

 

The traffic norms symbolize this dissonance. Kenya’s $3.2 billion Chinese-built Standard Gauge Railway, envisioned as a “path to modernity,” now bleeds $100 million annually, its debt repaid by taxing diapers and schoolbooks. Nigeria’s 4,000km coastal highway project, launched with fanfare in 2023, has displaced thousands while contractors vanish with advance payments. Citizens in both countries navigate potholed roads, literal and metaphorical, as leaders prioritize vanity projects over functional infrastructure.

Kenya’s debt-to-GDP ratio nears 70%, with Chinese loans consuming 67% of revenue. Nigeria’s $130 billion debt drowns its $24 billion oil earnings. Both nations now sacrifice education and healthcare to service obligations. Kenya spends $5 billion yearly on debt repayment—triple its health budget. Nigeria allocates 97% of 2023 revenue to debt servicing, leaving 3% for 220 million people.

The bitter irony? These loans, sold as “development,” vanish into private vaults. Kenya’s Eurobond scandals saw $4 billion disappear into offshore accounts. Nigeria recycled the Abacha loot recovery ($505 million) into another scam: officials repackaged repatriated funds as “infrastructure investments,” only to re-loot them. As a Lagos trader lamented, “Our leaders eat today, tomorrow, and the day after—while we starve in eternal yesterday.”

 

Kenya’s William Ruto and Nigeria’s Bola Tinubu rose to power on populist promises. Ruto, a self-styled “hustler,” vowed to uplift the poor but imposed taxes on bread and smartphones, sparking Gen-Z protests under #RejectFinanceBill2024. Tinubu, a former activist, canceled petrol subsidies without warning, spiking inflation to 33% and earning the nickname “Agbado” (a Yoruba term mocking his out-of-touch elitism).

Both leaders preach austerity while legislators feast. Kenyan MPs earn $12,000 monthly—52 times the minimum wage—and Nigeria’s Senate president with public funds has an entourage that will take you to heaven. Ruto’s allies face graft probes over $15 million fertilizer subsidies; Tinubu’s cabinet includes ministers indicted for embezzlement. The message is clear: politics is a buffet, not public service.

Corruption isn’t incidental—it’s systemic. Kenya’s Goldenberg scandal (1990s) saw $1 billion stolen via fake gold exports. Anglo-Leasing (2000s) siphoned $800 million through phantom security contracts. Nigeria’s NNPC became a kleptocratic hydra: $20 billion vanished under former Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, while “subsidy cabals” invoice the state for fuel never delivered.

 

Citizens enable this decay. Kenyan police extort $200 million annually at roadblocks; Nigerian officials demand bribes for birth certificates. A Lagos businessman shrugged: “If I don’t pay, someone else will. The system eats everyone.”

Kenya’s median age is 20, Nigeria’s 18—demographics that could catalyze renewal or chaos. Kenya’s #RejectFinanceBill2024 protests, led by Gen Zs on TikTok, forced Ruto to scrap the bill. Nigeria’s #EndSARS movement (2020) saw youths dismantle police brutality networks, only to be crushed by state violence.

Yet disillusionment festers. Kenya’s 5% unemployment masks underemployment: graduates hawk trinkets in Nairobi’s Kibera slum. Nigeria’s 33% jobless rate fuels exodus—75% of medical interns plan to emigrate. Those who stay join gangs or extremists: Kenya’s Al-Shabaab recruits in coastal poverty; Nigeria’s bandit warlords rule forests, taxing villages and kidnapping students.

 

Insecurity binds both nations. Kenya’s 2013 Westgate Mall attack (67 dead) and Nigeria’s Chibok girls abduction (276 kidnapped) are symbols of state failure. Bandits kill 5,000 Nigerians yearly; Kenya’s cattle rustling escalates into ethnic massacres. Security budgets vanish: Nigeria’s ex-army chief Tukur Buratai allegedly stole $2.2 billion meant for weapons, while Kenya’s police chief lives in a $12 million mansion amid cop barracks infested with rats.

The parable’s conclusion—that rot permeates the healer’s own soil—poses a question: Can poisoned systems be redeemed? Kenya’s tech innovators (e.g., M-Pesa) and Nigeria’s cultural power (Afrobeats, Nollywood) hint at dormant potential. But transformation requires digging up entrenched rot.

Kenya must confront land grabs by political dynasties and audit Chinese debt. Nigeria needs to dismantle oil mafias and invest in renewables. Citizens must reject tribal politics: Kenya’s ethnic voting birthed post-election violence in 2007; Nigeria’s North-South divide fuels marginalization.

 

As the juju man screamed for divine intervention, so must these nations. The road ahead demands more than switching driving sides—it requires accountability at all levels. Kenya’s youth must channel digital prowess into governance; Nigeria’s creatives should weaponize art for activism.

The man’s laughter—a mix of irony and despair—echoes from Nairobi’s Mathare slum to Lagos’s Makoko floating village. It asks: Will we keep digging in each other’s yards, or till our own soil? Until then, the wheels spin, the debts mount, and the future hangs on a question only time can answer.

Values play a significant role when adopting learning approaches by individuals during their studies. Values are the baseline of the ethical compass and regulate people’s daily behavior. Values establish the ultimate goals one has to achieve and how to get them. Values guide every decision-making process. Values help someone define what is proper, correct, important, beautiful, worthwhile, or desirable.

In essence, the “Results that Exposed our Values” can be interpreted in a few ways, all pointing to how our values are revealed through the outcomes of our actions and experiences. These outcomes can be in our academics, personal, professional, or even societal, and they can be positive or negative. Ultimately, they highlight the importance of our values in shaping how we live and interact with the world.

Unwittingly, the manifestation of our values is seen in our actions, behaviors, and attitudes. It’s also reflected in how we cherish or admire certain values, and in the principles and standards that guide our interactions with others, both individually and within society. Values are manifested in society by the collective actions of people in society.

 

Essentially, one of the things that plague our society is false value; there are numerous moralistic fault-finders with tremendously laughable superiority complexes based off defeatist attitudes of exalting existing in one’s exploitation or weakness, and parasitic proselytization of communal values.

Following from the above, the recently released JAMB results have generated a lot of hullabaloo for the simple reason that failure is staring us in the face. We are crying wolf where there’s none, because the unfolding scenario is long expected. More than 1.5 million candidates representing about 78 per cent- who sat for the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) scored below 200 out of the 400 obtainable points.

For the avoidance of doubt, this monumental failure in JAMB examinations can be attributed to a combination of factors, including inadequate preparation, poor time management, lack of familiarity with the exam format, and exam anxiety. Technical issues during the exam, such as computer glitches, may have also contributed to lower scores. Additionally, some students may choose to pursue education abroad or in private universities, potentially leading to a calculated failure in the UTME.

 

In reality however, the previous year 2024 was slightly better. According to the JAMB Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, 1,402,490 candidates scored below 200 out of the possible 400 marks. That is a whopping 76 percent of the candidates not scoring up to 50 percent of the marks. It has thus become an annual ritual, for the nation to be regaled with the record of performances of candidates who have been compelled to undertake a national examination in order to qualify to be admitted to study in a university.

The million-dollar question:

As parents; school teachers, school owners, examiners, invigilator and the larger society. Where did we get it wrong? Did we all failed?

 

Let’s examine how we got to this point:

• Is it the deterioration in adequate nutritional balance critical for cognitive capabilities of students?

• Is it the issue of underfunded schools which shows in the structures until roofs caved in.?

 

• Is it that of hungry and unqualified teachers in our schools?

• Is it that of unsuitable policies in our system?

• So, the critical questions arises, it should spark national conversation. Is this how we are going to raised “tomorrow’s leaders”?

 

• This is certainly our collective faults if in some years to come our children becomes the engineer who builds collapsing bridges; the doctor who kills patients and the leader who embezzled billions. Definitely, this is not the future we envisioned.

We all need to accept responsibility and act with intention. This is a timely reminder that transforming EDUCATION is not just about policy—it’s about people, purpose, and shared values.

Conclusively, it is worrisome, this is the time to revisit and mitigate the potential failure as we key into the benefits of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). It is important to begin by prioritizing the aspect of Technical and vocational Education and Training (TVET), which is crucial to the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) as it equips individuals with the practical skills, lifelong learning and knowledge which could become the game-changer and rebuild trust in our education system and prepare our youths for a future with opportunity and innovation. Specifically, ‘TVET’ plays a key role in providing a workforce with the right competencies for the 4IR, in this era of global industrialization.

 

Finally, as we jointly confront the failed system, the critical question that arises should become our focus instead of rallying on paper qualifications over and above skill development. Because there’s a complex relationship between educational outcomes and the values that shape our society. Therefore, the 2025 JAMB results are more than just statistics—they serve as a mirror reflecting broader systemic issues, ethical dilemmas and social attitudes.

There is no denying the fact that Minister Nyesom Wike is a man of strong opinions and commanding presence. But his recent assertion that anyone who criticizes President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration for non-performance is “blind” reeks of insensitivity, arrogance, and sheer political elitism. It is even more insulting when such a declaration is made from the comfort of his privileged position as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), a role that has obviously placed him within the inner corridors of presidential largesse.

Let us be blunt: Wike is not in a position to dictate how over 200 million Nigerians should feel or speak about the hardship they are enduring. That he is benefitting handsomely from his ministerial appointment does not mean the average Nigerian is experiencing the same “first-class” comfort. It is easy for a man cruising in a bulletproof convoy, signing off multi-billion naira infrastructure contracts, and posing for cameras at commissioning ceremonies to sing praises of a government many see as failing them. But Wike must remember, Nigerians do not eat flyovers, cook streetlights, or spend interchanges in the market.

Given the minister’s vituperations in this context, it is not an exaggeration to opine that there is a disconnect between the elites and the masses.  The foregoing view can be understood by dissecting Wike’s remark with brutal honesty. He said, “Mr President has given first-class infrastructure to Abuja. All of you can attest to the fact that indeed, Abuja has changed… I don’t see why anybody would say that Mr. President has not done well, except that you are just blind.”

 

This is not just a tone-deaf statement; it is deeply offensive. It dismisses the lived experiences of millions of Nigerians who have seen their lives spiral into deeper poverty since May 29, 2023. These are not blind people, they are battered people. Nigerians are seeing clearly, and what they see is not infrastructure, they see hunger, joblessness, inflation, insecurity, and hopelessness.

Wike’s gleeful emphasis on Abuja’s shiny new roads and interchanges is insulting when the average Nigerian cannot afford a bag of rice, cannot fuel their car, cannot pay their children’s school fees, and cannot even afford a simple medical bill. Wike is speaking from the rarefied air of political power, but he forgets that the air down here is choking many Nigerians with economic despair.

Let us be clear, no rational Nigerian will argue against infrastructural development. Roads, bridges, water supply, and public buildings are necessary components of national development. However, they are long-term assets that must complement immediate, people-centered policies aimed at alleviating hardship. Building a 10-lane expressway in Abuja while citizens are unable to afford garri in Gboko or onions in Onitsha is not democracy, it is misalignment of priorities.

 

Wike, like many of his peers, falls into the trap of measuring governance solely by physical infrastructure. But governance is more than concrete and asphalt, it is about the daily quality of life of the people. If infrastructure is booming but hunger is also booming, then something is terribly wrong.

What good is a new interchange in Gishiri to a family that has not had electricity for weeks in Kaduna? What impact does the International Conference Centre renovation have on a trader in Aba who is drowning in debt due to forex instability? And how do the residents of Osogbo benefit from Wike’s much-celebrated water projects in Abuja? These are the uncomfortable questions Wike and the ruling elite refuse to engage with.

One of the greatest red flags of any administration is when its officials begin to attack or gaslight citizens for expressing their pain. Wike calling critics “blind” because they do not see Abuja’s transformation is not just contemptuous, it is dangerous. In a democracy, people have the right to speak, to protest, and to disagree with those in power.

 

Is Wike suggesting that suffering Nigerians should keep quiet simply because some roads are being built in the capital? Is he telling market women, struggling artisans, underpaid civil servants, and jobless graduates that their voices do not matter? Is this what he thinks governance is, a one-way show of praise and silence?

By calling dissenters “blind,” Wike has taken a page out of the playbook of autocrats who suppress criticism rather than addressing it. But Nigeria is not a monarchy, and he is not the emperor of Abuja. Nigerians will speak, because they are hungry, angry, and disillusioned. And no amount of paint on Abuja’s curbsides will silence them.

Wike must understand that his privileged access to national wealth does not reflect the reality of ordinary Nigerians. He may wake up to a breakfast of imported croissants and government-sponsored convenience, but many Nigerians wake up not knowing where their next meal will come from.

 

He may commission projects with fanfare and brag about “dividends of democracy,” but in towns and villages across the country, people are asking why fuel is nearly ₦900 per liter. They are asking why the naira is losing value like a leaking basket. They are asking why the minimum wage still stands at ₦70,000 while a bag of rice is almost ₦80,000.

If this is what Wike calls good governance, then perhaps he needs a refresher course in public administration. The dividends of democracy are not meant to be limited to the capital city or to those who have political appointments, they are meant to be felt by the security guard in Warri, the teacher in Sokoto, the seamstress in Ilorin, and the farmer in Otukpo.

Wike’s arrogant reference to “blindness” must also be addressed. Nigerians are not blind. In fact, their eyes are wide open. They see the corruption. They see the misplaced priorities. They see the opulence of those in power. They see the hardship that deepens by the day. If anything, it is the government and its cronies that have chosen to be blind, to the pain of the people, to the hunger on the streets, and to the cries of the forgotten.

 

So let us turn the tables: who is truly blind here? The man who speaks truth to power from the trenches of poverty, or the man who lives in luxury and mocks the poor for not praising their tormentors?

Minister Wike must be reminded that his duty is to serve, not to scold. He is not a king, and Nigerians are not his subjects. The people have every right to criticize Tinubu’s government if they feel it is underperforming. And so far, the only “first-class” experience the average Nigerian has had in the last one year is first-class suffering.

Let Wike continue to unveil his interchanges and commission his roads, but let him do so with humility and a sense of perspective. Nigerians are not asking for too much. They want food, stable electricity, healthcare, jobs, and security. If the government cannot provide these, then no amount of painted curbsides in Abuja will make it right.

 

In the end, leadership is not about silencing criticism with insults. It is about listening, responding, and improving. Wike should allow Nigerians to express themselves. After all, we do not cook infrastructure, we do not eat flyovers, and we certainly do not need lectures on what we can and cannot see. We are seeing clearly, and what we see is that Nigeria needs more than just ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

And if Wike still insists on accusing the people of being blind, he should remember: the blind may not see, but they can feel, and right now, Nigerians are feeling nothing but pain.

Anambra North senatorial constituency comprises seven local government areas (LGAs). These are: Anambra East, Anambra West, Anyamelum, Ogbaru, Onitsha North, Onitsha South, and Oyi. The contest to represent it in the election to the senate in 2007 turned out to be memorable for all the wrong reasons. Voting in the election occurred on 28 April 2007. At the end of the contest, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) returned Joy Emordi, the incumbent senator and candidate of the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), as the winner.

In the race for the party ticket which preceded the election, Senator Emordi beat out the challenge of a little-known member of the House of Representatives, Ubanese Alphonsus Igbeke. Having lost the contest for the party ticket, however, Ubanese promptly defected to the opposition All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), which granted him the ticket to fly its flag in the contest for the election to the senate in Anambra North.

Following the announcement of the election results by the INEC, five of the losing candidates headed to the election petition tribunal to challenge the announcement of Senator Emordi as winner. They included Jessie Balonwu of the Labour Party, and Ubanese of the ANPP. An essential complaint was that there was no lawful voting in Anyamelum and Onitsha South LGAs. If their complaint was upheld, the logic would have necessitated a re-run. Over one year after the conclusion of the election, on 14 June 2008, the tribunal dismissed the petitions, and affirmed Joy Emordi as duly elected.

The losing candidates appealed.

 

Jessie Balonwu’s appeal was the first to be decided. On February 10, 2009, a Court of Appeal panel comprising three Justices of Appeal – Victor Omage, Ladan Tsamiya and Olukayode Ariwoola – found that there was no evidence in support of the claim that there were no elections in the two LGAs. The court of appeal, therefore, affirmed the decision of the election petition tribunal. At the time, appeals concerning elections to the senate ended in the court of appeal.

Like the other losing candidates, Ubanese lost his case at the election petition tribunal. Like them, he also appealed. Nearly three years after the election, on March 24, 2010, another panel of the court of appeal, this time comprising Amiru Sanusi (who was not on the earlier panel) as well as Ladam Tsamiya and Olukayode Ariwoola – both of whom had decided Jessie Balonwu’s case nearly a year earlier – nullified the election of Joy Emordi, declared Ubanese the winner of the election and ordered INEC to issue a certificate in his favour affirming his victory.

Six years after that judgment, the National Judicial Council (NJC) sacked Ladan Tsamiya as a judge in connection with judicial corruption in another election case from neighbouring Abia state.

 

Returning to the Anambra North senatorial contest from 2007, Senator Emordi applied to the supreme court for a review of the two ostensibly conflicting decisions of the court of appeal but the court struck out her case, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear her. With one year left to run on the tenure and armed with the judgment of the court of appeal, Ubanese ousted Joy Emordi from the senate in May 2010 to become the senator for Anambra North. Once there, he promptly defected back to the ruling PDP from the ranks of the ANPP.

That was not the first time that Ubanese would be returnee as legislator by the votes of judges alone. His first tour of duty as a legislator in the House of Representatives in 2003 was made possible also by judicial decision.

He was not the only one to be selected in this manner in 2003. In the contest for the Anambra South seat for the senate, the court of appeal in Enugu manufactured victory for Ugochukwu Uba – who was not a candidate in the election. Ugochukwu Uba’s younger brother, Andy, was a very influential presidential confidante at the time.

2010 was not the last time that Ubanese’s entire electorate would comprise members of the Nigerian judiciary. ThisDay newspaper famously described him as “the serial senator who never wins an election”.

 

In 2011, another high court in Abuja also issued an order requiring the INEC to return Ubanese yet again as Senator for Anambra North after the election had been concluded and a winner declared. The order was stupefying because only an election petition tribunal could issue it.

This time, the Attorney-General of the Federation had Ubanese arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on charges of forging and altering the outcome of the party primaries that he lost, misrepresenting to the High Court in Abuja that he had in fact emerged as the winner.

Ubanese was ultimately unsuccessful in returning to the Senate in 2011 but had pioneered an electoral business model that would prove both lucrative for all involved and resilient beyond his wildest imagining.

Ubanese showed judges how a joint enterprise with politicians could prove effective in making both sides influential, wealthy and powerful while at the same time sidelining the voters from the constitutive enterprise of deciding who controls their destinies. This guarantees that elections no longer end in the polling units. Instead, what we call elections only pare down the candidates who are required thereafter to proceed to court units, where the ultimate selection is determined by judges who alone have the right to vote. The cost of entry into this stage is prohibitive.

 

Only the truly moneyed dare to show up.

The constitution may have anointed the people as the electorate but, in Nigeria, the winners and losers in elections are now decided by a judicial selectorate who do not feel themselves beholden to anything that the constitutional electorate may wish, seek, or say.

 

According to a former national vice-chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Salihu Lukman, “citizens can vote but winners are decided in the courtroom by conclaves of judges.” Former president, Goodluck Jonathan, acknowledged in Asaba, capital of Delta state in June 2024 that Nigerian judges increasingly “declare who doesn’t win the election that they are winners.”

Selectorate Theory explains how elites access and retain power. It distinguishes between three categories of actors for this purpose. Interchangeables notionally have a role but hardly fit the part. Influentials sometimes may do so. But the focus is on a small category of “Essentials” who decide nearly everything. The clever power seeker focuses on doing a deal with the Essentials at the expense of the Influentials and the Interchangeables.

 

In Nigeria, the judges have made themselves the indispensable Essentials in winning power and retaining it. The people have become very expendable Interchangeables. The national exchequer, meant for the people, now goes to financing the fancies of these electoral Essentials in order to protect the joint enterprise with the politicians. This is all done under ruse of law which, it is claimed, is indispensable to democracy.

The “ownership” of judicial figures has thus become an essential political accessory in Nigeria. Every ambitious politician knows that they need to own some judges or at least one. This political business model is a deeply Nigerian variant on Selectorate Theory which is now taking firm root across Africa. For this export, we must thank Ubanese Igbeke and the Uba brothers of Uga in Anambra state. 

This week, publishers Narrative Landscape will be releasing, The Selectorate, my book which tells the story of how Nigerian judges toppled the people. It is a story that has been long in the making.

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

“We must therefore not shirk from accusing our friends, or praising our enemies, nor need we be afraid of praising or blaming the same people at different times; since, it is impossible that the men [and women] who are engaged in public affairs should always be right; and unlikely they should always be in the wrong. We must therefore detach ourselves from the actors [and actresses] in our story, and apply to them only such statements and judgments as their conduct deserves” – Polybius, c200-118 BC.

Once again, I find myself risking being misunderstood by the millions of political opponents of President Tinubu and the Federal Government.

There will be those who might read into what follows an attempt to secure an appointment or benefit somehow from it. That is a cross everybody regularly in the public domain must carry.

But, if it will help to persuade the doubting Thomases that there is no ulterior motive behind this, let me disclose that I am so physically challenged, any President must be out of his mind to offer me an appointment.

I will need a straight jacket if I accept. I can hardly walk; and can’t seat for long.

Perhaps, it is worth repeating that it had been my personal principle to stay out of politics and to be neutral and objective in my comments of national affairs.

I have religiously kept out of partisan politics – so much so, no Head of State, military or civilian, has escaped the sharp point of my pen.

I don’t intend to stop now.

In fact, the matter of solar panels at Aso Rock, to any economist, is primarily an investment decision – before any other considerations. 

Unfortunately, this is not the best of times for Tinubu.

THE BEST DECISION BY FG

“It is part of a king [or President] to do good to his subjects and be maligned for it” – Alexander the Great, 356-323   BC

Few rulers are loved by the majority of their subjects – particularly when several things are going wrong; as they now are in Nigeria.

Nothing seems to be going right at the moment and the promises made two years ago are becoming difficult to redeem. All these are perfectly understandable.

Let us now address the investment decision involved in this needless controversy.

But, first a personal example would help to illustrate the point devoid of associated sentiments. 

Three years ago, I invested in an inverter; after being persuaded that it was cost effective.

Like every economist, there was a need to keep a strict record of all transactions. Primarily, after paying my DISCO’s fraudulent bills, petrol still had to be bought for the generator.

Records of fuel purchases for the gen-set were kept meticulously for two months before the inverter was installed.

Record-keeping continued after the inverter was installed.

In two months, we saved 30 per cent of the cost of the inverter plus installation.

In eight months, the inverter had paid for itself. A friend who opted for solar power, about the time I was going for inverter, had a similar happy story to tell.

The first truth is; solar or inverter power supply constitute huge savings on power generation costs; and they are far more environmentally-friendly.

Objectively, the switch from DISCO to solar power is the best investment decision the federal or any state government can make right now.

The facts, devoid of emotions, speak very clearly for themselves.

If for a mere, the word mere is deliberate, N20 billion investment, the Presidency can save annual Disco bills of N70 billion or more, we should all be urging them to do it as quickly as possible.

Obviously, the critics are not being objective.

Like subjects since time immemorial they must grumble at measures taken by the ruler – even, when in this case it serves their own economic interests.

The second truth is: after the initial cost of N20 billion, annual maintenance charges are frequently less than ten per cent or N2 billion.

Who would want government in any country, especially the Poverty Capital of the World, to spend N70 billion annually providing power to the seat of power; instead of N2 billion?

One of the sharpest critics of the expenditure was the nurse with the placard pointing out that several Teaching Hospitals in Nigeria have been disconnected by DISCOs and implying that it was wrong for Aso Rock to budget N20 billion for solar power.

It was an emotional appeal – not an economic one.

I have lived very close to the Universities of Lagos and Ibadan since 1974. Each of them is a sprawling institution – almost as big as Aso Rock.

Yes, they, as well as other universities, need regular power supply. But, the existing reprehensible situations did not arise yesterday. They built up gradually. Teaching Hospitals should also come forward with their own plans to go solar and leave DISCOs strictly alone.

At any rate, I fail to understand the logic implied in the position.

Are those who have latched unto the protest saying that Aso Rock should have no power supply if Teaching Hospitals don’t? That would be absurd.

Government’s seat of power must have power supply irrespective of who occupies the office of president.

And, in this case, they want to reduce the cost of power supply!!! What is wrong with that? 

ASO ROCK AND WHITE HOUSE COMPARED

“Comparisons can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions.”

The unexpected blistering attack on social media and the political opposition drove the president’s spokesmen to want to justify the investment by drawing attention to the fact that America’s White House also has solar power panels installed. The defence made a good case worse.

To begin with, the White House is not faced with a crippling bill by any power provider in Washington D.C.

So, there is no immediate need to switch fully to alternative source of power supply. Furthermore, the solar panels were installed by the late President Jimmy Carter, in the 1980s – whose foresight regarding solar energy was not shared by his fellow countrymen.

No other president has shared his vision. Donald Duck will certainly not shift to solar during his four destructive years in office. The occupants of the two presidencies are not faced with the same problems; neither are they compelled to offer the same solution.

Tinubu’s decision makes perfect sense for Nigeria; and he does not need comparison with any other country.

The challenge to the critics is for them to fault the economic soundness of the decision; not to indulge in playing to the gallery on a matter which is clear.

IS IT VALUE FOR MONEY?

“Nobody should be condemned on suspicion.” That is one of the pillars of fair comment.

Some critics, unable to find objective reasons for opposing the initiative, have resorted to declaring that the contract would be inflated and awarded to a political crony. To be candid, I cannot vouch for the FG that in the end, the nation would receive value for money.

While approving the decision on purely economic principle, it is not possible for me to determine whether or not the cost is inflated for reasons known to government. For that reason, I would suggest that the contract be subjected to the most open and stringent process of competitive bidding. If not for anything else, but to minimise the impact of mindless opposition to this profitable project.

IS THE PRESIDENCY ISOLATING ITSELF?

“The Presidency is isolating itself from the problem faced by other Nigerians” – A critic of the project (name withheld).

Several television talk show hosts had a field day with the matter.

In addition to the “Tinubu can do nothing right” gang, others not so biased also objected to the acquisition because it isolates Aso Rock from the problems confronted by Nigerians.

I agree with their observation absolutely. But, permit me to quickly add that self-indulgence by rulers, irrespective of type of government – monarchy, dictatorship, democracy or theocracy – rulers are always insulated from the pains of the common man.

One example would help to make the point.

During the Second World War, while the ordinary citizens in England and Germany were under aerial bombardment by hostile forces, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, 1874-1965, and Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, 1899-1945, a democrat and a dictator, were both protected in secure bunkers – from which they governed.

No Briton or German begrudge them their secure positions.

Furthermore, as food scarcity made life more miserable for ordinary people, the bunkers were fully provisioned.

Exceptional treatment comes with the territory everywhere – not just Aso Rock.

THE REAL WASTE – SPENDING $2BN ON REFINERIES

“Hitting the ground running can have disastrous consequences.”

That was my warning to newly-elected President Tinubu shortly after he pronounced that “fuel subsidy is gone” to global applause – before the repercussions brought him up short on his victory lap.

To regain momentum, he allowed himself to be persuaded by Mele Kyari and the Directors of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, that the quickest way to bring fuel prices down was to revive the four refineries.

He believed them; and authorised $2 billion to be released immediately.

It was a great blunder.

Nobody, not even Donald Trump, should spend that sort of money without asking a lot of questions.

But, even without being asked, some of us were warning Tinubu to forget the scraps called refineries.

Former officials are reportedly singing at the EFCC Headquarters; Warri refinery is shut down despite wasting $897 million on it; Port Harcourt refinery is in limbo.

Altogether $2bn hastily approved has gone down the drain. That is the real waste; to be charged to Tinubu’s account. 

From independence in 1960 till a few years ago, Nigeria’s most credible arm of government was the judiciary. It is certainly no longer so. But because it was designed to be the last hope of the common man,to reverse the situation and restore the judiciary to its old place of pride is a thing that must be done.

Happily, the starting point of this restoration has begun as the National Judicial Council (NJC) under the leadership of Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun is now attempting to redress the negatives in the system that vocal critics have been highlighting. In other words, the critics are not enemies of the NJC as some people imagine, they are instead the well-meaning and best friends of the Nigerian judiciary.

The week before, the NJC handed down a one-year suspension without pay to three judicial officers, including one Justice of the Court of Appeal, for actions considered as judicial misconduct. An official statement by the NJC listed the affected officers as Justice Jane Inyang of the Court of Appeal, Uyo Division; Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, and Justice Aminu Baffa Aliyu of the Federal High Court, Zamfara Division. Although the weight of the NJC’s hammer may not immediately assuage the huge public dislike for the judiciary, it is certainly encouraging that the intervention has come to remind citizens that perhaps Justice Kekere Ekun, is set to implement her promise to restore the judiciary’s dignity. 

 Notable groups and individuals almost immediately applauded the NJC for sanctioning the erring judges. One of such groups, Citizens’ Gavel, a civic-tech organisation promoting access to justice, transparency, and accountability in Nigeria, praised the NJC for implementing disciplinary measures against erring judges over acts of judicial misconduct.On his part, Professor Akinseye-George, President of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), said the NJC’s recent actions serve as a beacon of reform and integrity which deserves commendation for its principled and courageous decisions. No one should however be surprised that not every analyst is prepared to commend the NJC’s efforts. Indeed, some critics are not convinced that the sanctions are strong enough to deter other compromised personnel.

In fairness, the sanctions do not quite fit the offences but it is praise worthy as a departure from the posture of homily of the immediate past leadership of the NJC. Rather than dealing squarely with the specific judges who issued conflicting directives on the same Emirship tussle in Kano, Justice Ariwoola-led NJC decided to summon the heads of the relevant courts to a meeting with the then CJN. The promise to tackle the unnecessary struggle for territorial power at the expense of societal harmony by the judges concerned never saw the light of day; making the historic city of Kano to become a throne with two Kings. Interestingly, the current sanctions are not related to the Kano debacle. If it is still coming, it qualifies to be recorded as a clear case of a disciplinary action that was deliberately delayed.

 One of the current decisions of the NJC to restore sanity to our judiciary is its intervention in the plot by politicians to play politics with the appointment of a Chief Judge (CJ) for Imo state. It is good that the NJC intervened swiftly to restore the old constitutional order which states that theChief Judge of a state or indeed any judge “cannot be removed or disciplined without the input or participation of the National Judicial Council NJC.”The danger of the executive and legislature colluding to remove a CJ that is difficult to manipulate speaks for itself. The prompt intervention of the NJC in the Imo case would certainly push states such as Benue away from politicising the office of the CJ. Thepositive point here is that the NJC has successfully thwarted the cherished goal of state governors who are anxious to replace CJs that are difficult to be compromised. 

  However, one must necessarily be cautious in applauding the NJC for its current professional standing because history tells us that the Council is always only able to do so at state level as it did in the past in Kwara, Abia, Rivers, Plateau and Ekiti states. But whether it can similarly behave when it concerns the position of the CJN where the other side to the case is the President is not certain. Our position is influenced by the story of how Justice Walter Onnoghen was wrongly replaced by Justice Tanko Muhammad as CJN in 2019. In that case, it was the executive branch headed at the time by President Muhammadu Buhari that removed Onnoghen without the NJC’s consent.It was the same President that solely proceeded to appoint and swear in Justice Tanko Muhammad to serve as Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria. The NJC neither rejected Buhari’s action nor did it penalize Tanko Muhammad for accepting a constitutional breach which favoured himself.   

 That was not all. The NJC was also coerced into taking two questionable steps. First, it recommended an extension of Tanko’s illegal acting appointment and second, proceeded a few months later, to confirm the same appointment.Since then, the NJC is yet to tell the nation why it timidly accepted the President’s position to which it had made no input as required by law. Now that the NJC is rejecting the same unconstitutional posture from the Imo state governor, is it a case of double standard or a reflection of better leadership by Justice Kekere Ekun? Until the latter is able to reject such behaviour from the President, we can only clap with one hand for now as it would be easier to rescind the half-hearted clap if latter events suggest that the applause was rather in a hurry.

 If the intention of the NJC as currently constituted is to win back the confidence of the public, it should deal quickly with the cases which have turned the spotlight on the judiciary. An obvious bad trend is the struggle between federal and state high courts for territorial empire. This should not happen as no one can change the fact that the federal high court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It therefore has no business getting enmeshed in chieftaincy matters by fashioning some cases with the garb of enforcement of fundamental human rights.Even non-lawyers know that this has the been stand of the Supreme Court in the case of Alhaji Umar Abba Tukur V The Governor of Gongola State which was decided about four decades ago. Should the NJC have tolerated for one minute, the refusal ofthe federal high court in Kano to faithfully abide by the principle of stare decisis?

Many members of the public were expecting not only a speedy handling of such cases but huge fines imposed on the lawyers who filed them before the wrong courts. That did not happen just as the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) surprisingly failed to perform better than the NJC that many of its members often criticise. Otherwise, what has happened to the call by a former NBA President, Y.K Mikyau, SAN that the lawyers who filed the cases before the wrong courts be investigated and be sanctioned by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers if found wanting? Has the call been swept under the carpet or handled secretly so that we all forget about the case in due course?

Then, there is the annoying issue of the NJC making retirement from office, the punishment for criminal offences such as perjury. It is not only that the punishment does not fit the crime, it allows lay persons to suspect the existence in the judiciary of discrimination in some cases while in others, it projects a deepinstitutional hesitation which seeks to protect the principle of esprit des corps. Perhaps those who are dissatisfied with the stand of the NJC are hyper critical but we need to answer Professor Ndikalu’s question: ‘Will a judge who is suspended for one year without pay not more likely to come back more hungry and more corrupt?’

Finally, the greatest challenge today in our justice delivery system is located within cases emanating from politics and elections. They are therefore those that the NJC should handle with iron fists. We are thus at a time when the nation is in dire need of judicial activism in which politicians should no longer be helped to cover their reprehensible acts. Political events that are widely known or transmitted on national television are notorious facts. In a good system notorious facts need no proof; instead, judicial notice is taken of them. This is a courageous posture that can keep Nigerian politicians at bay.

Today, icon of Akure Kingdom in Ondo State, foremost Yoruba leader and one of the major twines holding together the Yoruba nation, Baba Reuben Famuyide Fasoranti, clocks 99 years on earth. Born on May 11, 1926, Fasoranti is also a noteworthy bridge linking the highly romanticized First Republic politics and governance to the current order of things. Fasoranti’s political trajectory and ideology are deeply rooted in progressivism and Yoruba ideals and principles. As a politician, he affiliated with and imbibed the political philosophy of Yoruba’s ancestor, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Through the Action Group (AG) party and later the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) Fasoranti served his political tutelage under leaders like Awo himself, Chief Michael Ajasin, Abraham Adesanya, rising to be the leader of Afenifere, Yoruba political cultural group. During the Second Republic, Fasoranti served as Commissioner of Finance in old Ondo State between 1979 and 1983. Legend has it that Fasoranti was Awolowo’s choice for governorship of old Ondo State but the content Fasoranti rejected it for personal reasons.

Baba Fasoranti at 99

During the bloodthirsty military despotism of General Sani Abacha, Fasoranti was one of the NADECO leaders whom that regime attempted to assassinate. In 1996, a clear attempt was made on his lift by regime goons. While the likes of Fasoranti are alive today by Providence, the Alfred Rewanes were not that lucky.He is held today as a symbol of the never-dying spirit of resistance against forces of tyranny and oppression. Fasoranti’s politics has never been about himself but the advancement of his people, a philosophy upheld by his resilience and fortitude in the face of visible danger and personal losses. When his daughter was killed by herders on the Akure-Ore road some years ago, Fasoranti, like the biblical Job, took Providence’s judgment with astonishing equanimity and stoicism. As leader of Afenifere, Baba Fasoranti has held the forte for Yoruba like his predecessors, canvassing and holding aloft solidarity to the unity of Yoruba people, supremacy of Yoruba ideals and the betterment of the lot of his people.

Fasoranti’s trajectory as a teacher must have imbued in him the principles of integrity, leadership, service and a teachable spirit. As a young man, he meandered through a primary school in his Uso village, to Ondo Boys’ High School, Yaba Higher College in Lagos, and the University College, Ibadan, the latter being where he bagged a higher degree in English/Geography. Upon beginning his career trajectory, it was his Alma Mater, Ondo Boys’ High School, that Fasoranti pitched his tent. He later became Principal of Oyemekun Grammar School and Iju-Itaogbolu Grammar School. Fasoranti is today held by his people as a legend who dedicated his life to the advancement of education and the place of knowledge in the advancement of society. As an underscore of his obsessive love for education, Fasoranti established the Omolere Nursery and Primary School and Akure High School, which today are his huge and imperishable imprints on the rock of education.

Regardless of my views, I must confess that my people of Akure hold President Bola Tinubu, through Baba Fasoranti, in a very high esteem. A chemistry works between the duo that is difficult to decipher. Could it have been forged in the smithy and grits of the NADECO years? When Afenifere delegation visited Tinubu in Aso Rock in 2023, the president did the near-centenarian the rare honour of personally wheeling him about in his chair. Akure people also say that never in the history of federal governance in Nigeria have they witnessed the kind of gale of federal projects that are coming to them under this government. The hitherto impassable Akure-Ikere road which our son, Ademola Adegoroye, gave impressionable fillip to as an 11-month minister, has received huge financial backing from Tinubu. So also the dualization of the Akure-Ore road where Baba Fasoranti’s daughter was unfortunately killed. The dualization of Ilesha-Akure-Benin road, I am told, has also been awarded. In the same vein, the most massive project ever in the area, the Akure Teaching Hospital, is sprinting so well that I am told Tinubu wants Baba Fasoranti to see it fructify in his life time.

While praying to God to grant Baba Fasoranti centenary and post-centenary existence, in good health, I salute this great son of Akure Kingdom today on his 99th birth anniversary.