• Hot Source
• Hot News
• July 29, 2025
• 18 views

HOW TO ACHIEVE $1 TRILLION ECONOMY

HOW TO ACHIEVE $1 TRILLION ECONOMY

 ALIYU GAYA urges government to pursue a policy that promotes patronage of indigenous manufacturers and service providers

One exceptionally commendable fact about the Bola Tinubu presidency is that it is not lacking in ambition and audacity. Courage defines the leader and Tinubu has it in good measure. Think about this: Tinubu wants to grow Nigeria networth to a $1 trillion economy by 2030. While this shows ambition, it is much more a demonstration of audacity in leadership.

To achieve this, Tinubu says Nigeria must lean on and encourage local production. He believes that achieving food security is the sine qua non for advancing the nation’s economy through heavy investments in the agriculture value chain. He is pushing a Nigeria First, Buy-Nigeria policy. Some of his ministers and appointees are also singing the same local production hymn.

A quick fact-check shows that this is not new, especially since the commencement of the 4^th Republic. President Olusegun Obasanjo, it has to be emphasised, laid a solid foundation to promote indigenous production of goods and services. He did not chyme Buy Nigeria, he lived it, implemented it and the results were profound. The results of Obasanjo’s Buy Nigeria policy manifested in diverse ways. Local patronage of indigenous fruit drinks and ban on imported ones; local production of air time cards for GSM service providers; local patronage of locally assembled computers that gave a huge boost to local production of same such that some ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) standardised their IT operations on indigenous computer hardware and software.

Sadly, despite the traction gained by indigenous products, the succeeding governments did not as much as sustain the Buy-Nigeria momentum. Tinubu seems determined to do so. But to achieve the noble ambition of $1 trillion economy, President Tinubu must listen to key Nigerians who are not only employers of labour but are deeply committed to indigenous production as the key to unlocking the huge potential of the nation’s economy.

One of such Nigerians Tinubu must take heed to his advice is Aliko Dangote, the President of Dangote Group whose refinery is the biggest single infrastructure project in Africa. Dangote, a major indigenous manufacturer, is not happy with the manner local companies are treated in Nigeria.

Dangote recently advocated for policies that protect indigenous industries and nurture them into mega corporations capable of generating jobs and fostering prosperity. Addressing a gathering of manufacturers and investors in Abuja recently while delivering a keynote on ‘Rethinking Manufacturing in Nigeria’ at the Nigeria Manufacturers’ Summit, Dangote advocated a reversal of government policies that expose local players to vulnerabilities including continued importation of goods and services that are also produced in Nigeria. Such lack of protection of indigenous players usually in the form of lack of patronage from the government and Nigerians stunts the growth of these local players.

He cited instances of countries where governments had to take drastic measures to protect their respective local markets. These include the blocked sale of US steel to Nippon Steel of Japan; the blocked sale of six US port management companies to Dubai Ports World; restrictions on Chinese cranes at US ports; and the US imposition of tariffs such as 100% on Chinese EVs (electric vehicles), 50% on semiconductors, medical products, and solar panels.

There are other instances, including the restriction of Russia gas supply to Europe, which led European countries to increase coal usage despite opposition to fossil fuels; and the US government’s distribution of $39 billion in subsidies to incentivise local microchip production. The above cases clearly show how respective governments deliberately protect their local players, not only to give them a head-start over competition but also to help them scale up on the path of profitability. Nigerian governments have been short on this.

Leo Stan Ekeh, Chairman of Zinox Group, an African ICT unicorn, is yet another voice Tinubu should give ears to. Ekeh much like Dangote and others, has been a victim of serial blackmail and corporate bullying despite his undeniable sacrifice to create a digital culture in the Nigerian marketplace including education, media, banking, oil and gas, agriculture and other aspects of the economy. His Computerise Nigeria project became the cornerstone for the establishment of digital hubs in the nation’s tertiary institutions.

Ekeh believes that achieving a $1 trillion economy is possible but stressed that the current state of power delivery nationwide (an average of four hours per day according to latest NBS data) cannot support the type of bullish industrialisation and local production that will bolster the nation’s economic trajectory to the trillion-dollar mark. He warned that a situation where genuine players in local production and service delivery are bullied and blackmailed by unscrupulous private sector fringe players and public sector operators does not bode well for economic growth. He urges more protection from government for the progressive and proven indigenous companies. He says the concept of Buy-Nigeria should be enforced especially among MDAs.

While expressing confidence in President Tinubu to address the issue of blackmail, he suggested that Tinubu should aggressively pursue a policy that promotes patronage of indigenous manufacturers and service providers as a way of reflating the economy.

He said: “It is evident that the core of the myriad challenges afflicting the nation today is our failure to develop local capacities. We must embrace self-sufficiency by consuming what we produce and supporting indigenous players across various sectors.”

He regretted that in spite of several local content policies established by the federal government, such policies are consistently disregarded by government employees and appointees, wondering why “we send our children to the world’s best institutions, where they excel, yet we overlook the products they create.”

He gave the example of the government of India which effective November 1, 2023 placed restrictions on the importation of laptops, tablets, all-in-one personal computers and ultra-small computers and servers with immediate effect. This, according to him, was to boost local productivity both by multinationals operating in India and indigenous Indian companies to create more jobs, encourage proficiency, and discourage capital flight.

“Mr. President, I humbly appeal to you to be deliberate and decisive in encouraging indigenous producers and service providers across all sectors. This way, we create a market for indigenous products, build confidence in our economy and easily attract international investors. The way we treat our local investors will determine how many foreign investors we can attract,” he stated in an open letter to the President earlier this year. The voices of Dangote and Ekeh echoes the voices of other indigenous players who have continued to deliver value amid vicious headwinds.

Speaking at the inaugural Domestic Investors Summit in Abuja recently, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Dr Jumoke Oduwole, reaffirmed Tinubu’s steely determination to achieve the trillion-dollar economy. She outlined targets for 2025, including $6 billion in foreign direct and portfolio investment, $6.5 billion in non-oil exports, a 20 per cent increase in trade value, and the creation of 200,000 export-led jobs. This is grand. But the major pulley that will drive this growth is the recommendation of Dangote, Ekeh and other indigenous players, which is, that the government should as a priority protect local investors and entrepreneurs through patronage, policy shift that encourages growth and categorising such investors assets as national assets deserving of preservation.

 Gaya, a public policy analyst, writes from Kano

The post HOW TO ACHIEVE $1 TRILLION ECONOMY appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

 ALIYU GAYA urges government to pursue a policy that promotes patronage of indigenous manufacturers and service providers One exceptionally commendable fact about the Bola Tinubu presidency is that it is not lacking
The post HOW TO ACHIEVE $1 TRILLION ECONOMY appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• July 29, 2025
• 18 views

A SUFFOCATING JUDGMENT 

A SUFFOCATING JUDGMENT 

Justice Owoeye’s ruling should not be allowed to stand, contends CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU

       Three different decisions of the highest court in the country over the past two decades illustrate how the judicial conspiracy against popular sovereignty in Nigeria has prospered. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that elections in Nigeria are not governed by any foundational or legal principles. In other words, Nigeria has no legal standard for a free, fair or credible election. The same court has ruled that in organizing elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is not bound by its own administrative regulations and guidelines. So, INEC can behave with impunity as a lawless institution and citizens and political parties have no right to have any expectations of the commission. The court has equally held that in Nigeria’s version of elective government, judges have the power to declare the majority votes in an election entirely “wasted” and to install manifest losers as winners.

       These decisions have combined to denude elections in Nigeria of meaning as expressions of the will of the people. In these judgments and until now, the focus was on elections. The effect on citizenship, as the basis of the right to vote and to constitute a government was arguably indirect.

In a decision on 23 July (this past week), Oluseyi Owoeye, a judge of the Federal High Court in Lagos, goes dangerously further in this project of judicial liquidation of the constitutional foundations of elective government. According to the judge: “any question bordering on the action or omission of any or person [to] guarantees (sic) the participation by the people in their government is not justiciable before any Court of law in Nigeria.” As far as wilful and cynical jurisprudence goes, this takes the prize.

       Given the significance of this judgment for civic rights in Nigeria, it is essential to provide some context so that those who are interested may follow the issues fully.

       Chapter IV of Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees a set of Fundamental Rights which it requires the courts to enforce through an expedited process inscribed in the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) (FREP) Rules made by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). For reasons that are not entirely clear, however, the rights guaranteed in Chapter IV do not include the right to vote or to participate in government.

       Instead, Chapter II of the same constitution contains two important provisions of relevance to this. First, section 14(2)(a) exhorts that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” As a complement, section 14(2)(c) follows this up with the promise that “the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” However, in an earlier stipulation in section 6(6)(c), the same constitution precludes courts from exercising their powers to enforce these provisions of chapter II.

       There are at least two exceptions to this constraint. First, under item 60(a) in the Exclusive Legislative List, the National Assembly may make laws “to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution”, and the courts will be bound to enforce such laws. Second, under section 12(1) of the same constitution, the courts are bound to enforce the provisions of a treaty which has been enacted into law by the National Assembly, even if such a treaty covers issues contained in Chapter II of the Constitution.

       In Nigeria, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights straddles both exceptions. Article 13(1) of the Charter makes up for the omission of a right to vote in the constitution by guaranteeing the right of citizens to participate in their government. In this sense, the Charter implements the provisions of Section 14 in Chapter II of the Constitution. The National Assembly enacted it into domestic law through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and the Supreme Court has recognized that the African Charter “is now part of the laws of Nigeria and like all other laws the Courts must uphold it.” The FREP Rules are explicitly available for the enforcement of the rights contained in the African Charter.

       This context is essential to explain why this decision this past week by Oluseyi Owoeye of the Federal High Court in Lagos is both cynical and dangerous. In reaching this decision, the judge claimed that he could not enforce the guarantee of the right to participation in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights because participation is only contained in Chapter II of Nigeria’s Constitution, a provision to the enforcement of which he cannot lend his judicial powers.

       That is manifestly disingenuous. It is also plainly misguided as a matter of law. If a judge cannot protect the right of citizens to participate in their government, why is he a judge? Will he prefer to protect stolen elections, instead?

The facts are also relevant here. On 20 July 2023, a class of Nigerian citizens instituted this case. The defendants were the INEC, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation. Against INEC, they alleged multiple violations including exclusion from the register of voters, deliberate mismanagement of election logistics, wilful destruction of voters cards, and complicity in election-related violence.

       Both the INEC and the NHRC entered appearance. The case took two years to come to judgment but, despite repeated reminders and orders by the Court, the Attorney-General of the Federation, a named defendant in a matter of such high civic and constitutional significance, could not be bothered to file any defence or instruct any of the numerous lawyers in his office to appear on his behalf. It is well possible that the judge took a cue from the attitude of the Attorney-General and decided to find a way to play good and avoid entering into the substance of the case. If that is so, then he settled for the worst possible escape route.

       The logic of precluding courts from lending their powers to enforce the right to participate in government under an elective system essentially hollows out any idea of effective citizenship. Courts cannot decline the protection of the right to participation on the one hand and, on the other, agree to protect the integrity of elections or the obligations of those required by law to ensure that the ballot is credible. Effectively, if upheld on appeal, this judgment will license judicial burglary of Nigeria’s civics.

       It is surprising that a case of this scope in its implications could have flown so beneath the radar of public attention to judgment. This case will naturally go next to the Court of Appeal. Hopefully, it will merit the attentions of a full panel of the Court of Appeal. At that point, civic groups will hopefully apply to join as interested parties in the appeal and there will also be similar applications by other groups to join as friends of the court (amici curiae).

       This judgment by Oluseyi Owoeye of the Federal High Court is the latest in an increasingly fevered judicial effort to decapitate citizenship as the basis for government in the country. It egregiously perverse and should not stand.

It is worth recalling that among the truly unsung heroes of the resistance to military rule in Nigeria in the last three decades of the 20^th century were judges in various courts around the country who opposed or constrained the excesses of military rule through their judgments. If the country’s current experiment in civil rule fails, it will be because some judges have replaced soldiers as those most enthusiastic about suffocating elective and accountable government founded – as the constitution mandates – on the will of the people.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu

The post A SUFFOCATING JUDGMENT  appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

Justice Owoeye’s ruling should not be allowed to stand, contends CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU        Three different decisions of the highest court in the country over the past two decades illustrate how the judicial conspiracy against popular sovereignty
The post A SUFFOCATING JUDGMENT  appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• July 29, 2025
• 18 views

BORNO’S FLOOD-PRONE COMMUNITIES

BORNO’S FLOOD-PRONE COMMUNITIES

 I write with deep concern and a strong sense of responsibility as a citizen of Borno State to bring to the attention of the public and, most importantly, the Borno State government, the worsening situation of residents who live in communities located dangerously close to the Gada Bull River, and other natural waterways in Maiduguri. Communities such as Gwange Gangare, Galtimari, Shokari, and Bulaburin are annually subjected to the agony of flooding, yet very little has changed to provide permanent solutions for the people who live there. These are not mere neighborhoods — they are homes, schools, and places of worship where lives and dreams unfold daily, now under constant threat from seasonal floods.

Each rainy season, families in these communities live in fear, unable to sleep in peace or leave their children unattended. They are not worried about crime or insecurity, but about the rushing water that could enter their homes any night and wash away all they’ve ever worked for. For many, that fear becomes a cruel reality year after year.

In Gwange Gangare, the story is one of daily struggle and anxiety. As soon as the rainy season begins, many residents move their furniture onto elevated blocks, ready for the first heavy downpour. They stock sandbags and makeshift wooden planks to divert the water, but these measures are far from effective. They are only the desperate responses of people who have been abandoned. The Gada Bull River, which cuts through these communities, is not inherently dangerous. Its threat lies in how poorly its flow has been managed, how indiscriminately people have built around it, and how neglectful authorities have been in enforcing environmental and urban planning regulations. The river has become a symbol of abandonment for those who live near it.

In Galtimari, the river’s banks are cluttered with makeshift structures and unplanned housing. When the rain comes, it overwhelms the river, forcing the water into people’s homes. It is not uncommon to see entire compounds submerged. The residents often sleep standing or sitting up because their mattresses are soaked or floating. Children in these areas are some of the worst affected. Many of them fall ill from playing in or wading through floodwaters contaminated with sewage and garbage. Parents have to choose between keeping their children home or sending them through ankle-deep water to school. This is no way for a child to grow up.

Shokari, another community along the river, acts as a basin for overflow. Rainwater from higher areas channels down to Shokari and settles there. Houses get surrounded by stagnant water that takes days — sometimes weeks — to dry up. In that time, mosquitoes breed rapidly, and malaria becomes widespread. Bulaburin shares similar stories. It is a flood-prone area where residents have suffered silently for years. Floods have destroyed not just homes, but also small businesses, school materials, farming tools, and personal belongings. For residents here, rebuilding after each rainy season is a routine that comes with pain and hopelessness.

What makes this situation even more painful is that it is entirely avoidable. Urban planners and environmental experts have long warned against building near waterways without proper flood management systems. Sadly, those warnings have not been taken seriously in Maiduguri. We must also recognize that these people are not living in these areas because they want to. Many were forced there by economic hardship, rising rents in safer parts of the city, and the lack of affordable housing alternatives. Their choice was not between safe and unsafe — it was between unsafe and homeless.

The government has a moral obligation to protect all its citizens, especially the most vulnerable. Ignoring these communities simply because they live on the margins is not only unjust — it is dangerous. Natural disasters do not discriminate, and the neglect of flood-prone areas could one day become a broader public emergency. The Borno State Government must begin by acknowledging that this is not just a seasonal issue. This is a structural problem that needs a long-term and well-funded solution. Emergency relief after the floods will never be enough — what we need is a strategy to prevent the floods from happening in the first place.

Salaudeen Soliu Olamide, Dept of  Mass Communication, University of  Maiduguri

The post BORNO’S FLOOD-PRONE COMMUNITIES appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

 I write with deep concern and a strong sense of responsibility as a citizen of Borno State to bring to the attention of the public and, most importantly, the Borno
The post BORNO’S FLOOD-PRONE COMMUNITIES appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• July 29, 2025
• 20 views

THE 1999 CONSTITUTION: BETWEEN OBASANJO AND ANYAOKU

THE 1999 CONSTITUTION: BETWEEN OBASANJO AND ANYAOKU

 The Constitution has flaws, but not so bad that it should be replaced, argues MOHAMMED HARUNA

Two weeks ago, on July 16 to be precise, the self-described Eminent Patriots, in conjunction with the Nigeria Political Summit Group, convened a three-day National Summit on “The Future of Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy” at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja. At that summit, two pre-eminent Nigerians, former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, and former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, grabbed media headlines for their diametrically opposed views on the country’s Constitution.

Anyaoku, who spoke first, said the problem with the country was its Constitution basically because it was a military imposition and did not reflect the country’s plural nature. His solution, he said, was to go back to the parliamentary constitution of the First Republic which was bequeathed to us to by our British colonial masters. Obasanjo disagreed and said the country’s problem was not its Constitution, imperfect as it is. The problem, he said in effect, was the bad faith of those who operated it.

It is hard, if not impossible, to disagree with Obasanjo, even though as president, he did not always respect the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

Anyaoku is, of course, not alone in blaming our Constitution for the country’s woes. The vast majority of the country’s “progressives” do, and their voices are much, much louder than those of conservatives. Probably, the loudest among them is The PUNCH. Editorial after editorial, it has never left any of its readers in doubt that not only does it think our Constitution is unworkable. It has repeatedly said it is, indeed, a fraud.

The latest of such editorials took up three quarters of its editorial page in its edition of July 8. Entitled “Attah’s position on the 1999 Constitution resonates”, the 1,209-word editorial unequivocally supported the view of Obong Victor Attah, former two-term governor of Akwa-Ibom State and prominent member of the Eminent Patriots, that what the country now needs is not merely an amendment to the Constitution but a brand new one because it is simply irredeemable.

“We,” Attah reportedly said, “cannot amend what is so fundamentally bad. We need a completely new constitution.” Attah’s call was against the background of the on-going exercise by the current National Assembly to further amend the Constitution which, he said, has only given us a polity that is “a unitary system masquerading as a federalism.”

“Attah’s position,” The PUNCH said, “is compelling. The 1999 Constitution is a charade from start to finish—in letter, spirit, and form.”

Clearly, the newspaper would be in total agreement with Anyaoku in his disagreement with Obasanjo. But both the newspaper and the retired top diplomat – and, of course, Attah as well – are, in my view, wrong to blame our Constitution for the country’s woes.

Our Constitution is, of course, not perfect simply because nothing man-made can be perfect. To begin with, as a roughly a 61,000-word document, it is rather too bulky for a constitution, especially compared to, say, the United States constitution we modelled it after; theirs, as a roughly 7,500-word document, including all of its 27 amendments, is a study in brevity, clarity and simplicity. Second, because our Constitution is military in origin, it sounds plausible to dismiss it as an imposition.

Third, our current 36-state federalism came about by a strong centre ceding powers to the states it created out of the original three regions that made up the country at independence in 1960. This is in sharp contrast to the US which came about by first, the original 13, and eventually 50, independent states coming together to cede powers to the centre.

The differences between the two constitutions in size, origin and evolution notwithstanding, both are presidential democracies whose common feature is a division and balancing of power among the three arms of their governments, namely the legislature, the executive and judiciary. But, contrary to popular public perception in this country, Washington DC, the US capital, exerts far greater power and authority over its 50 states and even over the private sector than Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, exerts over its 36 states.  

However, the fact that of the US constitution has served it well for nearly 240 years since 1789, is not just because of its slim size, origin or history. It is essentially because its citizens, leaders and followers alike, have, by and large, kept faith with its provisions.   

In his total rejection of the current Constitution, Attah said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, himself a victim of the abuse of the Constitution by President Obasanjo when he was Governor of Lagos State, should appreciate the need for a totally new Constitution.

“This particular President”, he said, “is in the best position to do it because he suffered the consequences of the type of thing that this Constitution allows to happen. His local government money was seized unconstitutionally… So, he is really in the best position to do it, … if he doesn’t do it, he would have left a worse Nigeria than he met.”

From his own very words, it ought to have been clear to Attah that the problem between Obasanjo and then Governor Tinubu was not the Constitution itself. He himself said the money for the Lagos LGAs “was seized UNCONSTITUTIONALLY”. The Constitution, as our Supreme Court ultimately ruled, clearly forbade Obasanjo from doing what he did. It is therefore wrong for Attah to blame it instead of the person who breached its injunctions. Rules, after all, do not execute themselves. It is people who do.

And unconstitutionally withholding the money for Lagos LGAs was not the only rule Obasanjo breached while in power. He hired and fired chairmen and other senior officials of his party at will, appointed and sacked Senate Presidents at will, sacked state governors and state legislatures at will, tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to fire his estranged Vice-President, and even tried, again albeit unsuccessfully, to abrogate the Constitution’s two-term limits for the elected executive offices of the president and governors.

It is such demonstration of bath faith against our Constitution, not just by Obasanjo alone, but by so many of our leaders that is mainly responsible for the seeming failure of our Constitution to serve our country well. And its not just our leaders; even ordinary Nigerians generally tend to preach one thing but practice the opposite. And, as the saying goes, a people get the leaders they deserve.

Simultaneous with his call on President Tinubu to spearhead the making of a new constitution, Attah also pleaded with the National Assembly to pass a bill for the convocation of a national conference with representation from all relevant groups, ethnic nationalities, and socio-cultural groups across the country, “to sit down and prepare a proper constitution… so that it is a Nigerian Constitution.”

The 1999 Constitution, as we all know, is essentially the same as that of 1979 which ushered in the Second Republic. Surely, Attah must be aware that that Constitution emerged through a national conference similar to the one he is now calling for. And that Constitution, it can be argued, is the best shot of all the efforts by Nigerians at constitution making since the first attempt in 1922. The argument that it is merely a military imposition certainly does gross injustice to its framers.

First, the draft of that Constitution was framed and written by a 49-member Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) composed of some of the most brilliant and accomplished Nigerians, headed by the late Chief FRA Williams, the country’s first Senior Advocate. The committee spent nearly a year going round the country before it wrote and submitted its draft to the authorities under Obasanjo as military Head of State.

Second, the Constituent Assembly (CA) which worked on the draft was composed of 230 Nigerians, only 27 of whom were government nominees, seven of them being chairmen of the seven subcommittees of the CDC. The rest were all elected through what was one of the most credible elections ever conducted in the country. Anybody going through the list of its members will testify to the fact generally they were among Nigerians of the best character and highest achievements in their various fields.

This Assembly spent about nine months going through the draft before it produced the Constitution. It speaks volumes of the credibility and integrity of that Constitution that some of the founding fathers of our nation like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Malam Aminu Kano, contested in the two general elections of the Second Republic before it was overthrown in 1983.

Yes, our Constitution has its flaws. But no, those flaws are not so fundamental that it must be replaced with something completely new. Our problem, as I have often said, is not the tool as such but, as the English would say, it is that of a bad workman always quarrelling with it instead of learning how best to use it.

 Haruna,  a veteran journalist and political columnist,  is a National Commissioner with the Independent National Electoral Commission.

The post THE 1999 CONSTITUTION: BETWEEN OBASANJO AND ANYAOKU appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

 The Constitution has flaws, but not so bad that it should be replaced, argues MOHAMMED HARUNA Two weeks ago, on July 16 to be precise, the self-described Eminent Patriots, in conjunction
The post THE 1999 CONSTITUTION: BETWEEN OBASANJO AND ANYAOKU appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.