The Mohammed Abacha case

By Okoi Obono-Obla I FIND the stout and spirited defence of Mohammed Abacha by some politicians of Northern Nigeria origin particularly the Speaker of the House of Representatives Alhaji Ghali Na 'Abba rather strange, hypocritical and baseless. I am hugely disappointed that these defenders of Mohammed Abacha are not defending him on the notion of justice, fair play and the rule of law but on primordial consideration of sectionalism and ethnicity. They are alleging that Mohammed Abacha is being pursued because he happens to be of Northern Nigerian extraction. In their preconceived notion of playing the ethnic card to obscure the issue at stake, these ethnic champions have completely turned a blind eye to the hideous crimes alleged to have been committed by this young man against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I am not talking about his acquittal by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a controversial judgement concerning his alleged involvement in the brutal murder of the late business Mogul and politician, MKO Abiola's wife, Kudirat Abiola. I agree that consequent on the Supreme Court judgement, Mohammed Abacha cannot be arrested and prosecuted on facts concerning his alleged instigation of the murder of late Kudirat Abiola. This is because the Nigerian Constitution has effectively prohibited the doctrine of double jeopardy in Nigerian criminal jurisprudence. This is embedded in the maxim of the law that no man could be twice vexed or tried upon facts which he has been previously tried and acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Federal Government is perfectly entitled to arrest and prosecute Mohammed Abacha based on evidence that he has committed some financial crimes against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In this wise, there is prime facie evidence that Mohammed Abacha was involved in massive fraud which led to the transfer of several billions of dollars to offshore accounts in USA and Europe particularly Switzerland and the United Kingdom while his father, late General Sani Abacha was Nigerian Head of State. The findings of a Swiss Federal Commission that investigated the stashing in Swiss banks millions of dollars by late General Sani Abacha and his cronies was startling and a vindication of the position of the Federal Government of Nigeria that Mohammed Abacha has a case to answer. Specifically the Swiss Federal Commission found that one of that country's largest banks, Credit Suisse together with her two subsidiaries, Bank Hofmanna and Bank less, accepted funds totalling N214 million from Abacha's son. In the United Kingdom, the Financial services authority have also published damning reports implicating late General Abacha and family in massive siphoning of public funds into banks there. In the face of these unprecedented crimes committed by late General Abacha and his family particularly Mohammed Abacha, I find it hard to comprehend why these politicians are working very strongly to undermine the recovery efforts of the Federal Government of Nigeria. It is regrettable that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be among the tribe of Nigerians as who are unabashedly saying that Mohammed Abacha should be set free. It is also disappointing that this case of Mohammed Abacha was originally enumerated as one of the impeachable offences allegedly committed by President Olusegun Obasanjo by the House of Representatives. The Speaker, Alhaji Na'abba even lost sight of his exalted position and pursued police officers who arrested Mohammed Abacha to their station to question why the police should arrest him again after an Abuja Federal High Court had declared that the Federal Government should not re-arrest him in connection with the Kudirat Abiola murder case. Undoubtedly, the Court did not pronounce that Mohammed Abacha should never be arrested for whatever crime he is alleged to have committed. It is therefore illogical and absurd to argue that the Federal Government has no respect for the Rule of Law for ordering the arrest of Mohammed Abacha on a different ground other than that relating to the killing of pro-democracy activist, Kudirat Abiola. Little wonder, the international community has very low regard for Nigeria. This is the same Speaker who has been posturing and grandstanding on the issue of public morality and integrity, seemingly collaborating with forces of corruption, bad governance, militarism and sectionalism to pull down the anti-corruption effort of the Federal Government. By this, Speaker Na'Abba has completely lost the moral fabric and authority to continue to condemn President Olusegun Obasanjo. This underscores the belief in certain circles that Speaker Na'Abba has his own agenda in tackling President Obasanjo. I am hard to understand the mentality of the Nigerian elite. Have we not heard of a court sentencing a man in Zamfara State for allegedly stealing cattle? In fact, the arm of this helpless fellow was cut-off. The unfortunate thing is that all these people who are stridently opposed to the trial of Mohammed Abacha for fraud are from the so-called Sharia compliance states. We are told the singular reason for the introduction of Sharia Criminal Law is the moral rejuvenation of these states. What is justice if a man who has stolen billions of dollars is said not to have committed a crime, why others who stole just a cattle are convicted and punished by amputating of an arm? For the sake of this country moving forward, I think it is the right time, we all rose above pettiness and parochialism in our perception of National issues otherwise, this country shall continue to slide into the backwaters of retrogression and eventual disintegration. Obono-Obla lives in Calabar, Cross River State

This Article was first published in The Guardian Newspaper of Thursday the 2^nd Day of October, 2002.

Bakassi: Matters Arisin

The judgement of the International Court of Justice, which purported to award the Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroun, is to all intents and purposes outrageous, blatantly unjust and patently unsupportable. The judgment which was the consequent of a suit instituted by the Republic of Cameroun's claiming sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and some parts of the Lake Chad region is the climax of the dream of Cameroun to exercise control of this area particularly the Bakassi Peninsula. Before the suit was filed by Cameroun, she had long been subjecting Nigerians in Peninsula to all sort of brutalities ranging from false imprisonment, murder and intimidation. In 1981, the Cameroonian armed forces made an incursion to the Peninsula and murdered a contingent of Nigerian troops from the 13th Amphibious Brigade, Calabar. Nigeria reacted forcefully by moving troops to her boundary with Cameroon, some how Cameroun realised the foolhardiness of her armed forces and profoundly apologised. The Nigeria Federal Government under the then President Shehu Shagari balked down. It was an opportunity to call off the bluff of Cameroun as far as the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula was concerned. It was insinuated in some quarters that President Shehu Shagari backed down because he did not want to confront the then President Ahmadu Ahidjo, who is a Fulani like him. This matter was not squarely resolved throughout the period of the Babangida, Buhari, and Abacha military dictatorship. The Cameroonians army was allowed to roughshod on Nigerians of Efik, Ijaw, Oron and Ibibio ethnic nationalities who inhabit this Peninsula. This was the bleakest period of Nigerian political history. These military leaders were so steeped in looting and violating the Human Rights of Nigerians that other facts of national endeavours suffered blithe neglect. It must be stated that if we finally lose this part of Nigeria the blame must be totally put on the footsteps of these military potentates who seized political power in Nigeria for more than thirty years. It must be noted one of the documents that the International Court of Justice relied on heavily in its judgment was the so-called Maroua and Yaoundé 11 Declarations, which were entered into between President Ahidjo of Cameroun and the then Nigeria Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, which purport to vest the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula on the Republic of Cameroun. However, it is on record that this document was shrouded in the usual military secrecy and capriciousness. It was never presented for ratification before the then Supreme Military Council, which by the Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No. 1 of 1966 was vested with legislative sovereignty over the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is sad that this matter has been caught up by the ineptitude, irresponsibility and bad governance, which characterised military regimes in Nigeria. The Murtala/Obasanjo military dictatorship, which took over from General Gowon had denounced this document. Curiously, no steps were taken to get them quashed by the Supreme Court. As military rule took it tolls in the country, Cameroun shrewdly filed the suit in the International Court of Justice. The pertinent question is what becomes of the ethnic nationalities in the Bakassi Peninsula, which are basically of Nigerian origin? The International Court of Justice surprisingly relied on Article XII of the Anglo-German Agreement dated April 12, 1913 in its judgment. This treaty underscores the arbitrariness and capriciousness of colonial International Law. As a "conquered" people these ethnic nationalities of Nigeria were never not consulted before the British Colonial Government enacted this treaty, which effectively separated them from their brothers and sisters in the present Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Rivers and Cross River States of Nigeria. The arbitrary carving out of countries in Africa by European imperialists at the infamous Berlin Conference of 1888, without the slightest regard for demographic composition of these countries was one of the hallmarks of colonialism in Africa. The consequences of this is, that in the continent of Africa you find people of the same ethnic nationalities straddling more than two countries for instance. Ewes in Togo and Ghana, Yoruba in Benin and Nigeria; Ejagham in Nigeria and Cameroun. Colonialism has effectively ended. However the question is must: we Africans allow this state of affairs to continue. I think the rules of international law which were largely formulated by European imperialists in the eighteen century must be completely and totally jettisoned by Africans. International law based on racism, imperialism and the positivist school of jurisprudence is completely outdated. Undoubtedly since the end of the Second World War the influence of the positivist school of law has considerably waned in the Municipal law of many countries in the World. However, in international law the influence of the positivist is still prevalent. It is submitted that the concept of international law predicated on racial superiority and colonialism must be rejected. Happily the right to self-determination has been implicitly asserted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international covenants. Undoubtedly the people of the Bakassi Peninsula have unequivocally demonstrated their will to be an integral part of Nigeria. To insist that these people are in Cameroun under the umbrage of a benighted colonial treaty foisted on them by some paternalistic colonial masters to feather their capitalistic instincts and imperialistic designs would amount to an egregious injustice unprecedented in the annals of world history. In this wise, it is incumbent on the United Nations as the repository of international peace and the custodian of Human Rights to immediately organise a referendum in the Bakassi Peninsula, so that these Nigerian ethnic nationalities would have the opportunity of deciding in a democratic manner whether or not they want to belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Otherwise the Federal Government of Nigeria must as a matter of urgent national interest take effective measures to safeguard the sovereignty of Nigeria in the Bakassi Peninsula. This would surely be seen in the international community as an outrage and an affront. But how many countries which the International Court of Justice had found against have obeyed its decisions? How many times has the State of Israel arrogantly and with reckless abandon flouted resolutions of the United Nations urging her to respect the right of self-determination of the hapless Palestinian people? What of the case of Morocco in the Western Sahara? Has the United States, which is the supposed bastion of International Constitutionalism, not defied the principles of international law and the United Nations in her present face-off with Iraqi over weapons of mass destruction? There must be no double standard in international relations. Furthermore, the 1999 Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the country, has expressly asserted that Bakassi Local Government Area is an integral part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It follows therefore that the judgment of the International Court of Justice cannot supersede the basic law of the country. This principle was given judicial approbation by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in the celebrated cause of The Guardian Newspapers Ltd. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, where the Supreme Court baldly asserted that an international treaty cannot override the provisions of the Constitution, where there is a conflict. Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla

The Profile on El Jefe (the Boss) of Equatorial Guinea

President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasongo is an archetypical African “Big man’’ and Dictator. He was born on the 5^th of June, 1942, into the Esangui Clan in Equatorial Guinea. Observers have consistently described his government as one of the “most corrupt, ethnocentric, oppressive and undemocratic states in the World’’. To all intents and purposes, Equatorial Guinea under the iron rule of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasongo has become virtually a One Party State in that the opposition has been reduced and rendered otiose by the repressive policies of the government. The African “Big Man’’ is an outlaw. He is above the Law and does not have the stomach for the Rule of Law, Democracy and Due Process. He is Omnipresent and Omniscient and loves to play god by believing that he is a special gift to humanity (indispensable and a mythical figure). The African Dictator is a megalomaniac, and carries on as a potentate. His attitude towards the people is at best patronizing and paternalistic. President Teodoro Nguema is an epitome of the African Dictator.

In 2003, a Presidential Aide in a Government owned Radio Station in Malabo , heretically and blasphemously described Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasongo to be a “god’’ who is in “permanent contact with the Almighty” and can “decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell’ because he is ‘God’ himself. The Aide went further to say that the President was “‘God’ in heaven’’ who has “all power over men and things’’. This is despite the fact that President Mbasongo professes to be a Catholic and had several times visited the Vatican and been received by Pope John Paul 11 and Benedict XVI. His predecessor President Nguema had previously described himself as a ‘god’. Like several African Dictators such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Democratic Republic of Congo, Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya and Idi Amin of Uganda to mention just a few Mbasongo had ascribed several titles to himself including “gentleman of the great island of Bioko and El Jefe (the boss).The cult of personality has been elevated to one of the hallmarks of state craft in Equatorial Guinea which is chronically a very poor country, despite the huge oil and gas reserves which ranks as one of the largest in Africa. Nearly all national monuments and buildings in the country have Presidential Lodges named after President Mbasongo. Conversely, majority of the streets and roads in cities and towns throughout the country are named after the coup commemorating his toppling of former Dictator, President Franciso Nguema.

In 2003, Mbasongo after he had told his people he needed to take absolute control of the National Treasury to avoid Civil Servants indulging in corrupt practices, caused a stir in the United States of America when he deposited $500 Million Dollars in a single transaction in the Riggs Bank in Washington D.C. which led a Federal Court fining the Bank $16 Million Dollars. Forbes Magazine had voted him one of the wealthiest Heads of State with a net worth of $600 Million Dollars. In May, 2007, a French Judge at the instance of Transparency International, France, launched an investigation into whether Presidents Obiang Nguema, Omar Bongo, the late Gabonese President and Congolese President Dennis Sassou Nguesso plundered state coffers to purchase luxurious homes and cars in France. This was sequel to a complaint lodged by Transparency International, France, accusing the the leaders of acquisition of millions of dollars of real estate in Paris and the French Riviera and buying luxury cars with stolen funds. Regrettably the case has since been dropped possibly on pressure from the French authorities.

He attended Military Academy during Spaniard Colonial Rule in Zaragoza, Spain. He became Governor of Bioko Island, Head of the Black Peach Prison and Commander of the National Guard in the regime of President Francisco Macias Nguema. He has presided over the affairs of Equatorial Guinea for nearly Thirty Years. His presidency has seen President Jimmy Carter, President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush (Snr), President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush (11) and President Barack Obama of the United States of America. He has seen the Cold War between the East and West, the collapse of the almighty Soviet Union and communism. President Teodoro came to power in 1979 through a bloody coup led by him against his Cousin, President Francisco Nguema. President Francisco Macias Nguema was tried for treason and executed after the coup on the 29^th September, 1979. President Francisco Nguema was himself a dye in the wool dictator. His regime was reputed for its repressive and dictatorial tendencies, so much so that at the peak an estimated 100,000 people fled into neighbouring countries; and at least 50,000 that remained were forced into labour camps and the other 50, 000 were killed. President Francisco Nguema became the first President of Equatorial Guinea in 1968 when the Country became Independent after nearly two hundred years of Spanish Colonial Rule. On assumption of office in October, 1979, President Mbasongo promised to liberalise the political environment by democratizing and releasing of political prisoners but no sooner had he gone into power than he consolidated and entrenched himself and quickly broke his promise when he assumed the full garb of a full blown dictator. A new Constitution came into force in 1982 and at the same time Teodoro Obiang Mbasongo was elected to a seven-year term as President. He was re-elected in 1989 as the sole candidate. He was again re-elected in fraudulent elections conducted in 1996 and 2002.

In the 2002 Presidential Poll he purportedly won 97 % of the total votes cast after the opposition withdrew from the election on the ground that the election was already rigged before the day it was scheduled to hold. President Mbasongo has just won a presidential poll in November, 2009, for a seven-year term which means that by the time his current tenure expires in 2016 he would have been President of Equatorial Guinea for a record 37 years. He won the latest poll with a purported 95 % of the total votes cast. The main opposition Candidate, Placido Mico Abugo has condemned the election as a total fraud and says he will never accept the result. There is only member of the Opposition in the National Assembly of Equatorial Guinea which is largely a rubber stamp.

President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasongo is widely rumoured to be associated with the practice of cannibalism. It is reported that one of his opponents had alleged that the President had threatened to kill him and eat his testicles. However, some pundits are of the view that the alleged practice of cannibalism by President Teodoro is a myth and hoax deliberately woven and created by him to send fear to his opponents. The fabled story of the practice of cannibalism is a tradition practiced for centuries among the Fang people (which President Teodoro is one) of Central and West Africa as a psychological warfare to send fear of their invincibility to their opponents.

With leaders such as President Nguema and their clones littered all over Africa, the despicable and horrible state of the Continent can be explained away. They include President Robert Gabriel Mugabe (1980) of Zimbabwe; President Paul Biya (1982) of Cameroon; President José Eduardo De Santos of Angola (1979); President Hosni Mubarak (1981) of Egypt; Muammar Al-Qaddafi (1969) of Libya, President Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali (1987) of Tunisia; President Dennis Sassou-Nguesso (1979) of the Republic of Congo and President Blaisé Campoare (1987) of Burkina Faso to mention but a few. These African Presidents constitute the league of sit tight leaders in Africa who think they are indispensable to their countries. The obsession of African Leaders with clinging to political power is one of the reasons why Africa still remains a benighted Continent rife with Civil Wars, Conflicts, Dictatorship, Famine and horrendous and scandalous level of economic, social and political under-development.

Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla

· Obono-Obla is a Barrister & Human Rights Activist. He lives in Abuja, Nigeria.

THE RETURN OF PRESIDENT UMARU MUSA YARADU

The return into the country of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua in circumstances shrouded in complete secrecy in the early hours of today totally devoid of pomp and ceremony usually accorded to a person of his stature is a confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt that the man is being held hostage by a certain cabal in furtherance of its selfish and devious agenda. I wonder aloud how a man who has been weighed down and emaciated by a life threatening ailment would be removed from his hospital bed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia flown on an aircraft for more than six gruelling hours and then bundled into an ambulance under heavy security coverage into the presidential villa. It shows that this cabal that has held our president hostage is desperate, mindless and callous. The truth of the matter is that the President is permanently incapacitated from performing his presidential duties. This is what the return of the President in the condition he was brought into the country has confirmed. The suspension of today session of the Executive Council of the Federation which we had expected President Yar’adua to preside over as Chairman has further confirmed that the president cannot perform the functions of his office. Most importantly , the statement issued by the Special Assistant to the President, Olusegun Adeniyi that President Yar’adua has directed that the Vice-President, Goodluck Jonathan should assume office as Acting President is belated, and of no moment. The directive has being over taken by events. It is otiose. This because the National Assembly has already conferred on Jonathan the status of Acting President and he has been exercising these presidential powers to the fullest since then. Some strict constructionist may contend that the National Assembly has no such powers to confer on Jonathan the toga of Acting President but there is doctrine of necessity which invocation which cannot be wished away. President Yar’adua is just striving to save his face by doing what he ought to have done three months ago when he left the shores of this country for medical treatment. I think President Yar’adua was hurriedly brought to the country to scuttle his possible removal from office by the National Assembly as it was strongly rumoured. He wants to eat his cake and have. He wants to remain President while he suffers from permanent incapacitation and infirmity of the mind brought about by his ailment. Those who have held the President hostage for their selfish interest wants to remain relevant in the scheme of affairs because Yar’adua is still constitutionally the President even though Jonathan is the Acting President. Yar’adua will still enjoy and indeed be entitled to all his rights and privileges as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is sheer power play. The constitutional dead lock has left the country in a state of anomie and exposed how profoundly weak and under-developed democratic institutions in the country are almost after 13 years of democratic civil rule. However, the civil society which hitherto has remained passive and docile rose to the occasion by its consistent pressure exerted on the President to obey the country’s Constitution. The crisis generated by the failure of the President to obey the Constitution has shown beyond a shadow of doubt that the country’s democracy is floundering and this call for serious intervention by all patriots and progressive elements to save it from falling apart. The crisis has further shown that the PDP which has split into two contending camps is in capable of turning around the country. The country is in a desparate situation which makes it imperative for all hands to be in deck to rescue the country from the abyss. In the event, the Vice President assumes office next week he must as a matter of urgency dissolve the Executive Council of the Federation whose indiscretion and incompetence has allowed the crisis caused by the absence of the President to snowballed into boiling point thereby threatening the corporate existence of the country. The Acting President is seriously urged to declare a state of emergency and carry out wide sweeping electoral reforms in the country. The health of Mr. President has been a source of speculation and controversy since he collapsed and was flown abroad during electioneering campaign in early 2007. Mr. President in May 2008 publicly admitted that he has not been quite healthy. The Constitution, the basic law of the Country contemplates a healthy, virile and physically/mentally strong Mr. President to deal with the difficult and challenging business of governance in a complex country such Nigeria. However, the Constitution has contemplated this type of situation we have found ourselves. We can take umbrage under Section 144 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which has laid down the procedure for the removal of a President who has become a liability like Yar’adua. I think the presence of Yar’adua in the country breathing down on necks of the crowd of his loyalists and hawks in the Executive Council of the Federation will be a check on the constitutionalists in the council who wants him removed on ground of his fragile health. This is the calculation of the hawks and loyalists of the ailing President. The truth of the matter is that the Executive Council must be pressured to be alive to its constitutional responsibilities by appointing a panel to examine whether the President is fit to remain in office as President in view of his fragile health which has greatly affected his performance in the last two years. I expect President Yar’adua as a patriot who believes in this country to see reason and throw in the towel in the interest of the peace, well being and stability of this country. Let him call of the bluffs of the hawks around him who are pretending to love him more than his own mother will love him. The country has been bogged down by his ailing for so long. It is the time the country moves on. I will advise him to simply render his letter of resignation forthwith otherwise the Executive Council of the Federation must invoked Section The truth of the matter is that for the past three weeks Mr. President has not been able to perform his constitutional duties and responsibilities because of his poor health. The germane question is: What is the constitutional implication of a sickly President? Put it another way, what is the position of the Constitution when a President becomes so sick to perform the functions of his Office? Section 144 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, expressly spelt out the procedure for the removal of a sitting President who becomes infirm or suffers permanent incapacitation thus: (1) The President or Vice-President shall cease to hold office, if – (a) by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of all the members of the executive council of the Federation it is declared that the President or Vice-President is incapable of discharging the functions of his office; and (b) the declaration is verified, after such medical examination as may be necessary by a medical panel established under subsection (4) of this section in its report to the President of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (2) Where the medical panel certifies in the report that in its opinion the President or Vice-President is suffering from such infirmity of body or mind as renders him permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office, a notice thereof signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be published in the official gazette of the Government of the Federation. (3)The President or Vice-President shall cease to hold office as from the date of the publication of the notice of medical report pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. (4) The medical panel in which this section relates shall be appointed by the President of the Senate, and shall comprise five medical practitioners in Nigeria- (a) one of which shall be the personal physician of the holder of the office concerned; and (b) four other medical practitioners who have, in the opinion of the President of the Senate attained a high degree of eminence in the field of medicine relative to the nature of the examination to be conducted in accordance with the foregoing provisions. (5) In this section, the reference to ‘ executive council of the Federation’ is a reference to the body of Ministers of the Government of the Federation, howsoever called, established by the President and charged with such responsibilities for the functions of government as the President may direct’. It is clear that the Federal Executive Council has a central role to play in the event that the ill-health of Mr. President persists in settling the ball rolling for his impeachment on ground of permanent incapacitation. The pertinent question is: Can the Federal Executive Council be trusted to perform its constitutional role taking into account that it is mostly made up of unprincipled politicians and jobbers?

Okoi Obono-Obla

* Obono-Obla is a Barrister, Human Rights Activist and lives in Abuja, Nigeria.

Top of Form

THE HISTORY OF NIGERIA: WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WENT WRONG.

It is a great delight and extremely exciting that I have chosen to speak to the students and faculty of this burgeoning institution which was principally founded to train and nurture leaders of this Country for the next generation. I was exasperated when I got a phone call from one of my colleagues, Barrister Victor Essien saying that Mrs. Umoren had requested that he contact a Human Rights Activist to talk to the students and staff today to mark the 49 year anniversary of the attainment of political independence from the Great Britain. I was really surprised and amazed that a School which I regarded as the bastion of conservatism and a place where the student of the elite which I have consistently and persistently castigated for its short sightedness, corruption, laziness, moral bankruptcy, waywardness several fora including the mass media and the internet would want me to speak to the Children of these same People would should squarely take the blame for the failure of our Country. I then had a phone call from Mrs Umoden, formally inviting me to speak today. I asked why an outspoken Human Rights Lawyer and Activist like my humble self whom the elite and government regarded as an irritant, an untouchable and pain for his outspokenness and strident advocacy against bad governance, corruption, graft, protection of human rights and social and political change should be asked to talk to students of the same people I have consistently condemned in my social advocacy. She surprisingly answered that the School had previously taken a decision that the lecture must be addressed by an Activist because the authority want a frank and straight forward message to lift the students from their complacency and that School being conscious of the fact that the students as leaders for the next generation must be well equipped to be conscious and must be on the vanguard of the expected change which is looming large especially for the next generation. I have asked to talk on ‘’ The History of Nigeria, Who We Are and what went Wrong’’. It is such a broad topic and then wondered why an Historian was not chosen. This is because I am not an Historian and what I have chosen to speak on is historian in content and perspective. I am a Lawyer and Social Advocate and one would expect to be abreast with the History of Nigeria my virtue of my training and work. I agree that a Lawyer as a social Engineer worth his salt must be abreast with historical and constitutional development of his country. It follows that I would not shrink from my obligation simply because I have been asked to talk about the History of my country which would have been better done by somebody who is an expert in such endeavour. I will strive to the best of my ability to fulfil the assignment which I have been given. I therefore implore all of you to forgive if I floundered and I do not meet your expectations.

The History of Nigeria started when European Colonialists decided to organise a conference in Berlin, Germany, when Germany was under the political leadership of Chancellor Bismarck in 1884 and 1885 to discuss and agree on the balkanization and partition of Africa which the European imperialists in their racist mentality dismissed as a dark continent which must be civilized by Europeans whom God had chosen to be the superior race. It was in this conference that Africa was shared and divided among the major European powers such as the Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, Holland and United Kingdom. It was after these conferences that the British imperialists quickly moved to affirm and consolidate its hold on the territory. Before then, there was no country known as Nigeria. However, there had been some great and glorious empires in the territory known as Nigeria such as the Songhai Empire, Oyo Empire, Benin Empire, Kanem-Bornu and the Sokoto caliphate which was founded by Usman Da Fodio in the Seventeenth Century. It is instructive that these various empires some which then collapsed had people from diverse ethnic nationalities which we presently found in Nigeria including the Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa , Fulani, Edo, Efik, Ejaham, Tiv, Ibibio, Ijaw etc. It is instructive that before the Berlin Conference, the Great Britain had established some presence in many parts of the go country especially in Lagos where a Colony was established in 1861. In the area which is presently known as the Niger Delta, Protectorate known as Oil River (later Niger Coast Protectorate) was formed in 1887. After many bloody and ruthless military expeditions to tamed and pacified some ethnic nationalities in the areas such as Benin, Ilorin, Arochukwu etc that had fiercely resisted the intrusion the colonialists decided to amalgamate the Northern Protectorate, the Colony of Lagos and the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria to form one country known as Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. It is instructive that while the British Imperialistic were consolidating its strangle hold in other parts of the country, a Royal Charter was granted to the Royal Niger Trading Company to establish a sort of alliance between economic monopolists and political colonists in the North. In return the Company to protect British political and economic interest in the North. The Company established its Headquarters at the confluence Town of Lokoja (Present capital of Kogi State) and expanded its trading activities to the North Western and North Eastern part of the River Niger. Treaties were signed with several independent African States such as Sokoto, Gwandu and Nupe, thus effectively denying rival German and French incursions to the Northern Region. In 1900, the Royal Charter granted to the Royal Niger Trading Company was revoked and decision taken that colonial government would administer Nigeria as a Protectorate one in the South, the other in the North. Lagos was incorporated in the Southern Protectorate in 1906.The underling objective for the fusion of these Colonies and Protectorates was purely economical and not altruistic. It is important I mentioned that the name ‘Nigeria’’ was coined by the Mistress of the First Governor General of Nigeria, Sir Fredrick Lugard. She was known as Flora Shaw. Some cynics are of the view that Nigeria is a failure and would ever remain a failed State because she was cobbled by British Colonialists. One of the greatest Leaders of Post Independence Nigeria, Chief Obafemi Awolowo dismissed Nigeria as a mere geographical expression in one of his numerous seminal works on Nigeria. However, I do not subscribe to the view that Nigeria is a geographical expression because it was cobbled together by British Colonialists to serve their imperialistic design and economic interest. The truth of the matter is there are so many countries that were artificially created like our Country. Let me mention some of these countries, the United States of America, Australia, India, Brazil, Canada, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Some of these countries are great industrial, military, economic and political powers today.

The colonial empire in Nigeria started crumbling after the end of the Second World War and the promulgation of the Universal declaration on Human Rights which proclaimed and recognised the right of every people to self determination and independence fired or ignited the agitation for an end to colonialism. It was this wind of change that propelled the likes of Herbert Macaulay, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and others to start the political movement to agitate independence. In 1954, a Federal Constitution came into force and the conferences that would set up the political framework and structure for post independence were held in London from 1957-1959. On 1^st October, 1960, Nigeria was granted what I will call Flag and Political Independence. It was not economic or social independence we had and I think this is the genesis of the multifaceted and monumental problems which culminated in the crisis which has continually dogged and grappled the country since independence. In 1963, the Constitution which ushered in independence was jettisoned and a new Republican Constitution came into force. The country political system was modelled after the Parliamentary System of Government. There was a Prime minister and a ceremonial President and House of Representatives at the Federal level. The Prime Minister was Sir Abubukar Tafawa Balewa. He was of the Northern Peoples Congress. The President was Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe.The responsibilities of the President were largely ceremonial and he did not exercise executive power. Executive Powers were vested in the Prime Ministers and his cabinet. There were three Regions namely, Northern Region, Western Region and Eastern region. The Regional Premiers were Sir Ahmadu Bello (Northern Region), Dr. Micheal Okpara (Eastern Region) and Chief Ladoke Akintola (Western Region). Note that another Region was created in 1964 known as the Mid-Western Region. The Premier of the Mid-Western Region was Chief Dennis Osadebey.After independence, the Country was fairly doing well before eruption of several crises such a the fractionalization of the Action Group Party in the Western Region, the Census Crisis, the Electoral Crisis, Tiv Crisis, the agitation by minority people for greater autonomy and other inherent contradictions thrown up by centrifugal forces conspired to set the country on fire. These crises led to the toppling of the civilian government of Sir Abubukar Balewa on the 15^th January, 1966 in a military coup dat led by a group of idealistic young Military Officers under the leadership of Major Chukwu Emeka Kaduna Nzeogwu. The Prime Ministers, Sir Balewa, the Premiers of the Northern and Western Regions, Sir Ahmadu Bello and Chief Akintola respectively were killed. Scores of Military Officers were also killed. However, the conservative wing of the Military wrestled power from these groups of young Military Officers and a Federal Military Government under Major Aguiyi Ironsi was constituted. Military Officers were appointed Military Governors for the four Regions, Northern, Western, Eastern and Mid-Western. The coup led to inflaming of the embers of ethnic nationalism and regionalism by some ethnic champions which led to tension in the country and mass killing of people of Eastern Region living in Northern Nigeria. General Ironsi enacted a decree repudiating the Federal system of government and replacing it with a Unitary System of Government. The Regions became Groups of Provinces. This further heightened tension in the country because some people saw it as a cloak to reduce the participation people from the Northern Nigeria in governance of the country. Public opinion was manipulated in the North to see General Ironsi as championing the interest of Igbo People. Another Military Coup took place on the 29^th July, 1966. General Ironsi was killed. The leaders of the coup installed General Yakubu Gowon as the new Head of State. However, the Military Governor of the Eastern Group of Provinces, Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu refused to accept General Gowon as the Head of State on the ground that he was not the most senior Military Officer to take over from General Ironsi. There was another round of mass killing of People from the Eastern Region. There was held a Constitutional Conference in Ghana to settle the political deadlock in the country between the Federal Military Government and the Eastern Region. The resolutions reached at the Conference were repudiated by the Federal Military Government of General Gowon. This led to the succession of Eastern Region from the Federation of Nigeria on the 27^th May, 1967. A country known as Biafra was declared for the People of Eastern Region On the same day, the Federal Government abolished the four regional structure and replaced it with twelve States namely Lagos, Mid- Western, North West, North East, North Central, Western, Kwara, South East, Rivers State , South Eastern, Benue- Plateau, Kano States. The Federal Government ordered Police Action against the Eastern Region which eventually led to the eruption of a civil war. The Civil War was bloody and an estimated more than Million Nigerians were killed. The Civil War ended in January, 1970. After the Civil War a programme for return to civil rule was announced. However, the Federal Military Government of General Gowon was toppled in a Coup on the 29^th July, 1975. General Murtala Mohammed became Head of State. More States were created in February, 1976 to bring the number of States to Twenty Four. A table for return to civil rule was announced. A Constituent Assembly was established to debate the draft of proposed Constitution to usher in the return to civil rule. General Mohammed was killed in another Military Coup on the 13^th February, 1976. He was replaced as Military Head of State by General Olusegun Obasanjo. In 1979, the Military handed over power to the civilians. President Shehu Shagari was elected the First Executive President of the Country. President Shehu Shagari was toppled on the 31^st December, 1983. General Muhammadu Buhari became Military Head of State from January 1984 to August, 1985 when he was toppled by General Ibrahim Babangida. General Babangida made himself Military President and ruled with draconian Military Decrees which suppressed Human Rights. General Babangida failed in his promise to hand over power to a civilian government after he annulled the election of MKO Abiola as President on the 12^th June, 1993. General Babangida was forced to relinquished power and a National Interim Government under Chief Ernest Shonekan was constituted. However, in November, 1993, the Interim National Government was toppled by General Sanni Abacha. General Abacha was a complete dictator who ruled with harsh military decrees. He clamped down on pro democracy agitation. He tried and jailed General Obasanjo for all edged conspiracy to topple his government He ordered the execution of the famous Writer Ken Saro Wiwa for his agitation for return of Oil Resources to the People of the Niger Delta. General Abacha died suddenly in July, 1998. He was replaced by General Abdul Salam Abubukar. General Abubukar returned power to civilians on the 30^th May 1999 after General Obasanjo won the Presidential Election.

Today is 49 Years of Nationhood in Nigeria. An adult of 49 Years who is still immature, groping or has no sense of direction has failed. I think Nigeria has abysmally failed. It has been 49 Years of nothing. 49 Years of nonsense. All we can boast of after 49 years are dilapidated Primary, Secondary Schools and glorified Universities where violence and cult reign supreme. All we have is poor and crumbling infrastructures such as roads, railway lines, airports etc. Today there is virtually no power infrastructure. President Obasanjo budgeted more $ 16 Billion for the Power Sector. This huge sum of money was stolen by privileged but selfish Nigerians and siphoned abroad. Some of them are today Governors, Senators, Ministers etc.In think Nigeria has failed because the elite that is supposed to lead has failed because of selfishness, corruption, graft, religion fundamentalism, ethnic nationalism, military rule, indiscipline and greed. Today, the country is completely lawless. Universities have closed down for than five months, yet the President went to Saudi Arabia to open a University of Technology. 49 Years we do not have a functional rail system. 49 Years, we cannot organise an election. 49 Years, we cannot run a functional and efficient Local government systems. 49 Years, we cannot boast of any major achievement other kidnapping, armed robbery, stealing of public funds, rigging of election, lawlessness, political instability and 419. Nigeria is today, one of the poorest countries despite the huge human and natural resources at her disposal. Nigeria is occupies the 179 position in the United Nations Human Development Index. It is a shame. The Nigerian elite must bow it head in shame. I want to say that some countries in the World which do not have the kind of resources Nigeria is endowed with have seen tremendous development. The question what is the problem? The problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the Nigerian Elite. Time has finally come for the elite to have a rethink and change for the better. If it took China just Fifty Years to become a Super Power and do not see any reason why Nigeria cannot do that. We have wasted forty-nine or so solid Years. Can we do what China has done in the next Fifty Years? The change will be effected by your generation because in the next twenty years or thereabout, your generation shall surely be saddled with the leadership of the country. I believe your generation would not be like the present one that has squandered every opportunity that for this country to develop. Otherwise let us say good bye to Nigeria.

Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla

* Obono-Obla is a Barrister & Human Rights Activist. He lives in Abuja, Nigeria

08033490404

Paper delivered on 1^st October, 2009 to Students and Staff of Access High Schools, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria to mark the 49 Years Anniversary of the Independence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

THE IMPERATIVE OF A REALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE TENURE OF GOVERNORS ELECTED AFTER NULLIFICATION OF PREVIOUS MANDATES

There is no doubt that the conduct of the April 2007, general election was a complete and unmitigated disaster. The elections were marred by substantial irregularities of unimaginable proportion never seen or experienced in the chequered history of the conduct of elections in the country. This led to the nullification of Governorship elections in Cross River, Kogi, Edo, Ondo, Adamawa, Enugu, and Bayelsa State, to mention but a few. In the case of Cross River, Sokoto, Kogi and Adamawa States, the Governors were booted out of office after the Courts declared that the elections that brought them into office were not properly conducted. Some of these Governors had stayed in office more than one year before the nullification of their election. For instance Liyel Imoke of Cross River State had stayed in office more than one Year (state specific period) before the Court of Appeal annulled his election on the 14^th July, 2008.

The hiatus in the Electoral Act had given the opportunity to those whose elections were nullified on ground of substantial non-compliance to re-contest the fresh elections ordered by the Court. In all cases, all the Governors whose elections were voided have managed to win these fresh elections and have assumed office once again. Some people have cynically and sarcastically put it that all the Governors are clamouring for nullification of their election because they think the period which they were in office before the nullification will not be counted for the purpose of determination/ computation of when the time will began to run from when they assumed or came into office.

In one State where the election of the Governor was annulled by the Court, a Senator (who incidentally is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria) in a rather cavalier manner was reported to have ridiculed the opposition for being instrumental to his Party Candidate’s tenure elongation. There can be no doubt that this Senator and all those who subscribe to the view that Governors whose elections were nullified will invariably benefit from tenure elongation because the period they were in office before nullification will not be counted, probably draw their inspiration from the case of Peter Obi V. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 11 Nigerian Weekly Law Report (Part 1046) 565.

The facts of Peter Obi’s case are as Follows: Peter Obi was sworn into office on 17^th March 2006 after he successfully established that he should have been returned as Governor having scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the election for governorship of Anambra State in the April 2003 general election. By virtue of Section 180 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which provides that ----. Mr. Obi had only served for nearly one year of the four years tenure before the Electoral Commission ordered a general election, thereby bringing his tenure to a premature end.

Consequently he filed an action in the Federal High Court challenging the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission to hold gubernatorial election in Anambra State on the ground that his tenure of office will expire in March 2010 rather than 2007, having taken Oath of Office on the 17^th March 2006. He lost the case in both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. However on further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that the period of computation of the tenure of office of Governor for the purpose of ascertaining when his tenure will expire starts from the day when he took the Oath of Office not from the day when the person who was wrongly returned by the Electoral Commission was sworn into office.

Relying on the above judgment, there have been several insinuations that the term of office of the Governors whose elections were nullified will be automatically elongated as the calculation of time, for the purpose of general election, will commence not from the time they were sworn into office before their election was annulled, but from the time they were sworn in after the nullification of their election. That should not be the case as it is crystal clear that the case of Peter Obi v. INEC is different from the scenario that took place in States where elections of seating Governors were voided. In these States, the Governors took oath of office and effectively and effectually assumed the office. The basic principle of law which is strongly rooted in our jurisprudence is that no one will be allowed to benefit from his own wrong doing. This is what it will amount to if those whose elections were nullified on grounds substantial non-compliance (such as hoarding or withholding of results sheets to polling stations as in the Cross River case) are nullified by the Tribunal and fresh election conducted emerges winner.

Why would the years these Governors had spend in office not taken be into account in the computation of time for the purpose of determining when their tenure will expire? If this is the position what becomes of the all official acts or conducts taken by the Governor whose election is nullified? What becomes of the salary paid to the Governor during the period he was in office before his election was nullified? What becomes of the appointment made by the Governor such as Special Assistants, Commissioners etc before his election was nullified? Are these appointments illegal or a nullity? What of the promulgamation of the House of Assembly which the Governor is constitutionally empowered to make? Is the promulgamation of the House of Assembly by a Governor which election was nullified a nullity?

If these acts of the Governor and appointments made by him are not invalidate it therefore means that the acts of the Governor during the period before the nullification of his election, is not a nullity even though his election was nullity. If the acts of the Governor are regarded as valid, it therefore means the tenure of such a Governor is not completely void. The Governor cannot collect salary from the public patrimony and turn round to contend that his previous period he spent in office should not be counted with the period he will stay in office after the fresh election? It is our view that such a narrow construction or interpretation will lead to absurdity, confusion and a constitutional crisis of unimaginable proportion to hold the view that the acts or conducts or appointment made by a Governor whose election was voided by the Court amounts to a nullity. The correct approach or perspective is that the period the Governor was in office before the nullification of his election should be taken into account in the computation of time for the purpose of calculating when his tenure of office will start and terminate.

Another case decided by the Supreme Court which has to do with the tenure of a Governor who was impeached from office but which impeachment was declared wrongful and unconstitutional by the Court was the case of Rashid Ladoja v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 12 Nigerian Weekly Law Report (Part 1047) 119.

The Appellant in that case had challenged the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission to order the conduct of election in Oyo State on the ground the period which he was out of office on account of his impeachment that was declared null and void by the Supreme Court should not be computed in the period he is constitutionally required to stay in office. At the hearing the Appellant’s Counsel argued eloquently and persuasively that once the event which interrupted the tenure of the Appellant was pronounced illegal, the Court ought to compensate him by granting him an extension of tenure for the period of 11 months which the improper impeachment denied him. The Supreme Court held that the period Mr. Ladoja was out of office must be added to the time for the computation of the time when his tenure will expire. The Supreme Court stated the position of the Law thus:

‘Neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court has power to extend the period of four years prescribed for a Governor of a State beyond the terminal date calculated from the date he took office…much as one may be in sympathy with the Plaintiff /Appellant’s cause, it seems to me that to accede to his request will occasion much violence to the Constitution. This court can interpret the Constitution but it cannot rewrite it. In awareness of the possibility that an occurrence may prevent a Governor from being sworn in the same date as his counterparts in the country, section 180 (2) states that tenure be computed from the date the oath of allegiance and oath of office is taken. There is no similar provision to protect a Governor improperly impeached. I am therefore, unable to perform a duty which the Constitution has not vested in the Court’.

This is the most realistic and progressive position, which the Supreme Court should affirm in the event that there is a legal challenge in respect of the legality of the tenure of Governors who had served some period in office before their election was nullified fails to leave office on the four anniversary of their subscription to the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office. I think those who have been wallowing in the belief that Governors whose elections were annulled but won in the fresh election should be deducted the period they had served previously out of the period from their fresh mandate are living in a fool paradise. The truth of the matter is that I foresee a spate of litigation awaits these classes of Governors if the Independent National Electoral Commission fails to call election when their tenures expires on the fourth anniversary from when they first took the oath of office on their return over election that were nullified.

Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla

· Obono-Obla is a Barrister, Human Rights Activist and Essayist. He lives in Abuja, Nigeria.

· Okoi_advocate@yahoo.com

HISTORY WILL VINDICATE THE JUST

History shall vindicate the just. This is what one of the greatest Nigerian
> nationalists, Nnamdi Azikiwe said in his conclusion of his treatise to
> condemn the alleged rigging by the defunct National Party of Nigeria, NPN,
> of the 1983 Presidential Election which is one of the chains of events that
> culminated in the overthrow of the democratically elected regime of
> President Shehu Shagari by the Military. This is precisely what I told
> myself when the Independent National Electoral Commission, in a terse
> advertorial stated without any equivocation that gubernatorial elections
> shall be conducted in all the States of the Federation save Edo, Rivers and
> Anambra States come 2011.

Before now speculations were rife that there would
> be no gubernatorial elections in States such as Cross River, kogi, Adamawa,
> Sokoto and kebbi on the ground that the Governors there had won fresh
> elections conducted after their previous mandates were set aside by the
> Court. It was argued that these Governors would not be entitle or eligible
> to stand election because the nullification of their previous mandates on
ground of electoral fraud by the Court means that their tenure would start
> counting from when they took new oath of office after they won these fresh
> elections not from the date they took oath of office before nullification of
> previous mandates.

I was so piqued by this argument which to my mind
> tantamount to standing law and logic and legitimatization of electoral fraud
>;so much so that I fired a letter in March , 2010, to the former Chairman
> of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Maurice Iwu,
> seeking clarification on whether or not there will be gubernatorial election
> in my home State, Cross River come 2011.

When the Electoral Commission
> failed to response to my request I had to file an action in the Federal High
> Court seeking judicial interpretation of Section 180 subsection 2 (B) of
> the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. However the
> suit was still pending when INEC made this bold decision. two of the
> Respondents in the case, Liyel Imoke and the Attorney General of the
> Federation objected to the power of the Court to hear my case on the grounds
> that I do not possess locus standi; that my case does not disclose a
> reasonable cause of action and that my case was not initiated by due process
> of the law. Two senior counsel were engage by these Two Respondents.
> But surprisingly the Third Respondent which is the INEC maintained a studied
> and ominous silence as it refused to even enter an appearance. It turn that
> it was a signal of the position INEC has now taken. The position of inec has
> sounded the death knell of electoral fraudsters who think that they can take
> the benefit of their wrong doing by having tenure elongation to enjoy the
> loot of electoral robbery. It is clear that the days of electoral roguery
> in the country are numbered. I heartily salute INEC for his bold decision
> which has send a cold into the spine of electoral robbers in the States
> concerned.
> Okoi OFEM Obono-OBLA
>
>