Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION

Nigerian president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, on 18th July, 2024, in the presence of NLC president, Joe Ajaero and TUC president, Festus Osifo, approved a minimum wage of 70 thousand Naira for every Nigerian worker. He also promised to review it every 3 years. This is coming after years of struggle by Nigerian workers, with threats of strike, warning strikes and actual strikes.

The increase comes at a time Nigerians are asphyxiating under severe hardship amid excruciatingly high cost of living driven by spiraling inflation and dire economic challenges in an inclement environment of palpable government wastes, leakages and ostentatious living. Using a bag of rice as a metaphor, Nigerians have refused to indulge in any euphoria of jubilation as the 70 Thousand Naira will not even be able to buy a bag of rice which now sells for between 75 and 100 thousand naira per bag. They wonder how this meager enhancement of salary will positively affect the high cost of accommodation, transportation, electricity, healthcare services, living standards, etc.

The take-home pay of every worker ought to be a matter of public interest, especially to those minding the levers of power, because it is a critical issue affecting all workers, employers of labour and the entire economy. Poor compensation or remuneration breeds inequality and affects productivity and this can serve as a catalyst for social vices such as stealing, banditry, insurgency, kidnapping, suicide, homicide, armed robbery, prostitution, human and drug trafficking, etc. With a view to addressing poor wages and its attendant consequences, international organizations, governments and non-governmental organizations have coined terms such as “minimum wage”, “living wage” and “reasonable wage” to describe the different types of wages every worker should be entitled to. In this intervention, I will address these levels of wages and make a case for a “reasonable wage”; as opposed to living and the just presidentially sanctioned minimum wage of 70 Thousand Naira. 

DEFINITION OF TERMS

It is common knowledge that “wage” is the reward or compensation for labour. The terms “minimum wage,” “living wage” and “reasonable wage”, all relate to compensation for labour but differ in their definitions and implications. Here’s a brief explanation of each of those terms.

MINIMUM WAGE

This is the lowest legal pay that an employer can offer employees. It is the least amount of remuneration that an employer is required to pay wage earners for the work performed during a given period, which cannot be reduced by collective agreement or an individual contract. It is set by law and varies by country and sometimes by states or regions within a country. Sometimes, it can be arrived at by a collective agreement. From facts obtained from Wikipedia.org on the 9th July, 2024, the minimum wage in Nigeria is ₦30,000 per month which is just 24.00 USD per month?  By way of comparative analysis with some other countries globally, in Equatorial Guinea, the minimum wage is FCFA 129,035 (US$224) per month. In the Republic of Congo, it is FCFA 90,000 (US$170) per month in the formal sector. In Botswana, the minimum wage is P 7.34 (US$0.62) an hour for most full-time labour in the private sector; P 1,786 (US$152) per month. Rwanda RWF 56,668 (N64,602); South Africa R4,067.2 – R4,412.8 (N322,406.944 – N349,802.656); Kenya is KES15,201 (N172,683.36). In UAE, there is no general minimum wage as it differs from profession to profession. However, for skilled Labourers AED 5,000 (N2,019,435); people with University degrees AED12,000 (N4,846,644); qualified technicians AED 7,000 (N2,827,209); South Korea is 2,010,580 Won (N2,161,574.558). China differs from city to city. However, Shanghai is RMB 2,690 per month (N551,181) and Heilongjiang RMB 1,450 (N 297,105). Singapore does not prescribe a general minimum wage for all its workers. However, the minimum Singaporean wage is averaged at 6,792SGD/Month = N7,464,408).The minimum wage in Canada is set federally and by each province and territory; ranges from CA$13 to CA$16 (US$9.69 to US$11.93) per hour. The minimum wage calculated here is a weighted average based on the relative population in each province. In Australia, most workers are covered by an award, which may vary by employee age, geographical location and industry. Workers receive mandatory employer loadings such as penalty rates or leave loading. Minimum wages are set federally by the Fair Work Commission. For those 21 and older, not covered by an award or other instrument, (as of July 1, 2023) – the minimum wage is $A 882.80 (US$600) per week, or $A 23.23 (US$15) per hour Casual workers are paid a loading of typically 25%, resulting in a minimum of A$28 (US$18) per hour for those workers. Workers under 21, apprentices and trainees not covered by an award, have a minimum wages set at a percentage of the ordinary rate. For those under 16, this is 36.8% or A$7.87 (US$5.25) per hour; $A 9.83 (US$6.56) with the casual loading. In France, it is €1,709.28 (US$2022) gross per month, €11.27(US$12.5) per hour. 12.41 per hour is the minimum wage in Germany, a higher minimum wage is often set by collective bargaining agreements and enforceable by law. In Ghana, it is ₵18.19 (US$1.2) per day. In Morocco, it is MAD 3,500 (US$349) per month in public sector, MAD 3,111 (US$310) per month in private sector, 84.37 Dh, (US$8.42) per day for agricultural workers. In Palestine, it is 1,880 ILS (US$582) per month. In the United States of America, the Federal nationwide minimum wage in the United States is US$7.25 per hour. States may also set a minimum, in which case the higher of the two is controlling; some territories are exempt and have lower rates. As of January 3, 2022, effective state minimum wage rates range from US$7.25 to US$15.00 per hour, with an average of about $12.00 across all minimum wage workers as of 2019. Local government minimum wages exist as well, the highest of which reach to $17.13 per hour. The minimum wage in the United Kingdom is: 

£11.44 stg (US$15.67) per hour for those aged 21+ 

£8.60 (US$11.78) per hour for those aged 18–20

£6.40 (US$8.77) per hour for those aged 16-17, apprentices aged 16 to 18, and those aged 19 or over who are in their first year of apprenticeship. Employees under the age of 16 are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage.

It is important to note that the term “minimum wage” does not mean minuteness or paltriness. The goal of the minimum wage is to ensure a basic standard of living for workers. However, the extant #30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Naira) minimum wage in Nigeria cannot guarantee a basic standard of living. With this wage, it will take a worker three months to earn enough to buy a mere bag of rice.

In January 2024, the Federal government had inaugurated a 37-member tripartite committee to review the National Minimum Wage. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) had insisted on a minimum wage of #250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) given the uncontrollable inflation in the country and the value of the ever-depreciating naira against the dollar in an economy that is fast being dollarised.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MINIMUM WAGE IN NIGERIA

Let us recall that the late Premier of Western Region, the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, had successfully implemented the first minimum wage policy in Nigeria. From October 1954, the minimum wage paid by Awolowo to Westerners actually doubled that paid to workers of the same level in other parts of Nigeria. Western Region government paid 5 shillings and six pence minimum wage to workers at a time that workers in the North were paid only two shillings and eight pence. He had wanted to implement a national minimum wage. He had indeed made it one of the cardinal agenda of his administration if elected as   Prime Minister of Nigeria, an ambition that never came to pass. Chief Awolowo had lost in the 1959 elections to Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, KBE, PC, Nigeria’s first and only Prime Minister. The Prime Minister however failed to do anything about a national minimum wage law to help Nigerian workers.

The late President Shehu Shagari it was who eventually signed the first national minimum wage legislation into law in September, 1981. The Nigerian Labour Congress, under the leadership of the late Hassan Sunmonu, had trenchantly advocated for this bill. All full-time employees were protected by this new rule, with the exception of seasonal workers and those employed by businesses with less than 50 employees. The monthly salary was 125 naira. This wage at that time approximated to  US$204 at the 1981 exchange rate of US$1 = 0.61 naira. Based on the current currency rate of approximately US$1 = #1,530 naira, the amount paid to Nigerians as minimum wage in 1981 would be equivalent to nearly USD312, 120 naira at the 2024 rate. The new enhanced minimum wage in the country is still a mere #70, 000.00 (about US$ 46) per month, less than 15% of the salary earned by the average Nigerian 43 years ago! This means that the quality of lives of Nigerians have actually depreciated, rather than being enhanced.  This is the grouse of not just the organized labour, but of average Nigerian worker.

THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF A NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE

Fixing the national minimum wage is a constitutional issue given the provisions of Part 1, item 34 of the (Exclusive Legislative List) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). By virtue of the provisions of item 34 cited above, the National Assembly can, via legislation, prescribe a minimum wage for the federation or any part thereof. What it prescribes is binding on everyone, including the Federal, States and Local governments in Nigeria.

LIVING WAGE

This is an estimate of the amount of money needed for a worker to meet their basic needs, which include food, housing, water, education and other essential expenses, while also allowing for some discretionary income. It is an income that allows an individual or family to also afford adequate shelter, clothing, childcare, healthcare, transportation and other basic needs such as personal care items, savings for unexpected events etc.  It is that wage that is higher than the minimum wage. Unlike the minimum wage, the living wage is not legally mandated but is often used as a benchmark for fair wages. It aims to provide a standard of living above the poverty line and it is calculated based on cost of living and basic needs. Given that the cost of living is already killing the living in Nigeria, the government and the organized labour should look at a living wage. 

REASONABLE WAGE

A reasonable wage is one that fairly compensates an individual for his or her work, covering basic living expenses and ensuring a decent standard of living. The concept of a reasonable wage can vary depending on factors such as location, industry, job role, and cost of living. Here are some key aspects to consider when determining what might constitute a reasonable wage:

FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN FIXING A REASONABLE WAGE

Living Wage: This is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet his or her basic needs, including housing, food, healthcare, and other essentials. A living wage is often higher than the minimum wage and is adjusted for the cost of living in different areas.

Market Rate: Wages should be competitive with what other employers in the same industry and region are paying for similar work. This helps attract and retain talent.

Skill Level and Experience: Employees with higher levels of skill, education, and experience typically command higher wages.

Job Responsibilities: The complexity and responsibility of the job should be reflected in the wage. More demanding or critical roles should be compensated accordingly.

Economic Conditions: The state of the economy can influence wage levels. During times of economic growth, wages may rise, while during downturns, wage growth might slow or stagnate.

Legal Requirements: Wages must comply with federal labour laws, including minimum wage regulations.

Company’s Financial Health: The ability of a company to pay its employees is also a factor. Financially stable companies are more likely to offer higher wages.

Benefits and Perks: Non-wage benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and other perks contribute to the overall compensation package.

A reasonable wage is a balance between these factors, ensuring that employees can live comfortably while employers remain competitive and financially sustainable.

THE EFFECTS OF POOR TAKE-HOME PAY DUE TO LOW MINIMUM WAGES

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT

Any wage that cannot meet basic standard of living is nothing but exploitation and should be condemned by all. Workers earning minimum wage often struggle to meet basic needs, such as housing, food, healthcare, and education, which can perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Low minimum wages contribute to widening income inequality, as the gap between the highest and lowest earners increases. Experience has shown that workers with higher disposable incomes are likely to spend more on goods and services, stimulating demand and economic growth. Conversely, low take-home pay can lead to decreased consumer spending, slowing economic growth. 

THE SOCIAL IMPACT

The social impact of law minimum wage is more worrisome than the economic impact. Financial stress from low wages can lead to poor mental and physical health outcomes, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, and chronic illnesses. Also, inadequate income can result in poor living conditions, limited access to nutritious food, and insufficient healthcare.

Low-income families may struggle to afford educational opportunities for their children, limiting social mobility and perpetuating cycles of poverty. Higher minimum wages can provide families with the resources needed to invest in their children’s education and future.

LABOUR MARKET IMPACT

Low wages can lead to high employee turnover, as workers seek better-paying opportunities. This can increase costs for employers due to recruiting and training new employees. Fair wages can improve employee morale and productivity, as workers feel more valued and motivated. Higher minimum wages can attract more individuals into the labour force, increasing labour market participation rates. While, low wages may discourage people from entering or remaining in the workforce, particularly if the costs of working (e.g., transportation, childcare) outweigh the benefits.

GOVERNMENT AND POLICY IMPACT

Low-wage workers often rely on government assistance programs, such housing subsidies, to make ends meet. Thus, raising the minimum wage can reduce the burden on these programs and potentially lower government spending. The minimum wage is a contentious issue in political debates, with arguments about the balance between fair pay and potential negative effects on employment. Recently, the Federal Government of Nigeria said it can pay what it can afford, even as some of the states have distanced themselves from the benchmark of #60,000 (Sixty Thousand Naira). 

My advice is that policymakers and organized labour should also consider the impact on small businesses, employment rates, and overall economic health when determining minimum wage levels. Also, there should be a periodic review of minimum wage to reflect the economic reality of the times.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES

As noted earlier, the extant minimum wage is Nigeria cannot sustain any good standard of living. There should therefore be a gradual increase or a periodic review of the minimum wage to reflect the economic realities. Also, adjusting the minimum wage based on the cost of living in different States can ensure that wages are more appropriate for local economic conditions. People who work in urban areas should be compensated more than people who work in rural areas. Wage review should take into consideration, the cost of housing, transportation, food, etc.

Combining minimum wage increases with other supportive measures, such as tax credits and job training programs, can provide a more comprehensive approach to improving the livelihoods of low-wage workers.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the issue of poor take-home pay through minimum wage policies requires a nuanced approach that considers the economic, social, and labour market impacts, as well as potential policy solutions to support both workers and employers. It is doubtful if the Tinubu government calmly took these into consideration. A situation where workers can neither fend for themselves, nor their families is deplorable and must be avoided. It can lead to chaos, anarchy and uncontrollable social unrest. 

The festering crisis in Kenya which has led to citizens literally baying for the blood of a once-upon-a-time populist William Ruto is an eye opener to any sensible and reasonable government. Granted that president Tinubu has obviously shown some concern and sensitivity to the plight of Nigerian workers by this new enhanced minimum wage, I dare say it has not done much to ameliorate the quagmire Nigeria is currently meshed in. Not to accept this reality and play the proverbial ostrich is unhelpful. Time is not on government’s side to take more drastic steps to stem the corrosive hunger, anger and mass disenchantment currently ravaging Nigeria. 

For now, it is a case of minimum wage, maximum rage.

The post MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM RAGE appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

The supreme court judgement today, July 11, 2024, directing the Federal Government to pay allocations due to Local Government Areas directly to their account thereby abolishing the old practices of State-Local Government Joint Account,is timely and courageous.

What the judgement has done is more like interpreting section 162 of the Constitution, which provides for a joint State-Local Government Account. In which case, money is normally paid to state governors’ accounts and then for them to disburse to the local governments for them to share. But what has been happening is that, as I noted in 2020,over three years ago, the state governors, have been behaving like ”bandits”, waylaing local governments funds along the way and thus impoverishing them leaving them with nothing to work, just a little for salary. And nothing to actually work for the people whom they represent.
I agree totally with the judgement of the supreme court to grant full financial autonomy so that money is released and paid directly to the 774 local government councils which constitute the third-tier of government,to develop their places because the LGAs are grassrooted and nearest to the people. Rather than allow overbearing state governors throw their weight around and muzzle the local governments and seize their purse,they will now allow LGs breath some air of freedom.

If you take a look at our situation, Nigeria is operating a very lopsided federation,more like a unitary system of government. Where the federal government is supposed to be a small government,it is controlling 67 items on the exclusive legislative list. That is why the federal government gets the lion share of the federation account , the lion share of the money that comes to the federation account to the tune of 52.68%. The states get 26.72% while the entire 774 local government councils in Nigeria get just 20.60% of the monthly allocation by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, RLASMC.

The question is, what is the federal government doing with almost 53% of the national income? That is because it is a government that is behemoth.That is elephantine. A government that intrudes and intervenes in areas that should not concern it at all. What is the federal government’s business with licensing cars and trucks for states? What is its business with the Marriage Act, dealing with how people marry and wed in Nigeria and how they live together as husband and wife and separate or divorce? What is the federal government’s business with unity schools? A whole FG operating secondary schools? What is their business? Why is the FG not allowing states generate their own power, operate their own railway stations, if they have the capacity? Why should the federal government not allow states have their own police force? Even for the local governments to have their own police force as we have in the United States and other advanced countries of the world where even tertiary institutions have their own police?

The truth is that the federal government is overbloated and overpampered. That is why it is using too much money and make the centre become too attractive,eating deep into funds that ought to be meant for the states and local government areas. The states take not only that which belongs to the states, but also waylays at source that which is meant for the local government areas. No Nation grows that way.

So, I see this judgment as epochal,having far-reaching effect because money will now be made available directly to the local government areas who will no longer be subservient, like fawning slaves to state governors. In fact, the judgement even went further to say that no state government has the power henceforth to dissolve local government areas. This is because we have been seeing cases where inspite of the provisions of section 7 of the 1999 constitution that give autonomy to local government areas, states normally go ahead and dissolve local government areas ND appoint caretaker committees for them.This is whimsical and capricious.The Supreme Court has said this can no longer go on and that henceforth, no state government should ever be able to dissolve any local government area in Nigeria for any reason whatsoever and howsoever.

The judgement is salutary, timely and regenerative. It should be upheld by all governments and people in Nigeria for better democratic dividends.I see this as victory for our wobbling democracy, even if we are far removed from true fiscal federalism where the federating units control and utilize their God-given resources while paying royalty or tax to the central government. This case is one big plus for tested court room gladiator, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation, who initiated the case at the apex court, invoking its original jurisdiction.Surely,to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war. God bless Nigeria.

The post HAILING THE SUPREME COURT ON LG ALLOCATION JUDGMENT appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

Introduction

The fourth part of this treatise dealt with a global review of the theme of “How law maintains sanity and prevents impunity in a Democratic setting”. In this feature, we shall continue with an appraisal of the position in India and Uganda before examining our experience here in Nigeria. Read on.

How Law Helps To Maintain Sanity And Prevent
Impunity In A Democratic Setting (Continues)

The Constitution being the organic law of the land ought not to be subjected to such ouster clauses, as subjecting it to outer clauses will only stunt the growth and development of the country and by extension, encourage impunity without caution among public office holders. In Oyewunmi v Ogunesan, (1996) 3 NWLR (PT. 137) 182) the court rightly held that in the present era issues of rights and development, no economic and/or social rights provisions in any Constitution ought to be made non-justiciable. Otherwise the government cannot be held accountable to the people which in turn, propagates corruption and hinders development. Therefore, to reposition Nigeria in a better light of actually stamping out impunity, section 6 (6) (c) of the constitution needs to be examined critically by those constitutionally empowered to make laws and amend same to that section 15(5) can become of utilitarian value and place public officers on their toes to fight impunity with all honesty.

In India and some other African countries, there has been a gradual shift from rigid adherence to the implication of non justiciability of the constitution to flexible amendments to judicially making non jusiticiable aspect of their constitution justiciable. India is one of such States as reflected by the Supreme Court of in Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 222, where Hegede and Mukherjea J J rightly stated that directive principles is aimed at making the India masses free in the positive sense without faithfully implementing the Directive Principles, as it is contemplated by the Constitution (India 1950). In striving to improve quality social life, the Indian Constitution has had 97 Amendments.

Also the Constitution of Uganda, as amended in 2005, has made a strong case for the justiciability of non justiciable provisions of the Ugandan Constitution. Ogugua V.C. Ikpeze, Non-justiciability of Chapter II of the Nigerian Constitution as an Impediment to Economic Rights and Development, Developing Country Studies V0I.5, N0.18, 2015.  For example Article 29 (See the Constitution of Uganda, 2005) provides for protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association and Article 30 provides for right to education. Article 33 is on rights of women; while Section 34 is on rights of children. This Article provides as follows:

“No child shall be deprived by any person of medical treatment, education or any other social or economic benefit by reason of religious or other beliefs”.

While Article 39 provides for rights to healthy environment, and Article 40 is on economic rights to employment.

Democracy And The Culture Of Impunity/Disobedience To The Rule Of Law In Nigeria

Democracy in Nigeria came with its price – the prevalent culture of impunity. This of course, is not unconnected with the many precarious and vengeful military takeovers of democratic governments with its total defiance to the rule of law, accountability and widespread unchallenged series of wanton corruption, murders and treasury looting. Analyzing Nigeria’s democratic setting and its attendant culture of impunity without considering the negative influence of military incursion into our democratic space will make the study to be bereft of completeness. This is rightly so because the military has ruled Nigeria for 29 years out of its 64 years since its independence and this has in no small measure contributed vigorously in shaping and reshaping the country’s political and democratic life.

On January 15^th, 1966, Nigeria had its first military coup executed and spearheaded by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzwagu and his 5 cohorts 6 years after Nigeria’s young independence. Major Chukwuma toppled the government of Alhaji Sir, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Nigeria’s first prime minister. Until that time, the Nigerian army, as noted by Shittu was:

^“A normal professional force, the officers and men occupied themselves with training, peace keeping efforts in foreign land and other sundry military activities. But that changed when Major Kaduna Chukwuma Nzeogwu and his cohorts struck on January 15, 1966. That, apart from sounding the death knell of the 1^st Republic, effectively brought the men in “khaki” into the murky waters of politics.” (ibid).

The military takeover by Major Chukwuma was first greeted with jubilation until it was discovered that the assassination and killings was sectionally imbalanced. This led to the retaliatory coup of 29^th July 1966 masterminded by officers of Northern extraction. The coup led to Nigeria’s civil war between 1967-1970 as the Ibos saw the coup of 29^th July 1966 and the following unresolved murders as genocide and ethnic cleansing against them and that the Gown led federal government of Nigeria was not ready to stop the genocide. However, by 29^th January, 1975, General Gowon was overthrown in a bloodless coup by General Murtala Mohammad who was assassinated on 13^th February, 1975, paving way for General Olusegun Obasanjo, who by October 1, 1979 handed over power to the Shagari led civilian government. It was not to last long as General Mohammed Buhari struck in his “khaki” and took over power. His government gained reputation for being harsh and brutal. Subsequently, on 17^th August, 1985, General Ibrahim Babangidda took over power from Buhari stating human rights abuses and dwindling economy as excuses; then came General Sanni Abacha in 1993 and remained in power till his death in 1998.

One thing that gained prominence during the many years of military rule in Nigeria was widespread corruption, assassinations and killings, money laundering, human rights abuses and gross unaccountability and impunity which became a culture well entrenched in Nigeria’s social, political and economic space. Olaniyan (A.O. Olaniyan (2010). “The Military” in Lai Olorode (ed.) Reflections on a Decade of Democratization in Nigeria” Friedrich Ebart-Stiftung, Abhuja, Nigeria: 162-77 cited in K.A. Shittu, Military,), puts it better when he said: 

“The military over the years have claimed to have come to power to rid the country of corruption; however, it is evident that the military itself is either corrupt or more corrupt than the secular class they claimed to have come to correct.” (ibid).

Aside the gross abuse of human rights, embezzlement, the military also bequeathed its defiance to constitutional provision to Nigeria even after its many years of military rule. Little wonder the Constitution of Nigeria largely remains the way it is at present because it is the brainchild of successive governments who have structured it to sooth its appetite for limitless and unchallengeable powers.

The year 1999, precisely May 29, ushered in a new democratic dispensation to the joy of Nigerians. The military government of General Abdusalam Abubakar handed over power to a democratically elected president – Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired army general. The change from military government to a the now democratic government appeared to have only taken place in form but not in substance as the country continued to wallow in unmitigated impunity. Thus, despite all laws and rules towards maintaining sanity and preventing abuse, it seems that in Nigeria, laws are not meant for the elite or the political big wigs to obey but for the less privileged in the society. The so-called custodians of democracy, who are equally supposed to be custodians of the rule of law, have abandoned the rule of law, for the rule of politics. There is a culture of impunity on going in the country. Abuse of power by the government and its agencies is on the increase, while certain individuals also seem to be above the law simply because their alliance with the government; they do whatever they will, but remain untouchable.

Impunity and refusal to obey the rule of law, especially by the ruling class has always been a major challenge to the Nigerian Democracy. Pointing at the impunity on the Part of the People Democratic Party while in power, it was observed that;

“the ruling People’s Democracy Party appears to be above the constitution and law of Nigeria; although members of the party ” pay lip service” to law, order, fair play and all such noble ideal, in practice they behave as if they have the right to re-write the laws of the country at will, that they choose which judicial pronouncements to obey and which to ignore; they have even taken time out at public fora to rail at judicial pronouncements if not at the learned judges themselves (for example the judicial was vilified over the minority judgment in the presidential election tribunal which questioned the electoral figures in Ogun State where the president scored more votes than the number of registered voters (sic). Contrast that with the effusive praise that attended the final verdict of the Supreme Court which gave victory to the president” (To be continued).

Thought for the week

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice”. (Montesquieu).

The post The Role Of Law In Maintaining Sanity And Preventing Impunity In A Democratic Setting (Part 5) appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION

Last week we commenced this series with some operational definitions, today we shall continue and conclude on the definitions and take a critical look at some cases – their good attributes, deficiencies and worst case scenarios. Read on.  

DEFINITION OF TERMS (CONTINUES).

During the colonial and military regimes, the Executive always attempted to undermine the Judiciary, erode its independence and powers of coercion and have a field day with illegality and impunity.  On those occasions, the Judiciary always stood up courageously to uphold the rule of law.  In Eshugbayi Eleko Vs. Government of Nigeria the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever the deportation of the Oba of Lagos from his domain to an entirely different part of Nigeria on the ground, inter alia, that the Governor had no such power inspite of the fact that the Governor was then vested with both executive and legislative powers. It held:

“No member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a subject except on the condition that he can support the legality of his action before a court of justice.”

In Lakanmi & Another Vs. A-G, Western State, the Supreme Court courageously declared null and void Edict No. 5 of 1967 promulgated by the Western State Government and Decree No, 48 and 45 of 1968 promulgated by the Federal Military Government, on the ground that they were ad hominem legislations.  The legislations dealt with forfeiture of assets.  The Supreme Court held that the 1963 Constitution clearly provided for separation of powers between the Judicial and the Executive and that Decree No. 45 of 1968 was a clear usurpation of the Judicial powers of the courts.  Chief Rotimi Williams had then argued that the Decree which named specific people and confiscated their property were ad hominem and unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court held that the legislations amounted to judicial rather than legislative acts and struck them down.  In reply, the Federal Military Government of General Yakubu Gown promulgated Decree No. 28 of 1970 to undermine the Judiciary.  The Decree was audacious and even brutal in its title:  “The Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers Decree No. 28 of 1970.”  The Decree restated the sacredness and unquestionability of any Decree or Edict promulgated or purported to be promulgated by the military government.  But the Adetokunbo Ademola-led Supreme Court at the time was not intimidated.

In Governor of Lagos State Vs. Ojukwu Kayode Eso,JSC emphatically declared that:

“Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, the Executive, the Legislature (while it lasts) and the Judiciary are equal partners in the running of a successful government. The powers granted by the constitution to these organs by Section 4 (Legislative Powers), Section 5 (Executive Powers) and Section 6 (Judicial Powers) are classified under an omnibus umbrella known under part II to the Constitution as Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’. The organs wield those powers and one must never exist in sabotage of the other or else there is chaos, Indeed there will be no federal government. I think, for one organ, and more especially the Executive, which holds all the physical powers, to put up itself in sabotage or deliberate contempt of the other is to stage an executive subversion of the constitution it is to uphold. Executive lawlessness tantamount to a deliberate violation of the Constitution.” 

There are many  cases decided during the military era and under democratic environment that underscore the relentless efforts by other arms  of government, especially the Executive to erode  the independence and vibrancy of the Judiciary as a way  of expanding their own frontiers of influence, unquesitonability and impunity.

Since the Executive has considerable (if not total) influence over the wealth of the State and over the appointment of Judges, it continuously seeks to make the Judiciary dependent by starving it of funds and by influencing the enthronement of mediocrity  on the Bench.  Issues in independence of the Judiciary may thus be broadly classified into three, viz, political independence, economic independence and intellectual independence.  Before looking at these issues in detail, we may take a look at the face of Nigeria’s Judiciary so that the issues can simultaneously be matched with the ease.

The Case (The Good, The Bad, The Ugly)

“Since I made the order of the remand of the accused person last Thursday and up till about 10 minuets before I sat this morning, I have been under untold pressure and threat from many quarters urging me to arrive at a particular decision ever before I listen to the accused.  Let me make it that as a Muslin, the teaching of my religion is clear about death being the ultimate.  I am therefore not bothered about any such threat.  I am, however, worried about the untold pressure coming, as it were, from unexpected quarters…  To continue with this case will…..be a breach of the solemn pledge I made when I became a judge (i.e) to administer justice without fear or favour and without ill-will or affection.  In view of the foregoing, I hereby remit this case file to the honourable chief judge for re-assignment to another judge.” 

In this way,  Honourable Justice Mashood Abass of the Oyo State High Court washed his hands off, like Pontius Pilate, of the trial of Otunba Iyiola Omisore and other accused persons standing trial for the murder of Late Chief Bola Ige, SAN (Slain Attorney-general of the Federation).  After the controversial withdrawal of the judge, allegations of undue pressure, bribery, arm-twisting tactics, threats and promises directed against the judge inundated the media. 

Before, the breaking of this unpalatable story, a sordid allegation of bribery had been trailing the Election Tribunal that sat in Akwa Ibom State over the petition of Dr. Imeh Umanah, against the election of the then incumbent governor, Obong Victor Attah.

In Enugu State, matters came to a head when an Election Tribunal had to relocate to Abuja to complete its job after alleging that Enugu State was no longer safe for its honourable members.  These are bad times for the Judiciary!.

But in Anambra State,  the State Chief Judge, Honourable Justice C. J. Okoli proved to be a pride of the Judiciary when he smartly ‘made himself unavailable’ during the July 10, 2003, abduction of the governor of Anambra State,  Dr. Chris Ngige by his political enemies.  The House of Assembly had passed a motion asking the Chief Judge to swear in the Deputy Governor as incumbent governor, but the Chief Judge was not available to carry out the resolution.  By that act, his lordship saved the Judiciary from being enmeshed in the dirty politics of the state, which almost consumed the other arms of government.

More than any other factor, the abuse of ex-parte injunction by some judges has immensely contributed to the erosion of public confidence in the Judiciary under this democratic dispensation.  Most of the ex parte orders granted under controversial circumstances involved situations where the Executive was either the direct beneficiary or had an interest which the public believed (rightly or wrongly) the Judiciary merely ‘co-operated’ to protect.  This perception is a dangerous omen for independence of the Judiciary, because the Justice must not only be done but must be manifestly seen to have been done.

During this democratic dispensation, an Abuja High Court granted an ex parte order stopping the national convention which of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) when preparation for the convention had already gulped millions of naira and party members had already converged at the venue in Abuja.  Most Nigerians did not believe that the Judge was not acting in the interest of the rival ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) given the controversial and damaging circumstances under which the order was made.  The resulting outrage cost the judge his job.

Another, Abuja High Court made an order restraining the National Assembly from further deliberating on a bill before it to amend the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act 2000.  The Executive was interested in killing the bill. The order was made in defiance of the trite principle of the doctrine of separation of powers which precludes the courts from assuming jurisdiction over a bill that has not become law.  In articulating the position of the Court of Appeal on the question of Judicial interference in the law making process purportedly under section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution, Hon. Justice Mamman Nasir, P. said:

“though the courts have been given very wide powers under the subsection, the intention is not to authorize the Judiciary to interfere with the legitimate exercise of the powers of the legislature or the procedure to be followed in such exercise at power given to the courts comes into action after the legislature has enacted the law…”.

A similar controversy trailed the ex parte order given by the same Abuja Federal High Court which directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a certificate of return to Chief Adolphus Wabara (PDP) as Senator representing the Abia South Senatorial Zone.  INEC complied (apparently reluctantly) and Wabara became the president of the senate the next day.   The source of the controversy was that INEC had earlier declared Elder Dan Imo (ANPP) as the winner of the seat.  As Ogbham-Emeka, a Counsel in Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers observed about the controversy in ThisDay Law,

“The question of how the Abuja Federal High Court assumed jurisdiction over the matter and how the issue became one suitable for an ex parte order raked up a lot of dust. When the dust subsided not a few people concluded that it was the court and not the electorate that gave Senator Wabara the Abia South Senatorial ‘mandate’.  But that was not to be the end of the regime of such demonstrable judicial anarchy that force litigants to choose which court order to obey and which not to obey, a situation that spells doom for a regime of law and order”. (To be continued).

Thought for the Week

“A functioning, robust democracy requires a healthy, educated, participatory followership and an educated, morally grounded leadership”. (Chinua Achebe). 

LAST LINE

God bless my numerous global readers for always keeping faith with the Sunday Sermon on the Mount of the Nigerian Project, by humble me, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb., LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.Sc. kindly, come with me to next week’s exciting dissertation.

The post THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY IN A DEMOCRATIC DISPENSATION (PART 2) appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION

In the last two parts of this treatise, we started by taking a look at the meaning of vanity of life and the ephemerality of power taking a leap from historical sketches and nuggets. Later we explored power generally and man’s dominion over it, political power, the abuse of power – noting the ephemerality of life itself. We also posed the question: ‘what is power?’. And then observed that God is the supreme power Who controls men of power, today, we shall continue and conclude with nothing lasts forever. Read on.

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER

Nothing lasts forever, even this life is vanity upon vanity. [Ecclesiastes 1:2 – 8 KJV]. In William Shakespeare’s epic in Macbeth, Macbeth himself tells, “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Act V, Scene V).

But let us not forget the seriousness of this topic; for beneath the veneer of my foregoing satire lies my profound examination of the fleeting nature of power. In a country brimming with sundry potentials, how do we navigate the tumultuous waters of leadership? How do we separate the genuine statesmen from the artificial temporary showmen? And what does it mean for a nation like Nigeria when ephemeral power eventually slips through the hands of those entrusted with its stewardship?

Power to these sit-tight leaders is like opium; it intoxicates; power is an aphrodisiac; an intoxicating liquor. It bemuses. It gives one the delusional ‘Dutch courage’. It can either make or mar the holder. It forces reason to vacate its seat. It is not certain – but – evanescent, fleeting, transitory, volatile and short-lived. 

We must note that the intoxicating liquor of power can be a double-edged sword, corrupting even the noblest of intentions. Abuse of power occurs when public office holders who succumb to their baser instincts, using their positions for personal gain, and turning a blind eye to the needs and aspirations of the people they are meant to serve. Brutus, mulling his fears over Caesar’s rise to power and the stringent calls to crown him, soliloquized: “The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power” (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act II Scene I). He feared that though he had not known Caesar to be unreasonable, power may change him. So, for the common good, Caesar must die. What is therefore easily forgotten is the ‘EPHEMERALITY OF POWER’ and the temporary positions that the wielders hold. Nothing in life is permanent except for the word of God almighty Himself, which endures forever (Peter 1:25). What we ask again, and again is this: Leaders, what do you want to be remembered for when you leave power? For certainly you must leave someday. If not today, surely tomorrow; but certainly, you must.

EPHEMERALITY AND VANITY- ANY CONNECTION?

The connect between ephemerality and vanity is apparent, if not obvious: they are all but mirror-images of each other. What is vain, is at least partly so because it is ephemeral; what is ephemeral, (in the sense in which it is discussed here), is, by definition (at least, according to both the Bible and the Quran) vanity. All of it, including power and life itself. Everything is transient – almost illusory and like a mirage or a vapour: it is here today, and by tomorrow, it is gone. This dovetails neatly into the pomp, pageantry and excessive mourning which (culturally and as individuals) attend the passage or transition (death) of our loved ones. The sheer folly and mindlessness of such banal practices and traditions is best is best captured in this pith by an unknown author:

“Burials do not befit the dead. They’re dead and unaware what befits them or not. “Befitting burials” are bragging points for the living. The dead do not care. Love your loved ones while they’re here, make sacrifices for them. Give them gifts. Speak words of affirmation to them. Do acts of service for them. Touch them, hug them, kiss them, and spend time with them. Laugh and smile with them, enjoy them. Don’t save your accolades for the pages of their burial programs. The dead won’t read it. Say what you need to say now, to the ones you love who are alive. Befitting burials are for the living, not the dead. The dead do not know, the dead do not care. Go home and help the living live better!”

UNKNOWN

That is not all. Our literature is replete with innumerable musings on the subject of death and our reaction to it. A few are selected below: (https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/talkabout/articles/nine-famous-death-quotes-i-joyfully-await-the-exit-and-i-hope-never-to-return/281841) 

“Analysis of death is not for the sake of becoming fearful but to appreciate this precious lifetime.” – Dalai Lama

“I have now decided that my death should be very precious. I really want to use it. I’d like my death to be as interesting as my life has been, and will be.” – David Bowie, Playboy Magazine interview, 1976.

 “It’s part of the privilege of being human that we have our moment when we have to say goodbye.” – Patti Smith.

“The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone.” – Harriet Beecher Stowe.

“In the midst of death, life persists. In the midst of untruth, truth persists. In the midst of darkness, light persists.” – Mahatma Gandhi.

“Though lovers be lost, love shall not.” – Dylan Thomas.

“In life, we weep at the thought of death. In death, perhaps we weep at the thought of life.” – Marilyn Monroe.

“When you wake up from death, you will find yourself in my arms…” – Richard Brautigan.

“I joyfully await the exit – and I hope never to return” – Frida Kahlo

“I’m not afraid of death; I just don’t want to be there when it happens.” – Woody Allen.

“To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.” – J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

“Love never dies a natural death. It dies because we don’t know how to replenish its source. It dies of blindness and errors and betrayals. It dies of illness and wounds; it dies of weariness, of witherings, of tarnishings.” – Anais Nin.

“I’m the one that’s got to die when it’s time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.” – Jimi Hendrix, The Jimi Hendrix Experience – Axis: Bold as Love.

“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” – Mark Twain.

“Death ends a life, not a relationship.” – Mitch Albom, Tuesdays with Morrie.

“A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.” – Oscar Wilde

“It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it’s called Life.” – Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain.

“I don’t want to die without any scars.” – Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

“It kills me sometimes, how people die.” – Markus Zusak, The Book Thief

“Life is for the living. Death is for the dead. Let life be like music. And death, a note unsaid.” – Langston Hughes, The Collected Poems.

“That was the thing. You never got used to it, the idea of someone being gone. Just when you think it’s reconciled, accepted, someone points it out to you, and it just hits you all over again, that shocking.” – Sarah Dessen, The Truth About Forever.

“If you gave someone your heart and they died, did they take it with them? Did you spend the rest of forever with a hole inside you that couldn’t be filled?” – Jodi Picoult, Nineteen Minutes.

“Even death has a heart.” – Markus Zusak, The Book Thief

“Don’t feel bad, I’m usually about to die.” – Rick Riordan, The Battle of the Labyrinth.

“When people don’t express themselves, they die one piece at a time.” – Laurie Halse Anderson, Speak

CONCLUSION

The ephemerality of life underscores its vanity. What is the point of it all when it will go up like smoke in next to no time? What shall it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? Two questions which are opposite sides of the same coin. Suffice it to say that whether you believe in God, are an agnostic or a non-believer, the emptiness of many of our exertions, aspirations and attitudes, or of those connected to us (or even total strangers far removed from us by space and time) are stark reminders of the imperative of re-ordering our priorities and focusing on the things that really matter: substance as opposed to form; self-denial/self discipline as opposed to self-indulgence, conspicuous consumption and excess. None of us is here to live forever and we shall all make our exits sooner or later – perhaps sooner than we imagined. Death is inevitable. It stalks us all like our shadow, sticking to us wherever we go to. What matters is to live purposeful, impactful lives and leave worthy legacies that will inspire others – regardless of any notion of the hereafter and personal accountability to a Supreme Being. God, please, help us. Forgive our many sins. Look upon us with mercy. AMEN. (The end).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“The vanity of human life is like a river, constantly passing away, and yet constantly coming on.” (Alexander Pope).

The post THE VANITY OF LIFE AND THE EPHEMERALITY OF POWER (Part 2) appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION

In the first part of this treatise, we set the tone by examining its meaning with the aid of historical sketches and nuggets. Today’s feature explores power generally and man’s dominion over it, political power, it’s abuse – noting the ephemerality of life itself. I pose the question: ‘what is power?’. I then observe that God controls men of power, concluding that nothing lasts forever. Enjoy

Power and man’s dominion
Power is as old as the creation of the world. The first expression of power was by God – when he created the Heavens and the Earth. [Genesis 1 v. 1 – 2]. The Qur’an states that ‘Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them.” [7:54].
God proceeded to create man in His own image and likeness when he said, “Let us create man in our image, to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle, over the wild animals, and over all creeping things that crawl along the ground.” [Genesis 1 v. 27]. This means that man looks like God and possesses the attributes of God – with absolute dominion [power] over all things created by God. Psalm 82 puts it poignantly: “I said, you are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the MOST HIGH”.

Political power and its abuse
In the labyrinthine corridors of political power, a captivating dance of death unfolds- where the mighty ascend to the throne with the grandeur of illusion and tall promises, only to find themselves ensnared in the maze and quagmire of their own making. Such is the hypnotic and seductive tale of power and its ephemeral grip on those who wield it. In the Nigerian political landscape, this narrative has played out time and again, as public officeholders have succumbed to the allure of authority, often leading to the abuse, misuse and disuse of power.
Edmund Burke was on target when he admonished that “the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse”. The reason is that in the words of Paul Harris, “personality has power to uplift, power to depress, power to curse and power to bless.”

Life itself is ephemeral
The ephemeral nature of power, as highlighted in religious texts such as the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran, emphasizes the transient and fleeting nature of human existence and the potential pitfalls of wielding power in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary and unconscionable manner, without humility, righteousness and due regard to those at the receiving end.
In James 4:14 of the Bible, it is expressed that humans do not have control over what will happen in the future. Life is compared to a vapor that appears for a short time and then vanishes away. Hear James: “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” This metaphor conveys the brevity and fragility of human life. It also suggests that power, like life itself, is temporary and also dissipates rapidly. Similarly, the Quran, in verse 28:76, narrates the story of Korah, a person of power during the time of Moses. Korah abused his authority and tyrannized his people. He was granted immense wealth and treasures that “even their keys would burden a group of strong men”. So, his people advised him, “Do not be prideful. Surely, Allah does not like the prideful.” The supremacy of divine power surpasses the transience of mortal power. God stands as the ultimate force to be acknowledged, while humanity’s existence is temporary. As they say, “Soldier come, Soldier go, Barracks remain”.
The Legendary musical icon, Prince, once said passively that, “But life is just a party, and parties weren’t meant to last.”
The historical Chinese politician and poet, Li Shang-yin, also told us that, “And a moment that ought to have lasted for ever has come and gone before I knew.”
The much celebrated Indian author, Krishna Udayasankar, also echoed this, “No empire lasts forever, no dynasty continues unbroken. Someday, you and I will be mere legends. All that matters is whether we did what we could with the life that was given to us.”
I once a read mesmerizing poem that is engraved in my everyday thought of action. It was a poem written by the highly celebrated English poet, Percy Shelly– “Ozymandias”. This was the first foremost metaphor for the ephemeral nature of power. It was written in a parlance – depicting a traveler telling the speaker a story about two vast legs of stone standing without a body, and near them, a massive, crumbling stone head lies ‘half sunk’ in the sand. The words on the statute read thus: “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! But today, the statute is broken and even decayed, where is the self-acclaimed king?”.
Same long-living Biblical figures still died anyway: Adam (930 years); Seth (912); Kenan (910); Noah (950) and Jared (962).
Even Methuselah reputed to be the longest-lived human whose lifespan was recorded as 969 years in Gen 5:27, still kissed the dust. When man became swollen-headed and too sinful, God cut his age to a maximum of 120 years (Gen 6:3). This God’s ceiling of human lifespan is why the oldest ever recorded Guinness Book of Records human being is Branyas of Spain who lived for 113 years and 364 days.

Yet, God controls men who control power
With this observation, a compelling pattern emerges, a thought-provoking notion that everything, as if orchestrated by the hands of time, may eventually and inexorably reach its transient conclusion.
The terrific Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylonian, reigned for so many years. After his great fall, and having come to true repentance, acknowledged the unlimited and unending power and greatness of God, thus: ‘The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever HE will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.’ [Daniel 4 – 1].

So, what is power?
An American writer – Robert Green, popular for writing international books on human nature, all power-related, was asked the meaning of power. This was his response: “Power is the measure of the degree of control you have over circumstances in your life and the actions of the people around you. It is a skill that is developed by a deep understanding of human nature, of what truly motivates people, and of the manipulations necessary for advancement and protection”.
Returning to the nucleus of our riposte, let us embark on an expedition through the intriguing Nigerian terrain, shedding more light on the fleeting nature of assumed dominion bestowed upon the fortunate wielders of power.
Picture this: Nigeria is a land of vast potentials and immense diversity, where power dynamics dance like fickle flames in the wind. It is a place where nondescript politicians rise to sudden prominence like shooting stars, captivating a tired nation with alluring promises of change, progress, and prosperity. In my Ozekpedia, I once called the “Politrictians” who practise “Politricks”. (See Nigerian “Politricks” and the Politrictians“ https://nigeriaofourdreams.wordpress.com/ November 4, 2014). But alas, as the old saying goes, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In this case, it also evaporates like water in the Sahara. In 1655, King Louis XIV of France proudly stood in front of Parliament and imperiously declared, “L’etat C’est Moi” (meaning, “I am the State”. This was to accentuate his complete hold on power to the total exclusion of all other lesser mortals. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89tat, _c%27est_moi, February 7, 2024).
Oh, how we have witnessed the Nigerian political stage transform into a theatre of comedy, tragedy and the absurd; an Odeon where the script is written by fate itself. We have seen leaders sprinting towards power, like Usain Bolt, fueled by sheer ambition and infatuation rhetoric, only to stumble and fall on banana peels of their own making. It is as if there is a cosmic prankster, ever delighting them in the ironic twists and turns of political fortune.
Even an era of authoritarian rule or maximum dictatorship no longer guarantees a leader’s everlasting hold on power. While it may prolong their tyrannical reign, as seen in many cases, their grip must one day end. In history, we have seen long-lasting dictators like Nguema Mbasogo, Omar Bongo, Kim ll Sung, Muammar Gaddafi, Ali Khomeini, Sassuo Nguesso, Gnassingbe Eyadema, Paul Biya, Hun Sen, Yoweri Museveni, Omar Al-Bashir, Saddam Hussein, Haile Selassie and Ferdinand Marcos.
Dictators’ and rulers’ rule is inevitably bound to reach its end, sometimes through violent means, as witnessed in the fate of certain long-standing dictators. Even King Louis XIV who ruled the kingdom of France for 72 years, 3 months and 18 days, still bit the dust. Ditto Sobhuza II who ruled Swaziland for 82 years and 254 days, same with Min Hti of Arakan who ruled in the Kingdom of Arakan for 95 years. What about Pepi II Neferkare, who ruled the Kingdom of Egypt for 94 years? They all went the way of all mortals. They became mere dust. Furthermore, the limitations of human lifespan must be taken into account. An individual’s productive years typically fall within the 40 to 50-year range, following a normal distribution pattern known as the “Poisson” distribution. This implies that their most fruitful years span from ages 25 to 75, with the peak occurring between 35 and 65. Considering these factors, the window of power becomes remarkably narrow and encroaches upon the more enjoyable stages of life. Observing some politicians’ desperate and suicidal maneuvers to cling to power forever, one wonders if they harbor the illusion of immortality.

Nothing lasts forever
Nothing lasts forever, even this life is vanity upon vanity. [Ecclesiastes 1:2 – 8 KJV]. In William Shakespeare’s epic in Macbeth, Macbeth himself tells, “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Act V, Scene V).
(To be continued)

Thought for the week

“The vanity of human life is like a river, constantly passing away, and yet constantly coming on.” (Alexander Pope)

The post Vanity of life and ephemerality of power (2) appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

Introduction

The judiciary is popularly referred to as the last hope of the common man.  Yet, to maintain the attributes that qualify it for this populist appellation, the independence and integrity of the judiciary must be jealously guarded and sustained so as to continue to attract the confidence of the said common-man in the ability of the judiciary to do justice to all without fear or favour.

Indeed, the title of this paper becomes urgently relevant in view of the difficult times the judicial institution as a whole has been going through in recent times, as regards its integrity and retention of public confidence.  Never in Nigeria’s history (not even during the repressive and tyrannical era of military juntas) has the judiciary suffered such high degree of public bashing, ridicule and contempt as it has in recent times.

Of late, the Judiciary has come under intense criticism and experienced serious erosion of public confidence, so much that its indispensable independence and impartiality have been put to serious doubt by an ever-increasing cross section of Nigerians.  While some of the events that gave rise to these doubts were largely misunderstood by the public, the truth remains that some events have shown an even more urgent need to safeguard and defend the political, fiscal/economic and intellectual independence of the Judiciary in this dispensation.  The imperatives for an independent and impartial Judiciary in a democracy are great and pressing.  This is bolstered by the general feeling and expectation of greater freedoms in a democracy.  The protection of human rights is implicit in open democracy.  The Judiciary is the greatest bastion for protection of human rights.

The aim of this article is not to place the Judiciary in the dock and try it for the alleged ‘offences’ for which it has recently been perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have committed.  Consequently, we would do no more than merely restate some of the events which in the opinion (however flawed) of most Nigerians seem to signify a compromise of its independence and integrity. Our own value judgment would be minimal.  We therefore enter a caveat that those who expect the main focus of this paper to be on trashing the judicial institution may be a little bit disappointed at the end.  The paper shall conclude with a focus on the role of an independent Judiciary in Nigeria’s nascent democracy.

Definition of Terms

There is hardly any term than can be properly and exhaustively defined (strictu sensu). We shall however adopt dictionary definitions of our principal terms as working definitions to aid clarity of analysis.

The noun ‘independence’ is derived from the adjective ‘independent’ which connotes the following attributes:

“Free from the authority, control or influence of others, self-governing… self-supporting, not dependent on other for one’s living, not committed to an organized political party…not subordinate…not depending on another for its value.”  (Oxford Dictionary).

We now turn to the key and operative word, the ‘Judiciary’.  The term has been defined as:

“That branch of government invested with the judicial power; the system of courts in a country; the body of judges; the bench.  That branch of government which is intended to interpret, construe and apply the law.” 

It has however been argued at various times that this definition (as exhaustive as it might appear) is restrictive.  It has been suggested that a working definition of the term ‘Judiciary’ may:

“Include the messengers, clerks, Registrars, Bailiffs, the Police, the other security forces, the members of the Bar and such persons that have anything to do with the Judiciary and this will ultimately include the generality of the populace” 

For the present purposes however, it would be something of a stretch to suggest that perhaps the generality of Nigerians are part of the Judiciary.  Nwabueze agrees with the wide definition of the term, but sees the usage as a somewhat permissible ascription of terminology as regards its composite brother term, the Judicature.  According to the learned author:

“There is a certain amount of looseness in the use of the word ‘Judiciary’.  In its strict meaning it refers to the ‘judges of a state collectively, but it often (loosely) used interchangeable with ‘judicature’, a wider term embracing both the institution (the courts) and the persons (the judges) who compose it.” 

‘Democracy’ is still best known with its Lincolnian definition as ‘government of the people, for the people and by the people’.  It is however important to state that our type of ‘democratic dispensation’ has not qualified to be simply referred to as democracy (when the word is stretched to its utilitarian of limits).  At best, Nigeria is passing through the process of democratization from years of military dictator ship to civilian governance.  Being a process, democratization primarily embraces the steps that go into internalizing the norms of democracy after the institution of a democratically-elected government.  In this connection, following democratic elections, there comes a period where governments, institutions and the populace imbibe the democratic culture and principles, and gradually drop autocratic and uncivilized tendencies.  This is the cross-roads at which the contemporary Nigeria finds itself.  Nwabueze, therefore, sees democratization as:

“The infusing of the spirit of liberty, democracy, justice, the Rule of Law and order amongst the people.” 

The point we arrive at is that Nigeria’s Judiciary (which involves both the system of courts and the judges has a pivotal role to play in this democratic dispensation in upholding the rule of law and holding the balance between constitutional and unconstitutional acts.  Democratic practice in a limited government being essentially a regime of adherence to constitutionalism, legality and the rule of law, the presence of an independent Judiciary is a sine qua non for successful democracy.  An independent Judiciary acts like a compass in complex and turbulent voyage of democracy.  Its performance or lack of it determines whether or not the ship of state anchors safely. 

If the word ‘independence’ still connotes freedoms from the authority, control or influence of others, and if it still points to an institution which is self-supporting, (not dependent on others), not committed to a political party, not subordinate and not depending on any person or other institution for its value, then the Nigerian Judiciary must politically, economically and intellectually be seen to be self-reliant in order to be called an independent Judiciary. It has been urged (albeit ad ignoranta) that the doctrine of separation of powers does not presuppose independence of one arm of government from the other.  This flawed argument is usually impressively hinged on the doctrine of checks and balances.  It was used extensively against the Legislative arm in their efforts to operate independently of the executive arm during the first (6) six years of return to democracy.  It is, however, submitted that the constitutional doctrine of checks and balances does not derogate from the doctrine of separation of powers.

It is not intended to confuse the doctrine of separation of powers with the issue of judicial independence.  Whilst it is right to argue that the latter is a fall-out of the former, it is important to note that the issue of judicial independence has an additional constitutional, political and moral importance in our national life.  This is because after the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 has successfully separated the powers of government in sections 4, 5 and 6 thereof, it goes ahead to provide unequivocally that:

“The independence, impartiality and integrity of courts of law, and easy accessibility thereto shall be secured and maintained.” 

It can easily be seen that judicial independence entails, but is not limited to, separation of powers.  Thus in construing the meaning of the expression ‘independence of the Judiciary’, Nwabueze argues:

“We tend to think that the independence of the Judiciary means just independence from the legislature and the executive.  But it means much more than that.  It means independence from political organs of government or by the public or brought in by the judges themselves through their involvement in politics.”

It is unarguably that the most prominent issue in judicial independence is the freedom of the Judiciary from any form of political influence, whether exerted from outside or self imposed.  Another learned writer sees judicial independence to mean:

“The independence of the judges to think freely and act freely according to the dictates of their conscience in line with the provisions of the law without any let or hindrance or fear of repercussion from any quarters whether from the legislative, Executive, individual members of the public or even from the ghost of the individual judge’s past, present or future.” 

Unless the Judiciary is aggressively shielded from political influence from the other two arms of government, especially the Executive, the chances of such influence being actually exerted over it are indeed bright.  The Constitution made both the Executive and the Legislature generally amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.  Accordingly, the judicial power vested in the courts by the Constitution extends:

“To all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.”  

It is natural for a branch of government which wields a preponderant of coercive power and exercises power over the purse, (but still has the possible sanction of the Judiciary lurking over it), to attempt to stultify, hijack or control the machinery of the Judiciary.  That is the only way, in a democracy, the government can check the ‘menace’ and interference, of the courts and thereby amass more powers and secure impunity unto itself in defiance of constitutionalism and due process. (To be continued).

Thought for the Week

“The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing”. (Caroline Kennedy). 

LAST LINE

God bless my numerous global readers for always keeping faith with the Sunday Sermon on the Mount of the Nigerian Project, by humble me, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb., LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.Sc. kindly, come with me to next week’s exciting dissertation.

The post The Independence Of The Judiciary In A Democratic Dispensation (Part 1) appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION

A High Court sitting in Sokoto and presided over by the Honourable Justice Kabiru I. Ahmed, on the 13th of June, 2024, granted in favour of the Plaintiffs/Applicants (District Heads ), exparte applications for the maintenance of status quo ante bellum in Suit Nos: SS/M.290/2024 and SS/M.293/2024 , between Alhaji Buhari Dahiru Tambuwal and Alhaji Abubakar Kassim (the Plaintiffs/Applicants) V. the Governor of Sokoto State, Attorney General of Sokoto State and the Sokoto Sultanate Council (the Defendants/Respondents).

The maintenance of status quo ante bellum order further directed, amongst others, a stay of all actions and or further actions in connection with all matters dealing with and or pertaining to the removal and or dethronement of District Heads in Sokoto State (particularly the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs/Applicants), as the District Heads of Tambuwal in Tambuwal LGA of Sokoto State and the District Head of Kebbe in Kebbe LGA of Sokoto State, respectively.The injunctive relief is to operate against the Governor of Sokoto State, the Attorney General of Sokoto State and the Sokoto Sultanate Council pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction filed before the same court and fixed for 23rd of July, 2024,for hearing.

The court went through the affidavit evidence and the written addresses of counsel attached to the motions and stated in its ruling that it found merits in the applications and therefore granted the orders. One Alhaji Buhari Dahiru Tambuwal and Alhaji Abubakar Kassim deposed to the affidavits attached to their respective motions. Alhaji Buhari Dahiru Tambuwal stated that he had learnt through the media that a Committee was set up  to investigate the appointment of District Heads made by the erstwhile Governor of Sokoto State, including his and he subsequently heard on April 23, 2024, that he had been removed as the District Head of Tambuwal without any formal communication or opportunity to be heard to present his case.

He deposed further that on April 29, 2024, based on the purported Committee’s recommendations, he received his termination letter from the Sokoto Sultanate Council, but was not given any fair hearing before this termination, violating his right to due process. The termination, according to him appeared punitive, capricious, and a gross abuse of power, especially since some other District Heads appointed with him were not so removed.

He further deposed that due to the actions of the Defendants/Respondents, he has faced significant prejudice, anguish, embarrassment, financial loss, and had not received his monthly salary of N81,000 since his removal; and that despite these breaches, the Governor of Sokoto State, Alhaji Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto, went ahead and set up another Committee to draft a White Paper, further indicating a malicious intent.

On the part of Alhaji Abubakar Kassim, the purported allegations he was confronted with parole by the Committee set up by the Governor of Sokoto State and which he responded to parole was done without having the opportunity to see his purported accusers nor allowed to ask them questions. Similarly, the allegations which formed the basis of the  Committee’s  recommendations to the Governor of Sokoto State were allegations that he was never confronted with. The Committee’s recommendations  ventured into criminal allegations and or findings for which he was neither confronted  nor given the opportunity to be heard on these novel allegations.

The court considered the Applicants’ argument that the Respondents’ attempt to appoint a new District Head during the ongoing legal process, would cause irreparable harm if not restrained and therefore granted the interim injunction to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the hearing of the substantive application for interlocutory injunction. The Hon. Justice K. I. Ahmad, in his ruling agreed with the written address of Counsel to the Plaintiffs/Applicants, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN and Prof Ibrahim Abdullahi, SAN,( who argued the application) and granted the order of maintenance of status quo ante bellum and stay of all actions and or further actions in connection with all matters dealing with and or appertaining to the removal and all dethronement of District Heads in Sokoto State..”.

The District Heads positively affected by the court’s interim order of maintenance of status quo ante bellum (injunction ) are:

1. Alhaji Buhari Dahiru Tambuwal – District Head of Tambuwal in Tambuwal Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

2. Alhaji Buhari Muhammad Abdulrahman – District Head of Illela in Illela Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

3. Alhaji Nasiru Shehu Umar – District Head of Dogondaji  in Tambuwal Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

4. Alhaji Aliyu Barade  – District Head of Wamakko in Wamakko Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

5. Alhaji Atiku Bello Ayama – District Head of Gongono in Tangaza Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

6. Alhaji Sule Ajiya Kalambaina – District Head of Kalambaina in Wamakko Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

7. Alhaji Abubakar Kassim – District Head of Kebbe in Kebbe Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

8. Alhaji Ibrahim Bello Dansarki – District Head of Tangaza in Tangaza Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

9. Hon. Kabiru Marafa Acida- District Head of Alkammu in Wurno Local Govt Area of Sokoto State and;

10. Alhaji Usman Abdullahi  – District Head of Talluwa in Bodinga Local Govt Area of Sokoto State.

By this development, the Honorable Court has mandated the Defendants/Respondents and their representatives, agents, servants and or privies (by whatever name called) to maintain  status quo ante bellum and halt any actions related to the removal or dethronement of District Heads in Sokoto State. These orders are effective pending the hearing and determination of the motions for interlocutory injunctions already filed before the court and which have been adjourned to  the 23rd of July 2024,for hearing.

The post COURT INTERVENES IN THE REMOVAL OF DISTRICT HEADS IN SOKOTO STATE: GRANTS ORDERS TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION
Mr Abiodun Agbele’s ordeal of nearly 8 years tortuous trial came to an abrupt end on Friday,21st June, 2024, when a Federal High Court presided over by the Honourable Justice Nnamdi Dimgba ruled that Abiodun Agbele had no case to answer in a 24-count amended charge bordering on alleged money laundering of #1.219 billion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Abiodun Agbele and three others
 
The EFCC had accused Abiodun Agbele and three others of indirectly accepting #1.219 billion in cash through an official of Zenith Bank in Akure, Ondo State, from the then minister of State for Defence, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, on behalf of Ayodele Fayose in June 2014. Agbele was alleged to have carried out this act without going through a financial institution contrary to te provisions of section 1(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act. The EFCC also accused Agbele of aiding a company called De Privateer Ltd to take possession of #200 million which was allegedly part of the #1.219 billion, on behalf of Fayose, contrary to section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act. Honourable Justice Dimgba found no proof of any of the essential ingredients of these counts such as to call on Abiodun Agbele to stand full trial.
 
Mr. Abiodun Agbele along with 3 other Defendants were initially arraigned before the Federal High Court on an eleven-count charge (which later had one court struck out), to which they had pleaded not guilty. The charge dated 26th July, 2016, filed by Counsel to the EFCC, Mr Wahab Shittu, SAN, had accused Agbele of some alleged offences said to be contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended in 2012) (MLA).
 
Mr. Agbele in the initial charge was alleged, amongst others, between 4th April, 2014 and 13th November, 2014, to have conspired with others who are at large to commit illegal act to wit: laundering the sum of N4,685,723,000,000.00 being sum transferred from the Office of the National Security Adviser with Central Bank of Nigeria by Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (Rtd), which he knew or reasonably ought to have know that the said funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity of Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (Rtd) the then National Security Adviser, and thereby committed the offence said to be contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering Act, 2011.
 
The EFCC also alleged that Mr. Agbele with others now at large, on or about the 17th day of June, 2015, directly took possession of the sum of N1,219,000,000.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred and Nineteen Million, Naira) being part of the N4,685,723,000,000.00 transferred from the Office of the National Security Adviser with Central Bank of Nigeria, when he knew or ought reasonably to know that the funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity of Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki the then National Security Adviser, and Musiliu Obanikoro (the then Minister of Defence for State) to wit: theft and corruption and thereby committed the offence said to be contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering Act, 2011.
 
All the Defendants had pleaded not guilty to all the counts and the matter proceeded to trial.  In the course of trial however, the Complainant vide an Amended Charge filed on 7th March, 2024, after calling a total number of 8 witnesses,amended the charge to 24 counts, to which the Defendants equally pleaded not guilty to all 24 counts.
 
The prosecution in proof of its case against the Defendants through its counsel,Mr Wahab Shittu, SAN, called a total of 16 witnesses. Upon EFCC concluding its case, Mr. Agbele, instead of opening his defence, filed through his counsel, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, a no-case submission, praying the court to discharge and acquit him of those offences as the prosecution had failed to establish any of the essential elements of the offences he was charged with,such as to require him to open a defence in the matter. The prosecution through its counsel,Mr Shittu, joined issues with Prof Ozekhome, lead counsel to Mr. Agbele, insisting that Agbele had a case to answer.
 
In his well-considered ruling delivered on the 21st day of June, 2024, Hon Justice Dimgba, ruled that the prosecutor had failed to prove the essential elements of the offences with which Mr. Abiodun Agbele was charged. The Court found that the case, as put forward by the prosecution, was simply a case of cash-in-transit between bank officials. He found that notwithstanding that Agbele, the 1st Defendant, was physically present when the cash was being moved in Akure, Ondo, State, there was no scintila of evidence to show that he knew that the cash was tainted with alleged illegality. The court also found that none of the witnesses called by the prosecution knew the source of the fund. Indeed, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro whose name appeared on the charge and who testified for the prosecution,testified in favour of the Defence when he stated emphatically that only the then National Security Adviser ( NSA ),Col. Sambo Dassuki and Mr Ayodele Fayose ( the Ekiti State Governor),could speak about the source of the cash. The court found that Mr. Adiodun Agbele and the three other Defendants were not privy to the source of the funds.It therefore held that before the court can ask Agbede to enter his defence in the matter, the prosecutor must prove that the source of the fund was tainted with illegality and that the Defendant knew or ought to know about that. In this wise, the court held that the prosecutor ought to have subpoenaed two vital witnesses in the persons of Ayodele Fayose and Sambo Dasuki, to testify as to the source of the fund as stated by Senator Musiliu Obanikoro. The prosecution’s failure to do this was fatal to its case. The court clarified that merely being in possession of cash alone, no matter how huge, without more, cannot sustain those charges. There must be evidence that the cash formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activity and that Ayodele Fayose and the 1st Defendant knew and benefitted from such proceeds.
 
The court therefore discharged Abiodun Agbele of the 23 counts he was charged with. It however called on the second Defendant company, Silver McNamara,to enter its defence on the remaining count as it did not file a no cases submission.

The post MONEY LAUNDERING: ABIODUN AGBELE WINS AS COURT HELD HE HAS NO CASE TO ANSWER appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.

Posted by: Prince Ahmed Hassan (TOHA)

BY: PROF. MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL

INTRODUCTION

We commenced this series last week with a detailed introduction of the subject matter, later we took a look at the history of oil exploration in Nigeria, where oil theft is carried out in Nigeria and those involved in oil theft in Nigeria. Today, we shall continue to x-ray the involvement of the military and other security forces, resident oil companies and the local populace. We shall also try to find out why and how oil theft is being carried out and later the cost of oil theft in Nigeria. Please read on.

MILITARY AND OTHER SECURITY FORCES (CONTINUES)

MILITANT ORGANIZATIONS

According to former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, militant organizations have often been used by “political godfathers” in the oil sector regions to cause disturbances in regional stability. These ales the whole process to enjoy less supervision by the government. This is disturbing, and considering the poverty rate of citizens according to the World Bank Index, joining any of these groups would mean a breakthrough and great deal as the reward is juicy. These groups primarily serve as armed escorts for the property of the political elite or function as the sabotage mechanism that is necessary for cold-tapping operations.

Due to the large success of the Niger Delta militant operations, Nigeria’s annual output of crude oil decreased from its potential capacity of 2.2 million barrels per day to 1.4. As a consequence of the high influx of oil pipeline sabotage in the Niger Delta, oil spills “devastated mangroves, contaminated soil and groundwater, destroyed the fish habitat, and posed a serious threat to public health.” Buhari failed in his fight against corruption, it was a selective fight.

RESIDENT OIL COMPANIES

Resident oil companies have also been fully involved in oil theft. The means of oil theft – hot and cold tapping – being very complex and dangerous, demands expert knowledge to implement same successfully. Resident oil authorities from multinational oil corporation stationed in oil sectors regions of Nigeria play key roles in facilitating this theft.  In addition to providing technical expertise and managing oil withdrawal operations, oil experts offer inside knowledge on the schedule of corporate inspection operations on the pipelines. This is critical for ensuring that illegal secondary pipelines stay intact and that the location of fueling operations are not revealed to Nigerian security forces and multinational corporate authorities.

THE LOCAL POPULACE

It is pitiable and regrettable that the local populace that surrounds the variety of oil pipelines throughout Nigeria often facilitates the local creation and sale of illegally refined oil products as means of alleviating their impoverished condition. Same unscrupulous citizens make use of small-scale oil tapping to collect crude products. Their methods of extraction have contributed largely to pollution in Nigeria. This is due to their lack of technical expertise. In addition to oil pipeline leakages from small-scale tapping, the JTF’s anti-refinery and illegal oil market operations have led to uncontrolled destruction of illegal crude oil reserves. Due to the simple construction of bush refineries and their placement in isolated locations, all efforts by the JTF to mitigate the illegal refinement of oil products have largely been futile. In September 2018, the unemployment rate in Nigeria had reached 23%. 

Consequently, in tandem with the high unemployment rate, the pollution of waterways and the contamination of local fish populations forced many young Nigerians to partake in oil theft and illegal refinery activities.

 WHY DO THEY STEAL NIGERIA BLIND?

The why of oil theft is so elementary that it can be excused for – why do people steal? The answer is obvious. Theft generally may be as a result of lust, greed, avarice, wickedness, etc. People engage in stealing for diverse reasons. It may even be retaliation or set up. But as regards oil theft, a theft that involves so much expenses to embark on, a theft that involves the conglomeration of human and mechanical know-how, why would a wealthy man invest in oil theft? The reasons may not be farfetched. It may be for increase of wealth; control of economic power; societal recognition; etc. But have you ever thought that, it may be for “political power”? Some of the moguls involve in oil theft do that for political power and protection; and to get international illegal gains. Religious and ethnic sentiments may also be a reason for oil theft; but this is a different and more advanced rationale. 

HOW IS THE OIL THEFT CARRIED OUT?

There are different means and methods of oil theft. There are both simple and sophisticated means, but for purposes of this discourse, we shall consider hot tapping, cold tapping and terminal and transportation theft. 

Hot-tapping and cold-tapping are extremely sophisticated methods of oil theft and are primarily used in large-scale operations during the crude oil stage. Terminal and vehicle transportation theft involves the re-appropriation of both crude and refined oil products from storage facilities during the process of export transportation. 

According to Mr. Mele Kyari, the Group Managing Director (GMD) of NNPCL, the illegal pipeline taps are so sophisticated now that in some cases, they run for 3-4 kilometers and would have involved cranes, and at least 40 workers to build. In fact, to your dismay, an illegal line alone which measures less than 200km, had not less than 295 illegal connections. He also revealed that the rate of theft forced the shutdown of two production fields. 

Let’s proceed with the discourse. 

HOT – TAPPING

Hot – tapping involved the attachment of an illegal secondary pipeline belonging to oil theft criminals to a high-pressure primary pipeline belonging to a multinational corporation. Thereafter, oil is diverted from the pipeline into to mobile oil bunkering facilities that are attached to the secondary pipeline. This process is normally difficult to discover because, the gradual withdrawal of small amounts of the oil normalizes the high-pressure from the primary pipeline. The process although gradual, is capable of withdrawing oil to fill thousands of metric tons in few hours. The process is very complex and dangerous, and has led to many disastrous events. 

COLD TAPPING

Here, a portion of a pipeline is blown up, then a secondary pipeline is attached to the shut-down primary pipeline. It is also difficult to discover this kind of tapping, because, after the primary pipeline is repaired, the flow and pressure still remains same. This process is less dangerous. 

TERMINAL AND VIHECULAR TRANSPORTION THEFT

Oil theft is common in the production states. However, it is easier and more rampant at port terminals. Transportation of crude oil at terminals awaiting shipments to international locations are met with serious diversion. During this process, siphoning is facilitated by the corporation of administrators and security agencies.  There are reserved into criminal fuel trucks, and then, the trucks are used to transport illegal oil products for sales in neighboring African countries where prices are higher with or without subsidy. The lack of oil meters at the source of production and physical presence only at export facilities by oil corporations, is a lacuna, and thus disrupts the oversights in managing and accounting for the initial value of oil produce an – initio. 

THE HUGE COST OF OIL THEFT IN NIGERIA.

In the third quarter of 2022, operators of the Trans Niger pipeline and the Forcados export terminal closed their facilities for repairs. The closures triggered a sharp drop in Nigeria’s crude oil output from 1.1 million barrels per day (b/d) in the second quarter to below 1 million b/d in the third quarter. Nigeria’s production recovered by the beginning of 2023; but an oil workers’ strike disrupted production again in April, 2023. Crude oil production in Nigeria fell to slightly more than 1 million b/d in April of this year, dropping below Angola’s production, which was estimated at 1.1 million b/d that month.

Nigeria lost about 13.21 million barrels of crude oil with an estimated worth of N603.64bn between January and August this year, an analysis of the monthly reports of the country’s crude oil and condensate production showed.

Against the 1.69 million barrels per day oil production benchmark in the 2023 budget, Nigeria recorded an output deficit of about 23.7 million barrels of crude oil production in January and February 2023, valued at about N920 billion at the official exchange rate of N460/$; and about # 1.840 Trillion at the black market rate.

According to an analysis of the data from the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) in August, Nigeria’s total oil production shortfall hit 94.5 million barrels in the first half of 2023. When converted to money, the output slump would be an estimated gross revenue loss of $7.1 billion at an average oil price of $75 per barrel during the period between January to June this year.

Nigeria is at the moment, desperately in need of foreign exchange as currently reflected in the weakening value of the naira to the dollar and inability of foreign investors, especially airlines to repatriate funds to their countries of origin.

Few weeks ago, OPEC slashed Nigeria’s production baseline to 1.38 million barrels per day for 2024, due to the prolonged inability of the country to consistently meet its quota for the commodity. And, Nigeria gets over 90 per cent of its foreign exchange earnings from the export of the commodity. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“A century ago, petroleum – what we call oil – was just an obscure commodity; today it is almost as vital to human existence as water”. (James Buchan).

LAST LINE

God bless my numerous global readers for always keeping faith with the Sunday Sermon on the Mount of the Nigerian Project, by humble me, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb., LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.Sc. kindly, come with me to next week’s exciting dissertation.

The post HOW NIGERIA IS BLEDDING FROM OIL THEFT (Part 2) appeared first on Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers.