• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 5 views

IN PRAISE OF MU’AZU JAJI SAMBO

IN PRAISE OF MU’AZU JAJI SAMBO

 ATIKU JAFAR pays tribute to Sambo, former Minister of Transportation

There are leaders who make noise, and there are leaders who make a difference. Mu’azu Jaji Sambo belongs, unmistakably, to the latter.

 We celebrate him not only for his stints twice as Nigeria’s Minister, but as a statesman whose humility and results-oriented service have left indelible marks on our ports, our roads, our rails, and our collective sense of what capable public leadership can look like.He is a hero because he reminds us that power can be exercised with grace; that competence can speak softly and still move mountains. A trained builder and a builder in every sense of the word – of infrastructure, of institutions, of men, of hope – Sambo epitomises the quiet dignity of leadership that delivers results without the theatrics of power; the steady hand that guides change even when the spotlight shifts elsewhere. For a nation that is used to the politics of grandstanding, a quiet and unassuming style like Sambo’s is rare as a unicorn. He is neither loud nor flamboyant, but beneath the surface, real forces of change were moving because of him. This tribute is not only a celebration of his public service but also a salute to the man behind the titles, and the hero whose life continues to inspire us.The Measure of a Man born in Jalingo in 1959 and educated at Ahmadu Bello University as a builder, Sambo’s path cut across public institutions that formed the backbone of Nigeria’s infrastructure space. 

That journey was, to say the least, an apprenticeship in how systems really work, the kind that forges leaders who can deliver under pressure.When President Muhammadu Buhari first swore him in as Minister of State for Works & Housing in December 2021, and then, a few months later, redeployed him as Minister of Transportation, it felt less like a promotion and more like a homecoming. He knew the sector, its people, its pain points, and he moved with the urgency of someone determined to make limited time count. 

One of his earliest instincts was to identify and pursue the proverbial low-hanging fruits, and through that he delivered quick, visible wins for the nation’s transport and maritime ecosystem.I remember sitting before him, having instinctively sat on the carpet out of respect, only to be gently but firmly brought back to my feet: “Please, either sit with me or you may kindly take your leave,” he’d say, closing the distance, leveling the moment. Everyone close to him would have witnessed this firsthand. That gesture, small but profound, sums him up: genuine, simple, and profoundly respectful. He declines titles. 

Even as a minister, he would smile softly and say, “No Engineer, no Honourable – just call me Mu’azu.” This simple request spoke volumes: respect without ceremony, honor without pretense. That was him. A man whose presence makes you feel seen, and whose laughter disarms even the most guarded.

 Sambo’s tenure heralded one of the most consequential modern port developments in West Africa: the commissioning of Nigeria’s first deep sea port and first fully automated port, the $1.5 billion Lekki Deep Sea Port. He shepherded critical inter-agency delivery, then stood on the quay in January 2023 as the nation marked a turning point for maritime trade capacity and job creation. 

Beyond Lekki, he also championed reforms tied to the “Deep Blue Project,” the multi-agency security architecture that has been credited with sharply reducing piracy and kidnappings in Nigerian waters and the Gulf of Guinea, and ultimately creating the environment for commerce to thrive. He pressed on modernization: commissioning enforcement boats and ferries for NIMASA to strengthen law enforcement and safety; urging reforms like the unbundling conversation around the Nigerian Railway Corporation; commencing the $2bn Kano – Maradi rail project; and pushing the ecosystem toward greener, globally aligned maritime practice. 

None of this makes for noisy headlines. All of it compounds into capacity and unparalleled success. Policy is often a relay, not a solo sprint. Under Sambo’s watch, processes advanced that matter to the backbone of indigenous shipping and investment confidence, notably the long-awaited disbursement of the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF). 

To investors and operators, that single policy signal read like a door finally opening, and that Sambo did against all odds. He also backed compliance with international standards that make Nigeria a credible maritime player, and supported initiatives like offshore waste reception facilities in line with MARPOL, thereby keeping our flag respectable in global corridors.

Sambo is a man of consequence, but what I celebrate most is the man behind the portfolio: the reputation for humility, the bias for listening, and the constant refusal to grandstand. 

Stakeholders repeatedly described him as unassuming, methodical, and effective. A builder who credits teams and stays focused on outcomes. Leadership, at its best, is culture; and he modeled a culture of service in its most pristine form. For a career of public service and life lived in service of mankind, a grateful nation awarded Sambo a fitting national seal as Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON).

If legacy is what remains after titles fade, then Sambo’s legacy is a template: build capacity that outlives your tenure; elevate standards through a relentless pursuit of execution; and lead with humility so that results do the talking. 

These are not just lessons for government. They are Sambo’s principles for any institution that hopes to deliver value.

 Sir, thank you for the ports you helped open, the waters you secured, the teams you strengthened, and the quiet dignity you brought to public office. In an age that often mistakes noise for substance, you chose substance – and the country is better for it. 

May your example continue to inspire a generation that believes in building, not boasting; in serving, not posturing.Happy to follow your lead – quietly, steadily, and with results.

 Jafar, a lawyer, writes from Abuja

The post IN PRAISE OF MU’AZU JAJI SAMBO appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

 ATIKU JAFAR pays tribute to Sambo, former Minister of Transportation There are leaders who make noise, and there are leaders who make a difference. Mu’azu Jaji Sambo belongs, unmistakably, to
The post IN PRAISE OF MU’AZU JAJI SAMBO appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 4 views

Blasphemy Killings: One too Many

Blasphemy Killings: One too Many

The nation has witnessed a spate of senseless ‘religious’ mob killings, as a result of allegations  of blasphemy against Islam or the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The allegations against the victims have sometimes been shown to be false, or have been unsubstantiated, yet, their lives have been taken under gruesome circumstances of stoning and burning to death. Examples are Gideon Akaluka and Bridget Agbahime in Kano; Deborah Samuel and Usman Buda in Sokoto; and Amaye, a food seller in Niger State, who all suffered this cruel fate. This unholy practice which is incomprehensible and cannot be defended under any law of the land, has been on the rise since the inception of the Fourth Republic. The prevalence of religious mob justice is in the Northern part of the country, where Sharia Law was adopted following Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999, and worries have been expressed as to whether the Government is not complicit in these extra-judicial killings. This is because in a number of the incidents, the culprits were either not apprehended, or when they were, they were subsequently let off the hook. For instance, in the case of the mob killing of septuagenarian, Mrs Bridget Agbahime, the then Kano State Attorney-General entered a Nolle Prosequi, despite the glaring evidence against the Accused Persons in the case. In this Discourse, Lawyers examine the causes of mob justice in Nigeria, the unconstitutionality of adopting a State religion, and how to stop this barbaric practice. These are the submissions of Kunle Edun, SAN; Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN; Ayoade Oluwasanmi and Emmanuel Onwubiko      

Killing in the Name of Religion: Murder of Amanye by a Mob 

Kunle Edun, SAN

Introduction

Few days ago, it was reported that a young food vendor named Amanye was burnt to death by a mob in Niger State, on the allegation that she made a blasphemous comment against the Holy Prophet Muhammed. It was also reported that a witness at the scene stated that a man proposed to the young lady, and her response was considered blasphemous by some people in the area. Before, the security personnel or any form of help could arrive, she had already been set ablaze. Till this moment, no arrest has been made and considering how similar incidents were handled in the past by government, I doubt if any arrest will be made. 

In 2022, a young promising Nigerian student, Deborah Samuel was beaten and burnt alive in public in Sokoto State after being accused of blasphemous comments. Last year, a butcher, Usman Buda was stoned to death in a Northern State under the same circumstances. The recurring incidents of mobs taking people’s lives on allegations of making blasphemous comments against Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammed, is now getting heightened and very concerning. The fact remains that, whenever incidents like this happen, the security agencies seem un-interested in arresting the culprits, and getting justice for the victims of such mob actions. It is therefore, no surprise that in the case of Deborah Samuel, one of the culprits was arrested and charged to court but, it was reported that the charge was later withdrawn and the accused person discharged.  Is this how we value life in Nigeria? 

A minor argument or disagreement, a refusal to accept a romantic proposal, envy and any other reason may lead to accusations of blasphemy and then instant mob action, which in most cases lead to taking of life, destruction of properties and a breakdown of law and order.  The cheapening of human lives in Nigeria, in the name of religion should be a matter of great concern to governments at all levels. Unfortunately, it does not seem so. The apparent nonchalantness or indifference of government whenever such mob actions occur, actual does more to fuel it, and guess what, the poor are usually the victims. 

Islam: A Religion of Peace

Islam is a religion of peace. It is a religion that stresses the importance of social justice, the pursuit of truth and protecting the vulnerable are core attributes of Islam. Islam strongly condemns hostility, but promotes peaceful co-existence and religious tolerance. There is nowhere in the Islamic religion where mob action is sanctioned, or anyone is authorised to carry out death sentence on a person alleged to have blasphemed. Islamic religion and tenets enjoin that whenever accusations are made, same must be properly investigated and go through a due process of law. No one is allowed to make himself the accuser, prosecutor, Judge and enforcer of the sentence. If this is allowed, it will be a clear invitation of chaos that will ultimately lead to a breakdown of law and order, and more death. 

In as much as no system or government or individual should encourage blasphemy of any religion, there are processes that must be followed whenever there are such infractions. It is only a duly constituted court or tribunal that can determine whether a blasphemous statement has been made. This is to prevent a situation where any person who bears grudges against an individual may resort to self-help by accusing a person of making a blasphemous statement, which may later turn out to be not true. In the case of Amanye, no one can actually say what she said that amounted to blasphemy. But, she is now dead, without being heard. 

Section39 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Government of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, guarantees all Nigerians the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas. In the case of DIN v African Newspapers of (Nig) Ltd (1990) LPELR-947(SC) (Pp. 25 paras. D) the Supreme Court of Nigeria re-echoed this fundamental right when it stated through Karibi-Whyte, JSC (of blessed memory) that 

“The right to comment freely on matters of public interest is one of the fundamental rights of free speech guaranteed to the individual in our Constitution. It is so dear to the Nigerian, and of vital importance and relevance to the rule of law which we so dearly treasure for our personal freedom. It is conceded that the right to discuss matters of public concern, does not confer liberty to make defamatory statements; however honestly made”.   Also see Aviomoh  COP & Anor (2014) LPELR-23039(CA) (Pp. 15-17 paras. F).

The killings of Amanye, Deborah Samuel, Usman and others by mobs was jungle justice, and this is unlawful. The duty of the Nigerian government, is to provide for the welfare and security of all Nigerians. Security agencies also have the constitutional duty, to ensure that the lives of all Nigerians are protected and safe from such hazards. They have all failed in this regard as it relates to the murder of Amanye, Deborah, Usman and other victims of religious mob attacks. No Country should allow that, Civil remedies under the law of defamation and libel are available for any aggrieved person to resort to, instead of resorting to jungle justice. This was the admonition of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaza v State (2008) LPELR-1683(SC) (Pp. 66 paras. E) coram Tobi, JSC (blessed memory) that “An accused person cannot, in principle, be convicted without being heard. And what is more, a hearing must be before a judicially recognised adjudicatory body; not a collective body of local persons out to do jungle justice; a kangaroo Court”.  

Stopping the Menace of Jungle Justice 

The menace of jungle justice and efforts to stop it, requires the sincere intervention of governments at all levels. The need for continuous aggressive enlightenment of the local populace not to take laws into their hands and to be tolerant of religious views, should be embarked on. Politicians should also stop playing politics with the lives of Nigerians. Every Nigerian life of all tribes, religions and creed matters. Government should not be selective in its application of the criminal laws, whenever there is an infraction. If the killing of Deborah Samuel had been followed up with the appropriate criminal actions meted to the culprits, probably Amanye, Usman and others would have still been alive. Citizens should be more concerned about the state of their welfare, and how their governments are managing their resources, instead of killing themselves for reasons bordering on religion. The rich in the North, West and East of Nigeria do not quarrel or fight over religious differences, and they still remain the best of friends and business partners. It is always the masses who have been subjugated to suffering, poverty and economic depression, that are always the ones quarrelling over religious differences. The weaponisation of the masses for nefarious purposes, should stop. 

I end this piece with the admonition of My Lord, Hon. Justice Adah, J.C.A in Fabiyi v State (2013) LPELR-21180(CA) (Pp. 48-49 paras. D) where he stated:

“In Nigeria, the maintenance of Law and Order is part of the statutory responsibilities of the Police. It is the civic duty of all the citizens to enhance the flourishing of Law and Order. This therefore, demands that no one takes law into his hands and engage in self help that could lead to a breach of law and order, such as will enthrone or justify jungle justice. The path of civility is the path that gives the citizen the leeway to take his complaints of any assault to his rights to the Police, whose duty it is to investigate such complaints diligently and be convinced that there is the need to move into action before they set out in furtherance of the complaint”.    

 To Amanye, Deborah, Usman and others, who are the unfortunate victims of jungle justice, may their blood help in bringing the much-needed unity and tolerance Nigeria needs. Rest in peace. 

Kunle Edun, SAN, Past National Publicity Secretary, NBA

Blasphemy-Labelled Mob Killings in Northern Nigeria

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN 

Nigeria has experienced a recurring pattern of mob violence triggered by accusations of “blasphemy,” in Northern States, (notably Sokoto, Kano, Katsina) and most recently, a lynching in Niger State. These incidents are not isolated criminal acts: they operate at the intersection of weak rule-of-law, punitive local statutes, politicised religious enforcement and social-media amplification. 

The law-enforcement and prosecutorial response, has repeatedly failed to secure accountability: arrests are sometimes made, but prosecutions collapse (prosecutors are often “no-show”), or matters are discontinued via prosecutorial discretion (nolle prosequi), producing an appearance and often the reality of impunity. Amnesty International and HRW document systemic law-enforcement failures that embolden mobs. 

The legal architecture (State Sharia provisions and vague “insult to religion” offences), coupled with political incentives to placate conservative constituencies and weak institutional safeguards, create a perverse environment where vigilantism is tolerated and sometimes indirectly enabled. The ECOWAS Community Court has recently found aspects of Kano’s blasphemy law incompatible with regional human-rights obligations.

Overview of Recent Incidents

In Sokoto State on the 12th of May, 2022, a student, Deborah Samuel (Yakubu), was beaten, stoned and burned on campus after a WhatsApp remark was labelled blasphemous. Two suspects were arrested; prosecutions later faltered (charges of incitement/public disturbance; reported non-appearance of prosecution Lawyers were rampant). Rights groups criticised the failure to prosecute. Similarly in Sokoto, June 2023, Usman Buda, a market trader (butcher), was stoned to death in a marketplace after allegations of blasphemy, another episode that attracted international concern about the spread of mob justice.

Several incidences have occurred in other States. For instance, Kano State has seen several blasphemy-related prosecutions (e.g. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu sentenced by a Sharia court in 2020; later appeals and retrials). There are also documented cases where suspects in lynchings were arrested and later freed or acquitted, fuelling the perception of selective justice. As already noted, the ECOWAS court has found parts of the State’s blasphemy provisions incompatible with free-expression guarantees. 

The most recently reported of these incidents is the Katsina/Niger State scenario. A food-seller known as Ammaye/Amaye (reported as a Katsina resident) was lynched and set on fire in Mariga, Niger State after making allegedly blasphemous remarks; security was overwhelmed and Police say investigations/arrests are ongoing. This is the latest iteration in a pattern of similar killings. 

Root-Cause Analysis

1. Legal enabling environment legitimises “blasphemy” as a criminal category

Twelve Northern States operate Sharia courts and retain statutory provisions criminalising insults to religion and tagged as ‘’blasphemy’’ (some provisions prescribe harsh penalties). Worse, vague definitions (what counts as “insult”) create low evidentiary thresholds and politicise enforcement. The ECOWAS court explicitly criticised key Kano provisions, as incompatible with freedom-of-expression obligations. The law becomes a force-multiplier for extra-legal actors, who claim they are enforcing religious norms. Criminal law that singles out “insult to religion”, provides rhetorical cover for mobs and reduces the practical distance between accusation and violent sanction.

2. Operational failure of security and justice institutions → impunity loop

Amnesty International documents systematic failures: slow Police response, inability to protect victims (or overwhelmed units), inadequate investigation, and weak prosecutions (including non-appearance of prosecutors), all of which create an expectation that perpetrators will escape meaningful sanction. 

When arrests are made but prosecutions collapse (or the AG’s office discontinues actions), the deterrent effect evaporates and future mobs draw confidence from prior impunity.

3. Prosecutorial/political calculus (nolle prosequi and the appearance of intervention)

The Attorney-General’s constitutional power to institute or discontinue prosecutions (nolle prosequi), is broad and un-reviewable in many practical respects; this is intended for legitimate State reasons (insufficient evidence, public interest). But, its opaque exercise can be weaponised politically, or used to avoid confronting powerful or large constituencies. Legal scholarship warns that, arbitrary use of “nolle prosequi’’ undermines public confidence. Even where courts and Police do their nominal jobs, a late-stage discontinuation can functionally free suspects and signal State tolerance.

4. Quasi-State religious enforcers and community actors

Institutional actors (e.g., State Hisbah/“religious police”, local vigilante elements, influential clerics), often operate in the same ecosystem as formal authorities. They can escalate accusations into mass action, or act as gatekeepers; their ambiguous statutory footing complicates accountability. Cases show Hisbah involvement in arrests and public pressure on Police. 

Parallel enforcement structures blur responsibility, and can accelerate and legitimise the transition from accusation to extrajudicial punishment.

5. Social drivers (Information dynamics, demography and political signalling)

Viral videos and mobile messaging radicalise rapid response; unemployed/underemployed youths are often the executing foot soldiers; politicians sometimes avoid strong condemnation, for fear of losing votes or provoking clerical backlash. Analysts point to a broader social-political economy where religious identity is political capital.

Rapid social amplification and low social cost, often leads to more frequent and more violent vigilantism.

The “Complicity” Question (Direct vs Structural Complicity)

This is usefully framed as (A) commission, (B) omission, and (C) structural enabling.

Commission (direct State collusion): Fewer well-documented instances of active State agents ordering murders; more commonly, non-State actors carry out killings. Direct orders from State leadership, are not the dominant pattern in public reporting. (No credible open-source evidence that Governors or Federal Ministers formally direct lynchings.)

Omission (failure to act/deliberate inaction): Strongly backed by evidence. Patterns include delayed/weak Police response during attacks, failure to secure suspects, prosecutors failing to appear, and prosecutions discontinued or weakened. Amnesty and HRW highlight these omissions and link them to impunity. The appearance of State non-action often looks like complicity to victims and communities.

Structural enabling (legal and institutional architecture): The clearest, most pervasive form of complicity. When State laws criminalise “insult to religion” ambiguously, and State-recognised religious institutions (like some Hisbah Boards) operate with thin oversight, the State creates an environment where mobs can rationalise violence as enforcement of normative order. The ECOWAS judgement is a juridical recognition, that some State laws are incompatible with human-rights commitments. 

In practice, the States implicated show systemic omission and structural enabling, rather than (predominantly) explicit instruction to kill. But, omission and enablement have functionally the same result, which is widespread, low-risk mob violence and inadequate accountability.

Effects: Measured and Normative

Rule-of-law erosion: Victims do not receive protection; perpetrators enjoy de-facto impunity. 

Human-rights impact: Targeted minorities (religious/ethnic) bear disproportionate costs; chilling effect on freedom of expression and conscience. 

Communal polarisation and cycles of reprisal: Attacks spark counter-violence, property destruction, and deepen mistrust.

International legal and reputational consequences: Regional courts and rights bodies have ruled against draconian blasphemy provisions; continued impunity invites diplomatic pressure and potential sanctions. 

Practical, Accountable and Workable Remedies

Law and Policy

Immediate legislative reform: Repeal or narrowly re-draft State blasphemy provisions to meet international standards (per ECOWAS judgement) by removing capital or vague penalties; codify higher evidentiary thresholds for any offence touching religion. 

Regulate prosecutorial discontinuation: Require the Attorney-General’s office to publish reasoned decisions, when entering nolle prosequi in high-profile or mass-violence cases, and to refer matters for independent review where dismissal appears arbitrary (Statutory/regulatory transparency mitigates abuse).

Justice and Security Operations 

Rapid-response protocols for accusation spikes: Dedicate trained rapid-deployment teams (Police and community liaisons) for market/campus flashpoints; standard operating procedures for holding suspects safely. 

Professionalise evidence/prosecution chains: Digital forensics for video evidence; witness protection and fast-track prosecution units for mob killings; ensure prosecution counsel are resourced and present.

Institutional accountability

Independent prosecutorial oversight: Strengthen an independent DPP or internal oversight, to audit AG decisions in systemic mob cases (not to remove constitutional AG power, but to create checks on opaque exercise). 

Oversight of religious enforcement actors: Clarify the statutory limits of Hisbah and similar bodies; require registration, code of conduct, and accountability channels (disciplinary tribunals; parliamentary review).

Social Measures

Clerical & community engagement: Fund interfaith rapid-response peace committees and train Imams/Priests to publicly denounce extrajudicial violence; tie clerical incentives (e.g. community grants) to public-order commitments.

Counter-misinformation campaign: Platform takedowns, verified rapid-response rebuttals, and local media literacy to blunt viral accusation dynamics.

Civil Society and International

Legal aid for victims’ families: Provide pro bono prosecution support; civil suits where criminal justice fails.

Use of regional mechanisms: Pursue/remind States of ECOWAS obligations, and use the Court’s rulings as leverage for domestic reform.

Conclusion

The pattern, where mob killing is frequently disguised as punishing “blasphemy”, is predictable and preventable; vague laws, political caution and shaky policing engenders recurring mob murder. The practical fix requires coordinated legal reform (which includes the removal or clarification of blasphemy offences); operational upgrades (Police/prosecution capacity and transparency on nolle); and social interventions (engagement with religious leadership an rapid counter-misinformation). 

Without systemic change, each new lynching reinforces the impunity equilibrium and risks cascading communal violence.

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN, former General Secretary, NBA

Blasphemy, Human Nature and a Lack of Justice

Ayoade Oluwasanmi 

Background 

According to news reports, on Saturday the 30th of August, 2025, a food vendor by the name of Amaye was burnt by a mob in Kasuwan-Garba area of Niger State. Her offence? She was allegedly attacked and killed for the offence of blaspheming the Prophet Muhammed. 

However, according to a BBC News report on the incident, eyewitnesses claim she was attacked for another reason altogether. According to the news report, eyewitnesses told local media that a man proposed to her. Her response to the marriage proposal, was allegedly considered blasphemous by those who heard it. She was lynched and burnt to death, before the Police could rescue her. According to the Police, they are conducting their investigations, and the perpetrators of the heinous crime will be brought to book and prosecuted. I personally won’t hold my breath at the possibility of the perpetrators being arrested, let alone prosecuted. 

Similar Incidents

According to an online BBC News report of the incident, there have been several incidents of this nature, where people have been accused of blasphemy leading to a mob attack and their eventual death at the hands of the mob. 

We all remember the story of the late Deborah Samuel who was accused of uttering blasphemous statements in 2022, and was attacked and killed by a mob in Sokoto. Then last year, a butcher by the name of Usman Bodo was killed also in Sokoto, using the excuse of him having made blasphemous statements. A quick Google search will reveal other instances. In 2016, a Christian teacher was murdered by a religious mob in Bauchi State, for confiscating a Quran. The incident resulted in the deaths of over 20 Christians, and the burning of churches. In 2007 in Kano State, nine Christians were attacked and killed and churches and homes were burnt, after some children allegedly drew a picture of Prophet Muhammed. In 2012, a riot occurred in Bichi, Kano State due to allegations of blasphemous statements made against certain individuals. All these mob attacks for alleged blasphemy have occurred, since some Northern States introduced Shari’ah Law after the return to democratic rule. 

Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century English philosopher, who was one of the proponents of the social contract theory of government. According to him, individuals give up some of their God-given rights and freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for order and security, because life in its natural state would otherwise be poor, nasty, brutish and short. 

John Locke, another English philosopher born in the 17th century and another proponent of the social contract theory posited that the social contract is the agreement people have to form a government in order to protect their rights to life, liberty and freedom which are inherent in every person and not given by government. He also believed that people gave up some of those rights and in return, they could expect protection. He however, believed that the people had a right to overthrow tyrannical governments. Therefore, both men believed that the people gave us some rights to a government in return for security, peace and order. 

All over the world, there is a crisis of confidence in institutions such as marriage, religion and government. People have different reasons as to why this is. While I do not intend to go into a dissertation on the reasons for this, one common thread runs through them all. While we believe that these institutions were given to us by God, they are all run, controlled and administered by human beings. While these institutions were given to us for the regulation of life and society and to ensure our happiness, human beings by their actions have somehow managed to ruin things. This has in turn, broken people’s faith in these institutions. The desire for money, sex, control and power by those entrusted with the leadership of these institutions has resulted in people turning their backs on these institutions, and doing as they please to the detriment of society at large. While the lack of faith in these institutions could be attributed to factors unique to each institution, the two common factors that lead to the erosion of trust in all of them is a lack of transparency on the part of the leaders, and a failure by these leaders to hold themselves and others accountable. 

Government: Corruption and Lack of Accountability 

Most Nigerians believe those in government are corrupt, and appropriate government funds to themselves. A lot of Nigerians know people who went into government as normal, ordinary, everyday people who at times struggled to pay their house rent or children’s school fees. Then these same people left government afterwards, as multimillionaires or even billionaires. We have all seen or heard the stories about the trials of former Governors, accountant generals and other high profile government officials by the EFCC, ICPC and other agencies and bodies. There are hardly any that have either been punished or punished sufficiently in people’s eyes, for the act of being corrupt while in office. Therefore, there is the sense that there is a lack of justice, and that people are not being held accountable. There is also a lack of transparency on the part of government, as to why people are not been held accountable. 

Where those who are considered as elites are not being held accountable on whatever issue, it creates a sense of resentment on the part of the rest of the populace. What follows thereafter, when people feel there is no justice in the land, is that people do not trust governmental institutions and they take the law into their own hands and mete punishment, not on those government officials, but on their fellow citizens who are not part of the elites, for any perceived offence. Their wrongdoing in this instance, then gives the government the opportunity to mete out punishment to those who have used government’s failure to hold people accountable as an excuse to carry out crimes. Most times, government fails at this too. Why? 

The aim of government, is implementing policies that will benefit the greatest number of people. However, because government is made up of people, a lot of times, those in power are moved by other considerations other than the good of the people. For instance, most times they are moved by self-interest. Those in government want to perpetuate themselves in power and win elections by any means necessary, so they can continue to have access to the people’s commonwealth while in power and hold on to their elite, untouchable status when they leave government. One of the ways they do this, is by seeking to use any means to control the people. They exert control by using the media, religious, tribal or thought leaders or what other instruments make themselves available for use. When one lives in a dysfunctional society that is highly illiterate like Nigeria, at times, unfortunately, these leaders are those people look to for guidance as to what is right or wrong, instead of the laws or government. Therefore, because these leaders are in cahoots with the government with the aim of controlling the people for their own reasons, at times, these leaders excuse wrongdoing by the people, because they know a large swathe of the population are in support of the wrong act done. They do not want to lose their control over the people, so they refuse to condemn the wrong actions of the people and look for reasons to justify them. In turn, they put pressure on those in government to not hold anyone accountable as this would erode their popularity and standing with the people who are sadly in support of the wrong act. Therefore, because government feels beholden to these leaders as the ones who help to keep them in power, offenders are allowed to go scot-free. Hence, sadly the cycle continues. 

A country where there is no accountability or transparency in governance, especially in the justice system, will always be susceptible to mob action, and leads to the unravelling of the social contract. According to the online BBC News article, the Supreme Court has previously said that cases of blasphemy must be proven in court. True justice is said to be built on two pillars. The two pillars are encapsulated in two Latin maxims. The first is, Nemo judex in causa sua which translated means “You cannot be a judge in your own case”. The other Latin maxim is, Audi alterem partem which means “You must hear both sides”. Mob action totally negates these two principles of justice. Hence, mob action is not justice. Again, there must be justice for the accused and justice for the accuser, for there to be true justice. Government needs to uphold its part of the social contract, and protect people’s lives, liberty and property. 

Conclusion 

Mob action, does not bring justice. It only makes the accuser feel good, that he or she has taken the law into their own hands. This is not how a just society is built. No society can thrive, in this way. What it does, is that it creates a perception that some people are above the law and can get away with anything, and causes others to live in fear of being at the end of a mob action. It also only encourages the vicious cycle to continue, as some will believe that is the only way to get justice. Neither the government nor the people, should support or encourage this. 

Nigerians need to raise their voices and demand for transparency and accountability from the government, regardless of whoever is affected. Also, come election time, Nigerians also need to elect people with good values, especially those with a track record of integrity and a vision for the good of the people, into positions of authority in government, or the vicious cycle will continue or probably get worse. 

Ayoade Oluwasanmi, Partner, Gbenga Biobaku & Co., Author of Lost, But Found; Let Me Love You and The African Prince (How to Get Power, Hold on to It, and (Mis-) Use It in Africa), a Satire about governance in Africa 

Rise of Blaphemy Killings in Nigeria

Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko 

There is no gainsaying the existential fact that Nigeria, a Country which in Section 10 of her Constitution or the Grundnorm is identified as a secular State, by virtue of the clear prohibition of the recognition of any religion as a State religion, is however, bedevilled and confronted by the hydra-headed monster of the confusion between the strict application of the laws of the country, and the contradiction of the State officials paying Supreme loyalty to their religious sentiments.  

 This scenario of clearly seeing government officials preferring to adore their religious sensibilities, rather than give their absolute loyalty to the nation’s Constitution and the extant laws, is demonstrated in the lackadaisical attitudes of heads of security agencies that allow for religious fanatics to always have their way in enforcing their brute force, and the primitive dastardly act of mob killings of citizens whom they arbitrarily perceived to have committed blasphemy particularly against the religion of Islam. 

And, because these cases of blasphemy killings have remained unresolved by the law enforcement agencies and the justice sector in Nigeria, due to inherent compromises on the altar of religious sentiments and loyalty to individual religious ideologies as against compliance to the rule of law, Nigerians of different religious affinity are free everywhere but in reality are in chains. Life in some parts of Nigeria, most especially in Northern Nigeria, has become short, brutish, uninteresting, and intolerably harsh, because the mobs who see themselves as the defenders of their religion, have been let loose to do according to their whims and caprices. 

 Blasphemy related killings in Nigeria have therefore, constituted a serious epidemic that must be treated to a satisfactory and legitimate conclusion, and the way to do that is to adhere strictly to the due process of the law and follow the rule of law, not the rule of the disorderly religious mobs. 

Distressing Acceleration in Mob Justice 

As aforementioned, it is historically correct to state that, in the last decade—and with distressing acceleration in the past few years—Nigeria has been scorched by a pattern of mob violence sparked by allegations of “blasphemy.” The script is numbingly familiar: an accusation (often contested, often trivial, frequently sparked by ordinary disputes) spreads in minutes; a crowd gathers; stones, sticks, and petrol appear; and a human being is extinguished in a frenzy of presumed piety. Police too often arrive late, or are overwhelmed; arrests, if any, wither into silence; and the cycle begins again. This is not merely a public-order problem. It is a direct assault on the Nigerian Constitution, on our courts, on our plural democratic identity, and on God’s gift of life itself.

Think of the names that have become shorthand, for this national shame. In Sokoto, on 12 May, 2022, college student Deborah Samuel was lynched and burned, after classmates accused her of “blasphemy” in a WhatsApp group. The murder shocked the world; yet, the justice that followed was halting and painfully incomplete. Rights monitors and analysts cautioned that impunity would encourage repetition—and they were right.

A year later, on 25 June, 2023, a Sokoto butcher, Usman Buda, was stoned to death in a bustling market after an argument spiralled into a blasphemy allegation. He died in daylight, in public, among fellow traders; rights groups documented how weak deterrence feeds the boldness of mobs. This was not an attack on a religious minority—Buda himself was Muslim—underscoring that blasphemy mobs are not “defence of the faith”, but naked lawlessness.

In Kano, the tragedy bears a particularly bitter legal aftertaste. On 2 June, 2016, Mrs Bridget Agbahime, a Christian trader, was killed in Kofar Wambai market after a quarrel that accusers reframed as “blasphemy.” The suspects were arrested and arraigned. Then, in a move that still stings the conscience, the Kano State Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi—a formal notice of discontinuance—freeing the accused. Outrage rang across Nigeria, because the message to would-be lynch mobs was unmistakable: even when Police do their job, politics may erase accountability.

Katsina has its own scars. In July 2023, national and international media again reported a blasphemy-linked mob killing, feeding a grim ledger of similar incidents across the Northwest and North-East. The picture is tragically consistent: rumours in a market; a shout of “blasphemy!”; then, instead of the rule of law, the rule of the loudest and most violent.

And, most recently, Niger State: in August 2024, a mob in the Suleja area beat a man to death after an allegation of blasphemy. The Niger incident is crucial for what it reveals about proximity: this was at the nation’s capital’s doorstep. If lynch mobs can snuff out life within commuting distance of Abuja, then no one should pretend this is a “far-away” problem. Reports detailed how quickly the crowd formed, how Police failed to deter the violence, and how the language of religious outrage became a license for murder.

The Constitution, Laws and International Charters 

To be clear: no Nigerian law permits a crowd to try, convict, and kill. In the North, the Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions Act defines culpable homicide and punishes intentional killing with death; any member of a lynch mob who participates in killing is, in law, a murderer, not a “defender of the faith.” Section 221 is unambiguous: culpable homicide is punishable with death. The idea that religious feeling can mitigate an unlawful killing, is a fiction our courts do not recognise.

 Nor can “blasphemy” be invoked as an all-purpose gag on life and liberty. Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, and our 1999 Constitution (as amended) enshrines the fundamental rights that mob justice destroys: Section 33 protects the right to life; Section 34 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment; Section 36 guarantees fair hearing; Section 38 secures freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and Section 39 secures freedom of expression. These clauses are not decorative. They are binding commands to Government—and by extension, to every agent of the State—to protect, not to shrink from, those under threat. When Police allow a crowd to snatch suspects from their custody—as in the Bauchi case of Talle Mai Ruwa, dragged out of a Police outpost in 2021 and burned to death—State failure is not incidental; it is causal.

 International law points the same way. Nigeria is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In General Comment No. 34, the UN Human Rights Committee states plainly that prohibitions on displays of lack of respect for a religion, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the narrow case of incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence under Article 20(2). Put differently: the ICCPR protects people, not ideas; it protects believers, not beliefs, from violence and persecution. Using “blasphemy” as a catch-all to punish mere dissent, flips human-rights logic on its head.

Critically, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights—which Nigeria domesticated as Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004—is part of our municipal law. In Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000), the Supreme Court affirmed that the domesticated Charter has real force in our courts. The Charter reinforces rights to life, dignity, fair trial, conscience, and expression. Mob killings annihilate each of these.

 Recent jurisprudence has also moved decisively against “blasphemy” provisions that criminalise expression. On June 21, 2025, the ECOWAS Court of Justice held that Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code provisions criminalising blasphemy violate the African Charter and ICCPR, ordering their repeal and finding that blasphemy is not a permissible restriction on freedom of expression. That landmark judgement does two things: it underscores that international and regional human-rights standards are not abstract; and it deprives political leaders of the excuse that “our local law” compels the punishment of speech. It doesn’t—and cannot—when higher binding norms say otherwise.

So, what is driving these illegal killings? The causes are layered:

First, impunity. When the Kano Attorney-General entered nolle prosequi in the Agbahime case, a public lesson was taught—that even in high-profile murders, political discretion can erase prosecutions. The Attorney-General’s powers under Sections 174 and 211 of the Constitution to institute, take over, or discontinue criminal proceedings (the last, by entering nolle prosequi) are real; the Supreme Court in State v Ilori (1983) recognised their breadth. But, they are not a license to undermine justice. The Constitution itself makes clear that those powers must be exercised in the public interest, in the interests of justice, and to prevent abuse of legal process. Where nolle is used to free accused murderers without persuasive public reasons, it erodes deterrence and signals to mobs that the State’s zeal to protect life is negotiable.

Second, weaponised rumour and failure of first responders. Many of these killings erupt from arguments over money, trade, or personal slights that suddenly acquire a religious gloss. In several cases, victims were in Police custody and still “rescued” by mobs—an unforgivable lapse that transforms Police stations into waypoints on a march to murder. The Bauchi case of Talle Mai Ruwa is a textbook example.

Third, a misreading of faith that confuses vengeance with reverence. The Qur’an and the Bible are both replete with injunctions to justice, patience, and the sanctity of life; yet, time and again, “defenders of the faith” torch a body and broadcast the spectacle. That is not religion; it is idolatry of rage.

 Fourth, legal ambiguity exploited by extremists. Some Northern State codes still maintain “blasphemy-like” offences, and while ECOWAS has now condemned such provisions, local officials sometimes invoke them to placate crowds. The result is perverse: the more government signals that “blasphemy” is a crime, the more crowds feel empowered to execute it themselves, pre-empting any trial.

Fifth, political cowardice. Elected leaders sometimes issue sterile condemnations, then retreat, calculating that firm prosecutions will cost votes. But, it is not “leadership” to hide behind crowds. It is abdication.

 To those who say, “But you cannot deny that insulting a Prophet or trampling on a faith wounds public peace”, the answer is that our law already addresses incitement to violence and disorder without criminalising dissent or authorising murder. The question is not whether we value religious harmony—we do. The question is whether we will defend harmony, by law or by lynch mob.

The path out is legal, institutional, and moral

One: Make accountability visible and inevitable. Every blasphemy-linked lynching must be investigated as murder under the Penal Code; accomplices, abettors, and funders must be charged. Prosecutors should start from culpable homicide punishable with death, and proceed without fear or favour. Where Police failed to protect detainees, internal disciplinary processes should be swift and public. Naming and shaming is not enough; convictions must follow.

Two: Draw a bright line around nolle prosequi. The Attorney-General’s discretion exists to vindicate the public interest, not to compromise it. State v Ilori affirms the breadth of the power—but, its rationale is justice, not convenience. Where there is credible evidence of homicide by a mob, discontinuance should be exceptional. Attorneys-General who enter nolle in such cases should issue reasoned, public statements rooted in the constitutional criteria; without transparency, the power corrodes the rule of law. Legal scholarship across Nigeria has urged reform—guidelines, legislative oversight hearings, and a culture of judicial review when nolle appears to be deployed in bad faith.

Three: Repeal and replace “blasphemy” offences. The ECOWAS Court ruling against Kano’s blasphemy provisions is a watershed; States should comply, revising their laws to target true incitement (as defined by international standards) rather than protecting ideas from criticism. The UN’s General Comment 34 should be domesticated in training for Magistrates, Prosecutors, and Police.

 Four: Harden the front line—Police stations and patrols. No mob should again pry open a station door to “retrieve” a suspect. Commands must adopt crowd-control protocols tailored to blasphemy flashpoints: rapid reinforcement, secure transfer of detainees, and evidence-preserving video. Where Police lack manpower, Governors owe them the resources—and the political backing—to prevent “rescue” lynchings. The Bauchi debacle should never repeat.

 Five: Civic and religious leadership, must preach law. Sermons and civic education, need not become culture-wars. They should stress what every honest Imam and Pastor already knows: anger is not a defence to murder; faith does not fear debate; and Nigeria’s Constitution binds us all, Muslim and Christian, believer and sceptic. When a rumour of “blasphemy” erupts, true leaders calm crowds and steer them toward the courts, not the petrol can.

Six: Support victims’ families and protect witnesses. Mobs do not merely kill; they intimidate anyone who might identify them. Confidential hotlines, relocation options, and witness-protection funds are essential, if prosecutors are to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt.

 There is a deeper argument here about the kind of country we are struggling to become. Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits the adoption of a State religion. But, that is not a sterile secularism. It is a recognition that the public space belongs to all, and that the State may not pick a faith—or an interpretation within a faith—and elevate it above the rights of citizens. When a mob claims to enforce doctrine by fire, it is, in effect, attempting to supplant the State and its courts. Tolerating that is not “respect” for religion; it is a capitulation to theocracy by street decree.

 Some will object that the Sharif-Aminu case (the 2020 Kano musician sentenced to death by a Sharia court for a song) shows that “blasphemy” has legal pedigree. It does not—not anymore. That sentence was later set aside and retrial ordered on procedural grounds, and the ECOWAS Court has since declared such blasphemy offences incompatible with Nigeria’s binding human-rights commitments. The lesson is not that we cannot regulate speech; it is that we must regulate it within constitutional and international limits—penalising only the narrow category of incitement to violence or discrimination, not mere offence to religious feelings.

 If the jurisprudence still feels abstract, return to the grim concreteness of Niger, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina, and Bauchi. In Bauchi, the mob dragged Talle Mai Ruwa from a Police station, pooled money to buy petrol, and burned him while chanting. In Sokoto, Usman Buda was killed amid traders and stalls—no judge, no jury. In Kano, Bridget Agbahime was slain, and her alleged killers walked when nolle prosequi was entered. In Niger, a man was beaten to death within reach of the Federal capital. These are not isolated meteor strikes; they are connected failures—of policing, prosecution, politics, and public ethic.

 There is also a cautionary comparative lesson. Scholars and rights bodies show that blasphemy laws are counter-productive; they attract false accusations to settle scores, embolden violent actors, and chill legitimate debate. The UN’s General Comment 34 captured this hard-won insight after decades of global experience: you do not secure public order by criminalising disrespect for ideas; you secure it by protecting people from violence and only sanctioning speech that truly incites harm. Nigeria’s multi-religious reality demands nothing less.

Finally, a word about courage. Politicians often say, “We condemn the killing”, and then, when the cameras are off, ask security chiefs to “avoid escalation”. That is the opposite of leadership. Leadership is escalation in defence of the Constitution: detain the ringleaders, charge them properly, resist pressure to abandon the case, and argue it to conviction. Leadership is telling every community that, if a rumour of blasphemy arises, the only lawful destination is a courtroom—and that any attempt to deliver “instant justice” will be treated, instantly, as murder.

 We are not helpless. Our Constitution, our Penal Code, our courts, our regional obligations, and our moral tradition all point in the same direction: protect life, punish murder, and preserve a civic space where we can disagree, even deeply, without lighting a match. The choice is not between reverence and rights; it is between law and lawlessness. Every time a crowd kills in the name of God, it insults God and mutilates the Republic. Every time the State blinks, it invites the next atrocity.

On behalf of citizens of conscience—and in fidelity to the oath sworn by those who govern—I call for immediate, visible steps:

Announce and publish charging decisions in all pending blasphemy-linked killings within 30 days, with timelines for trial.

Issue binding prosecutorial guidelines that limit nolle prosequi to transparent, exceptional circumstances in homicide cases; where nolle is entered, publish the reasons.

Table State-level Bills to repeal “blasphemy” offences and replace them with narrow, ICCPR-compliant incitement provisions.

Equip and audit Police commands in known flashpoints, with specific metrics: response times, station hardening, and anti-mob drills.

Fund witness protection and victim support, in lynching cases; without witnesses, no law can stand.

Do these things, and we begin to break the cycle. Fail again, and the next name—another Deborah, another Bridget, another Usman, another anonymous trader on a hot afternoon—will be added to a roll of the dead that indicts us all.

Nigeria is better than a crowd with stones. Our law already says so. It is time our leaders, and all of us, did too.

Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, Founder, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA);  former National Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, Nigeria 

The post Blasphemy Killings: One too Many appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

The nation has witnessed a spate of senseless ‘religious’ mob killings, as a result of allegations  of blasphemy against Islam or the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The allegations against the victims
The post Blasphemy Killings: One too Many appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 7 views

MINISTRY OF JUDGES WELFARE

MINISTRY OF JUDGES WELFARE

The practice of gifting houses and cars to judges is a threat to judicial independence, contends CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU

            When the House of Lords, as the upper chamber of the UK Parliament is called, debated the Courts Bill introduced by the government of Edward Heath in December 1970, Lord Hailsham was in the Woolsack as the Lord Chancellor. His father, the first Viscount Hailsham, had served his first tour of duty in the same position a mere 42 years earlier. As the debate proceeded on the bill, Lord Hailsham reminded the prospective judge to “approach the Bench with the enthusiasm of a bridegroom approaching marriage, or of a priest approaching priesthood.”

            In the British system, the relationships entailed between a groom and his spouse or a priest with his Bishop, excluded multiple partners or patrons; but just as alimentary wellbeing has always been celebrated as the key to the heart of a spouse, politicians intent on cultivating intimate relations with the judiciary disregard judicial independence and invest financially in the appurtenances of judicial wellbeing

In 1992 Matthew Ngulube became the Chief Justice of Zambia, the first to be appointed since the country transitioned from one-party rule. The president was Frederick Chiluba. Ngulube arrived the Chambers of the Chief Justice with credentials that looked impeccable. One and a half decades earlier, he had served as President of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), the country’s Bar Association.

            Ngulube served as Chief Justice for one decade, presiding over some momentous decisions and transitions in Zambia’s judicial and constitutional history. During this period, he became well known around the Commonwealth as a spokesman for judicial integrity. Outside public view, his record stank.

On 28 June 2002, President Levy Mwanawasa, successor to President Chiluba and, himself also a former president of the LAZ, accepted the resignation of Chief Justice Ngulube. The facts that emerged were shocking.

            As Chief Justice, Ngulube was in fact in the payroll of President Chiluba and “received thousands of dollars from a special account managed by Xavier Chungu, former intelligence chief and ex-president Frederick Chiluba’s top security adviser”, amounting to over $168,000. This was a lot of money in a poor country at the time and indeed more than the “equivalent to the Zambian government’s annual funding to a single government department.” From the proceeds of this financial intimacy, Chief Justice Ngulube separately built “a nearly-completed mansion on the eastern fringes of Lusaka, whose cost is estimated at about 700 million kwacha (about 149,000 dollars).”

            These payments enabled the government of President Chiluba to buy favorable decisions from the court of Chief Justice Ngulube. The investigations reportedly revealed that the government used him “to subvert the course of justice in all cases involving Chiluba and his aides during the past ten years of his administration.

           Some 52 years earlier, in the debate on the High Court and County Judges Bill in the United Kingdom House of Commons in May 1950, Mr. Marlowe, a member of parliament, explained that it was impossible “for a High Court judge to discharge his functions properly if he knows that during the day, he will sit on the Bench with a prisoner in the dock before him and later in the evening may be sitting side by side with the prisoner in the bus.”

When they are not concerned about gifting houses to judges, politicians in Nigeria, for instance, seem overly concerned with the cars that the judges drive. On the last day of July 2025, Adamawa State Governor, Umaru Fintiri, gave away 23 sub-urban utility vehicles (SUVs) to judges in the state as an expression of his “unwavering commitment to strengthening the justice system.”

Governor Fintiri was the latest governor to advance this practice of conducting executive intimacy with judges on four wheels. In this he was merely following in the footsteps of his peer in neighbouring Borno State, Babagana Zulum, who had “donated” 19 cars to judges and Khadis in the state in January 2025 “to enhance the judicial sector and ensure that our citizens have access to justice as we continue to recover from 16 years of insurgency.”

In one month between July and August 2024, Kogi State’s Governor Ahmed Ododo donated 25 SUVs in two instalments of 14 and 11 respectively to the Chief Judge, Josiah Majebi, for use by judges in the state “with assurance to supply more soon so that it can go round all the Judges and magistrates operating in the state.” A mere eight months earlier, in December 2023, Governor Ododo’s benefactor and predecessor, Yahaya Bello, on the eve of his departure from office as Governor, had donated 40 SUVs to be shared equally between judges and legislators in the state.

When Catholic priest-turned-governor, Hyacinth Alia, gifted six new SUVs to judges in Benue State in May 2024, he claimed that he did it to enhance “judicial service delivery.”

Eight months earlier, in September 2023 his counterpart in Abia State, Alex Otti, handed over five SUVs to judges of the State High Court because they were reportedly in their fourth year of service in the role without official cars.

In July 2023, Anambra State Chief Judge, Onochie Anyachebelu, received 11 SUVs from the state government, “the first batch of official vehicles the Governor, His Excellency, Prof. Chukwuma Charles Soludo pledged to allocate to the Judicial Officers.” The Chief Judge thanked the governor “for being timely in commencing the fulfillment of his promise to the Judiciary to that effect, noting that the Judiciary expectations on him for the remaining vehicles are high.”

In August 2022, Ogun State governor, Dapo Abiodun, presented 13 SUVs to judges in the state “to enhance their welfare.”

In September 2020, Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, handed over 51 SUVs and eight houses to judges in the state “as part of his vision to build a strong judiciary.”

In this, Governor Sanwo-Olu bettered his counterpart in Rivers State, Nyesom Wike, who the previous month, in August 2020, gave 41 SUVs to judges in the state.

Three months earlier, in May 2020, his counterpart in neighboring Owerri, Hope Uzodinma, handed 20 to judges in Imo State to “motivate” them. He added 10 more in July 2024. 

In February 2020 then Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, gifted 24 SUVs to judges in Kaduna State.

In five years since 2020, advocacy group, Citizen Gavel, reckons that eight governors gifted at least 237 SUVs to judges in their respective states. This is a gross undercount.

The Nigerian Bar Association has complained that the practice of gifting cars to judges demeans the judiciary, impoverishes judicial office, and hollows out judicial independence.

In 2014, the Federal High Court ordered government at all levels to pay funds for the needs of the judiciary to the National Judicial Council (NJC). Compliance with this would have ended the undisguised importuning of judges with alimentary blandishments from the executive. 

Instead, the Federal Government has turned that into art form and appears to have designated a Minister for the Welfare of Judges in all but name. This past week, the Minister, Nyesom Wike, “boasted that about 80 per cent of the accommodation problem bedeviling judges would have been solved before the end of the first tenure of President Bola Tinubu.”

The calibration of this pretence of executive magnanimity with the electoral cycle was an essential part of the announcement. Buying judges has become a central tool in the arsenal of political ascendancy in Nigeria. No one pretends to conceal the appearance of quid pro quo.

At the Annual Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Enugu at the end of last month, a judge from one of the neighboring states of south-east Nigeria was heard openly fulsomely confessing the support of himself and his judicial colleagues for the present administration. He cited the increase in judicial salaries by over 300% and the increase in age of retirement of High Court judges and warned whoever cared to listen that any political competitors will not receive the support of judges in 2027. How many votes do judges have?

102 years ago, the High Court in England cautioned that it is essential that nothing is “done that creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.” The role of the Ministry of Judges Welfare is to ensure precisely that the opposite is the new normal. He is doing well.

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

The post MINISTRY OF JUDGES WELFARE appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

The practice of gifting houses and cars to judges is a threat to judicial independence, contends CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU             When the House of Lords, as the upper chamber of the UK Parliament is called, debated
The post MINISTRY OF JUDGES WELFARE appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 5 views

Ex-NNPC GM Faces U.S. Sentencing Over $2.1m Bribery Conviction

Ex-NNPC GM Faces U.S. Sentencing Over $2.1m Bribery Conviction

A U.S. District Court in California has fixed December 1, 2025, for the sentencing of Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo, a former General Manager of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), who was convicted of accepting a $2.1 million bribe from a Swiss oil firm.

Okoronkwo, 58, was indicted in January 2024 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California on multiple charges, including three counts of unlawful monetary transactions, one count of tax evasion, and one count of obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors said the former NNPCL executive received $2,105,263 in October 2015 from Addax Petroleum, a Swiss subsidiary of Chinese oil giant Sinopec. The payment, funnelled through his Los Angeles law firm and presented as consultancy fees, was described by the U.S. Department of Justice as a bribe intended to secure favourable drilling rights in Nigeria.

Court filings revealed that Addax executives misrepresented the transaction, misled auditors, and dismissed officials who raised concerns about the deal. Okoronkwo allegedly used nearly $1 million of the funds as a down payment for a home in Valencia, California, while failing to declare the income in his 2015 Federal tax return.

In 2022, during a Federal probe, he further obstructed justice by falsely claiming the funds belonged to a client. After a four-day trial, a jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.

Judge John F. Walter, who presided over the case, noted that Okoronkwo could face up to 25 years in prison: 10 years each for the unlawful monetary transactions and obstruction of justice, and five years for tax evasion.

Okoronkwo, once a practising Lawyer in Los Angeles’ Koreatown district, is currently out on a $50,000 bond while awaiting sentencing.

The NNPCL dismissed him in 2024 following his indictment, according to former presidential aide, Bashir Ahmad, who confirmed the Corporation had severed ties with him.

The post Ex-NNPC GM Faces U.S. Sentencing Over $2.1m Bribery Conviction appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

A U.S. District Court in California has fixed December 1, 2025, for the sentencing of Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo, a former General Manager of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL),
The post Ex-NNPC GM Faces U.S. Sentencing Over $2.1m Bribery Conviction appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 3 views

Court Orders British Airways to Pay Nigerian Passenger N53m Over Lost Luggage

Court Orders British Airways to Pay Nigerian Passenger N53m Over Lost Luggage

The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered British Airways to pay N50 million in general damages to a Nigerian passenger, Mr Stephen Osho, for the loss of his luggage and unfair treatment, with an additional N3 million awarded as legal costs.

Delivering judgment on August 21, Justice Ibrahim Kala held that Osho had successfully proven his case that the airline breached its obligations under an international contract of carriage, by failing to deliver his checked baggage on Flight BA307 from Paris to London on December 2, 2022.

The court found that the airline’s failure caused the passenger undue hardship, inconvenience, and financial loss. “The Plaintiff is entitled to substantial compensation for the distress occasioned by the Defendant’s negligence”, Justice Kala ruled.

British Airways had argued that the mix-up occurred because Osho’s luggage still carried an old Air France tag, which allegedly contributed to its misplacement. However, Justice Kala dismissed the defence as “weak and unconvincing”, describing it as an afterthought designed to evade liability under Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention. The Judge further stressed that the airline failed to establish that Osho contributed in any way to the loss, and therefore, could not exonerate itself from responsibility.

Court records show that Osho filed the suit, FHC/L/CS/1754/2023, on August 31, 2023, and supported his claims with documentary evidence, including his boarding pass and baggage tag BA741520.

In his judgement, Justice Kala concluded that British Airways had failed to meet its burden of proof, and was liable for the passenger’s losses. The ruling adds to the growing number of passenger rights cases in Nigeria, reinforcing the obligations of international carriers to uphold global aviation standards in their operations.

The post Court Orders British Airways to Pay Nigerian Passenger N53m Over Lost Luggage appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered British Airways to pay N50 million in general damages to a Nigerian passenger, Mr Stephen Osho, for the loss of his luggage
The post Court Orders British Airways to Pay Nigerian Passenger N53m Over Lost Luggage appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 4 views

Effect of Failure to Raise Objection to a Confessional Statement Timeously

Effect of Failure to Raise Objection to a Confessional Statement Timeously

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 21st day of February, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Adamu Jauro

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Abubakar Sadiq Umar

Justices, Supreme Court

SC. 1416/2019

Between

EMMANUEL AMEH                          APPELLANT                                                                 

       And

1.  THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE     RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC)

Facts

The case against the Appellant was that on 27th June, 2007, the Appellant and his confederates, under the pretence of rendering taxi-cab services, pounced on PW1 (Esther Osimen), beat her, and dispossessed her of her rings and cash, before dumping her on the expressway. They fled with the taxi, but soon had an accident with the car. The Police recovered the cab, and took the Appellant to the hospital. Unknown to the assailants, PW1’s phone had dropped into the cab. When PW1 later called the line, the Police answered, enabling her to recount her ordeal. She identified the Appellant’s co-accused as one of the attackers, who in turn led Police to arrest the Appellant.

The Appellant, alongside another accused person, were charged before the Ikeja Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State, on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. In proof of its case, the Respondent called three witnesses, including the victim – PW1, and tendered exhibits, including the Appellant’s confessional statements admitted as Exhibits E–E1. The Appellant testified for himself, but called no witness. On 14th March, 2013, the trial court convicted the Appellant of the lesser offences of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery simpliciter, having found that the use of arms was not proved. The Appellant was thereby sentenced to twenty-one (21) years imprisonment.

The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 20th May, 2016, with the lower Court affirming the trial court’s findings. Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

The Appellant raised three issues for determination of the appeal, while the Respondent formulated a sole issue. The Apex Court adopted the sole issue of the Respondent as encompassing for determination of the appeal, thus:

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the decision of the trial court, that the Prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant argued that there was doubt as to the ability of PW1 to recognise the Appellant, and contended that given that the alleged offence occurred between 10:00–11:00 p.m., at a poorly lit bus stop, and within the dimly lit interior of the vehicle, those circumstances must have impaired PW1’s ability to accurately identify her assailants. Counsel contended further that the identification process was compromised, and an identification parade ought to have taken place. He argued that the circumstances described, raised reasonable doubt regarding the Appellant’s involvement in the alleged crimes. Counsel submitted further that, inconsistencies existed between the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. Whereas, PW1 claimed she called her lost phone and a Police officer answered, PW2 stated the call was made by PW1’s father. Counsel submitted that this contradiction undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, and urged the Court to resolve the doubt in favour of the Appellant. Finally, Counsel argued that the Appellant had denied making the confessional statements admitted in evidence (Exhibit E-E1), and, as such, the lower courts ought to have sought corroborative independent evidence, as the trial court was in error relying on the unreliable account of PW1 as corroborative evidence. He urged the Supreme Court, to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant.

In response, Counsel for the Respondent raised a ‘preliminary point’ with complaints bordering on incompetence of ground 3 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. On the substance, the Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the trial Judge properly and thoroughly evaluated the evidence at trial before coming to the right decision, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Regarding the Appellant’s argument for conduct of an identification parade, Counsel for the Respondent referred to the evidence on record wherein the Respondent stated that she recognised the Appellant because she looked at the Appellant’s face out of her habit of looking at people’s faces when taking public transport, and was further aided by the street light when the Appellant and his confederates dropped her along the street. In conclusion, Counsel urged the court to adopt its practice of not interfering with concurrent findings of lowers courts and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

First, the Supreme Court addressed the preliminary point raised by the Respondent, holding that where a Respondent to an appeal is desirous of challenging the competence of an appeal, or of any ground or issue thereof, the proper avenue to do so is to file either a preliminary objection directed against the appeal to terminate the appeal in limine, or a Notice of Motion directed against a ground or an issue alleged to be afflicted with the incompetence. There is no room for a Respondent to make a Preliminary Point or a Preliminary Observation, short of a duly ventilated Preliminary Objection in the appeal. Having failed to comply with the known or recognised mode of challenging competence of an appeal or any part thereof, the Supreme Court accordingly discountenanced the preliminary point for its failure to comply with the appellate practice and procedure. 

On the substance, the Apex Court examined the offence and ingredients of robbery which are that (i) there was indeed a robbery or series of robberies; (ii) the robbery was carried out with the threat, or actual use of violence on the victim; (iii) that items of the victim which were capable in law of being stolen, were stolen and (iv) the accused person was the robber or one of the robbers. Their Lordships noted that only the fourth element was in dispute, that is, the identification of the Appellant as one of the robbers. In resolving this issue, the court held that the circumstances of the arrest of the Appellant, coupled with the eyewitness account of PW1, dispelled any conclusion that the Appellant was not one of the robbers who attacked PW1. As such, the contention that the Police officers ought to have conducted an identification parade because the Appellant was not arrested at the scene of the crime was misguided. Similarly, for the contention regarding the contradiction between the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the Supreme Court found that neither of the testimonies invalidated the fact that PW1’s phone was found inside the car that the Appellant was arrested – just a short while after PW1 was robbed. As such, Their Lordships held that the alleged contradiction, did not materially alter the prosecution’s case. For a contradiction to affect the case of the prosecution, it must be one that touches on one of the elements of the offence charged.

Regarding the Appellant’s argument that he had denied making the confessional statement admitted in evidence, the Supreme Court held that the Appellant neither raised the issue of involuntariness nor denial of the statement, when it was tendered by the Respondent. The law has now crystallised that, the appropriate avenue to raise any complaint about an extra-judicial statement is at the point of tendering it, whether the complaint is about involuntariness or outright denial of the statement. On this note, the Supreme Court held that “although the denial of a statement when raised at the point of tendering will not be taken as an objection to the admission of the statement and will not warrant a trial-within-trial or any form of ruling at all, but will be on record and a foundation for the accused person to give further evidence about his connection or lack of same with the statement in his examination in chief during his defence. Otherwise, the accused person will be deemed to have accepted making the statement voluntarily.”- OLUGBEMI v STATE (2023) LPELR-60331(SC). The Appellant in this case failed to raise the objection timeously. Their Lordships held further that, the Appellant’s confessional statement alone was unequivocal and cogent enough to ground the conviction of the Appellant. 

Consequently, the court resolved the issue for determination against the Appellant, and in favour of the Respondent.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Dr Emeka Akabogu for the Appellant.

Ibrahim Lawal for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

The post Effect of Failure to Raise Objection to a Confessional Statement Timeously appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 21st day of February, 2025 Before Their Lordships Adamu Jauro Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru
The post Effect of Failure to Raise Objection to a Confessional Statement Timeously appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 2 views

THUGS, TOUTS, AND THE NIGERIAN SYSTEM

THUGS, TOUTS, AND THE NIGERIAN SYSTEM

For many people, it takes tragedy and the profound sense of pain and regret it brings to make lifelong changes. Given that in the immediate aftermath of tragedy, people may be too numb to react. But usually, once they can gather themselves together, they go ahead to make the changes they must, often to prevent a reoccurrence. Not so in Nigeria.

In Nigeria, tragedy often hits people square in the jaw and packs an overwhelming measure of pain, which quickly spreads. However,  experience has shown that many Nigerians process tragedy poorly and quickly move on without bothering  about the changes that can prevent a recurrence.

A couple of days ago, touts within the  Federal Capital Territory  chased a man and his wife  to their death as they went about their business in the heart  of  Nigeria’s capital. The touts, operating on their usual lawless and  rudderless frequency, which unfortunately has some imprimatur of authority, fought for the control of the couple’s vehicle. The struggle that ensued led to an accident that instantly killed the couple. An irate mob promptly burnt two of the touts to death.

The Incident confirmed conclusively that Nigeria remains a vast field of needless, preventable deaths.  Every other day, Nigerians die carelessly in circumstances that  lend credence to the fragility of life in the country. The fact that many of these deaths are preventable but are never really  prevented speaks volumes.

It explains Nigeria’s ever plummeting life expectancy. It explains the fact that insecurity ravages the land, destroying the confidence of investors and sentencing locals to a life of constant fear and uncertainty.

Nigeria has always had a problem with touts and thugs. The Nigerian landscape is indeed littered with touts and thugs. Empowered by the powerful to tighten their grip on power, these touts are used to rig elections, intimidate opponents, or serve as informal state actors. The fact  that they blur the lines between state actors and criminals shows the multifaceted threats they pose.

Many times, they behave like criminals. At other times they are actual criminals who do what they want to while acutely aware that there are  too many cracks in the Nigerian system that they can escape through.

Alarmingly, these touts and thugs, who sometimes operate in the full view of Nigeria’s security personnel, consider themselves part of the security  structure. But rather than secure Nigerians and make Nigerians feel more secure, they terrorize Nigerians.

As a country, Nigeria  remains a society where civility, dignity, and decorum, especially in public, remain in scandalously short supply.  Many Nigerians have a problem with doing the right thing, and as a result of  this, anything goes, many times with deadly consequences for all involved.

The presence and proliferation of thugs and touts, especially in Lagos and Abuja, is a tear in the image of a country that has the kind of grand aspirations Nigeria has.  It is a shame that such criminals are allowed to rule the roost in many parts of the country.

While Nigerians generally need reorientation in how to be better citizens of their country, the authorities must do something about thugs and touts all over the country. Many of them are no different from criminals and do all the things that criminals do. They kill, rape, disrupt, and threaten innocent citizens and inflict grievous bodily harm.

But it is doubtful that the authorities  here can really do anything about them. After all, they are helpful and  are useful tools in the hands of many of those in power, especially during elections.

Kene Obiezu,

keneobiezu@gmail.com

The post THUGS, TOUTS, AND THE NIGERIAN SYSTEM appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

For many people, it takes tragedy and the profound sense of pain and regret it brings to make lifelong changes. Given that in the immediate aftermath of tragedy, people may
The post THUGS, TOUTS, AND THE NIGERIAN SYSTEM appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• September 8, 2025
• 4 views

Lagos Judiciary Unveils Guidelines on Non-Custodial Sentencing to Tackle Prison Congestion

Lagos Judiciary Unveils Guidelines on Non-Custodial Sentencing to Tackle Prison Congestion

Stories by Steve Aya

The Lagos State Judiciary has introduced a new Practice Direction on Non-Custodial Sentencing, aimed at deepening criminal justice reform and easing the burden of overcrowded correctional centres. The framework, launched in Ikeja, provides uniform guidelines for Judges, Magistrates, Police, and other justice sector agencies, on the application and enforcement of alternative sentencing options such as community service, probation, and fines.

The Chief Judge of Lagos State, Hon. Justice Kazeem Olanrewaju Alogba, said the initiative would promote consistency in sentencing and strengthen coordination across institutions. “This compendium has come at a very appropriate time as a guide to all of us. Judges at all levels, now have the opportunity to bring our pronouncements into uniformity, in accordance with the law”, he noted.

Justice Alogba stressed that proper enforcement of non-custodial measures would benefit both society and justice administration, describing the move as a step towards a fairer and more efficient system.

The Senior Programme Officer at the MacArthur Foundation, Yvonne Darkwa-Poku, commended Lagos for sustaining leadership in criminal justice reform. “To see our grantees take on the hard task of nationwide adoption and implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, including this compendium being launched today, gives us great hope”, she said.

Also speaking, Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Olohundare Moshood Jimoh, represented by the Head of the Legal Department, Charles Akinrosoye, described the framework as vital in addressing persistent prison congestion. “The Command has been involved in prison audits for over 20 years, and congestion has remained a major issue. This development is therefore very welcome, and we congratulate Lagos State for once again living up to its reputation as a trailblazer”, he said.

The launch which was supported by the MacArthur Foundation and the Rule of Law and Empowerment Initiative (RULAI/Partners West Africa Nigeria), drew participation from senior members of the Judiciary, law enforcement, and civil society groups.

Stakeholders expressed optimism that the guidelines would improve justice delivery, enhance the credibility of sentencing, and reduce pressure on correctional facilities across Lagos State.

The post Lagos Judiciary Unveils Guidelines on Non-Custodial Sentencing to Tackle Prison Congestion appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​  

Stories by Steve Aya The Lagos State Judiciary has introduced a new Practice Direction on Non-Custodial Sentencing, aimed at deepening criminal justice reform and easing the burden of overcrowded correctional
The post Lagos Judiciary Unveils Guidelines on Non-Custodial Sentencing to Tackle Prison Congestion appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.