When Contradictions in Prosecution’s Evidence are Incapable of Undermining Prosecution’s Case

Hot Source
Hot News
September 29, 2025
0 Comments

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 21st day of February, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Haruna Simon Tsammani

Obande Festus Ogbuinya

Mohammed Baba Idris

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/CR/408/2020

Between

FIDELIS UGWU APPELLANT

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Haruna Simon Tsammani, JSC)

Facts

The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Niger State on a one-count charge of armed robbery, contrary to and punishable under Section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 2010. The case of the Respondent (Prosecution) was that that on 15th January, 2015, the Appellant and two others, while armed with a gun and knife, attacked one Arch. Umar Muhammed Bawa (PW1) and his female friend, and dispossessed him of his Toyota Camry vehicle and other valuables. It was further alleged that the Appellant and his accomplices were apprehended by the Police, while attempting to sell the stolen vehicle. After the conclusion of trial, the Appellant and his accomplices were convicted as charged and sentenced accordingly. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed his conviction. Consequently, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

The Supreme Court adopted the 2nd issue distilled by the Appellant, for the determination of the appeal as follows:

Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the guilt of the Appellant as affirmed by the Court of Appeal was proved beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong when after agreeing with the Appellant that the trial court erred by holding that the Appellant’s extra judicial statement (“Exhibit C”) was admitted without objection, it still proceeded to hold that the error could not lead to the reversal of the trial court’s judgement. The Appellant’s Counsel contended that the trial court’s statement that Exhibit C was admitted without objection despite the same having been objected to and the trial court taking arguments on the objection, suggested that the trial Judge had already formed an opinion on the culpability of the Appellant before the Appellant could enter his defence. Counsel relied on NYAME v FRN (NO. 1) (2010) 5 NCC 250 to submit that a trial court must refrain from delving into the merits of a case at an interlocutory stage. Counsel maintained that the concurrent findings on Exhibit C were perverse as they were not borne out of the evidence on record, and they occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

Counsel argued further that, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel contended that there were material contradictions in the prosecution’s case, one of which was the testimony of PW1 that it was the Appellant who wielded the gun during the robbery whereas PW2 testified that it was the Appellant’s co-accused – Jemilu Shehu that did. Counsel also contended that there were contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, regarding the Police station where the robbery incident was first reported before it was transferred to the State C.I.D., Minna. The Appellant’s Counsel argued that while PW2 testified that the robbery was first reported at Bosso Divisional Police Station, PW3 on the other hand testified that it was referred from GRA Police Station to the State C.I.D., hence, there was the possibility that PW2 and PW3 were testifying about different incidents altogether.

In response, Counsel for the Respondent argued that the burden of proof of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in every criminal trial does not mean proof beyond all doubt, but proof strong enough to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person. Counsel argued that the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt through eye witness testimony, confessional statement and circumstantial evidence which are the legally recognised methods by which the prosecution can prove its case. The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the fact of the robbery was established through the testimony of PW2, who recounted how three armed men robbed him and the fact that the robbers were armed was confirmed by PW2’s testimony and further corroborated by the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit C). Counsel contended that the evidence at the trial that the Appellant was apprehended in Kaduna a day after the robbery while attempting to sell the stolen vehicle, established the Appellant’s complicity.

On the Appellant’s complaint on the reasoning of the trial court on the admissibility of Exhibit C, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that a voluntary statement to the Police is admissible in evidence. Counsel argued that the objection raised before the trial court was on technical grounds relating to signature placement and not voluntariness; thus, the trial court rightly admitted the statement. Counsel further argued that the trial court’s remark that Exhibit C was admitted without objection was a mere slip which did not affect the voluntariness, admissibility, or probative value of the statement. Relying on OKONJO v ODJE (1985) 10 S.C. 267, Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the error in the statement of the trial court did not occasion any miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that the Appellant’s possession of the stolen vehicle shortly after the robbery, without any plausible explanation as to how it came into his possession, was strong circumstantial evidence of his involvement in the robbery. Counsel argued that the fact the Appellant was arrested in possession of the stolen car constituted independent and corroborative evidence of his guilt. On the alleged contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, counsel for the Respondent argued that minor inconsistencies do not diminish the overall weight of credible evidence where the essential elements of the offence have been established as in the case. Counsel submitted that the discrepancies highlighted by the Appellant were immaterial and did not go to the root of the case.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

The Supreme Court held that, by virtue of Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt; however, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt, but only means proof by compelling and conclusive evidence devoid of capricious or whimsical and speculative doubt, or doubts based solely on fanciful reasons or considerations. The Court restated the settled principle that the prosecution may discharge this burden through any or a combination of (i) direct evidence of eyewitnesses, (ii) the positive and unequivocal confessional statement of the accused person; and (iii) circumstantial evidence.

On the Appellant’s contention that the lower court erred when it affirmed the judgement of the trial court that Exhibit C was admitted without objection, the Apex Court held that there was no doubt that when Exhibit C was tendered at the trial, Counsel for the Appellant raised an objection to its admissibility, which was duly argued before the trial court admitted it in evidence. The Supreme Court held that the lower court also agreed that Exhibit C was rightly admitted as evidence, and there being no appeal against this finding, the resultant effect is that Exhibit C was properly and rightly admitted in evidence and the parties had no issue with the finding, hence, the decision of the Court of Appeal that Exhibit C was rightly admitted in evidence by the trial court remains binding and conclusive.

On the pronouncement of the trial court that Exhibit C was tendered without objection, the Supreme Court agreed with the finding of the Court of Appeal that the error did not affect the weight of evidence attached to the said exhibit and no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the error. The Apex Court, relying on SOLOLA & ANOR v STATE (2005) LPELR-3101 (SC), reiterated the settled position of the law that it is not every slip or mistake in a judgement that can lead to the judgement being set aside and a mistake or misstatement that can lead to a reversal of a judgement or decision must be substantial in that it occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The Apex Court held that the trial court’s pronouncement that the Exhibit C was admitted without objection was a misstatement of what transpired when Exhibit C was tendered, which was not substantial enough and did not occasion any miscarriage of justice to warrant the setting aside of the trial court’s judgement.

The Apex Court further held that the Appellant who complained against the mistake of the trial court has the onus to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the trial court’s judgement occasioned a miscarriage of justice on him; however, he failed to discharge the onus. The Supreme Court also held that there was no doubt that the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeal were in accord with the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, and the Appellant did not appeal against the said findings.

On the allegations of the Appellant that there were contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Supreme Court held that inasmuch as the law recognises that contradictions in the evidence of a party are usually fatal to the party’s case; for a contradiction to affect the evidential value of a case, it must be material and go to the root of the charge against the accused. The Apex Court held that such contradiction must touch on an important element or ingredient of the offence charged, thus, contradictions that are peripheral and irrelevant to the proof of the offence charged are not material, and where such is shown to exist in the evidence given by the witnesses, it cannot affect the evidential value of the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial.

The Supreme Court held that the contradictions complained of about the specific Police station where the case was first reported, is not a requirement for the proof of the essential elements of armed robbery against the Appellant and on the issue of who amongst the Appellant and his accomplices held the gun, it was not in doubt based on the uncontroverted evidence adduced at trial, that the robbers were armed with a gun in the process of the robbery. The Apex Court held further that whether or not the Appellant held the gun or one of his co-accused is a non sequitur to prove the Appellant’s guilt; what is paramount is that the evidence adduced comprehensively linked the Appellant to the robbery committed, and that one of the robbers was armed.

The Supreme Court found that once it is established that the Appellant acted in concert with others in the commission of the offence for which he was charged, the law does not require that the court should look for the person who held the weapon used in the commission of the offence. The Apex Court held that, in other words, the law does not cast a burden on the prosecution to prove which of the accused persons wielded the weapon of robbery; it is enough if the prosecution is able to prove that one of the robbers was armed with an offensive weapon such as in this case, a gun, and that the Appellant was one of the robbers.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Philip. K. Emmanuel with D. M. Ottanwa for the Appellant.

Usman Sanni (on the fiat of the Solicitor General of Niger State) for the Respondent.

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

Hot Source

Hot Source
Hot News
September 30, 2025
2 views

Sydney-Jack: Why N’Assembly Should Pass Reserved Seats for Women Bill

Gender Advocate and Astute Politician, Dr Adaora Onyechere Sydney-Jack, in this interview, speaks passionately about the need for the National Assembly to ensure early passage of the Reserved Seats for Women Bill which she describes as the boldest democratic reform in Nigeria. Folalumi Alaran brings excerpts.

What inspired you to get involved in the Reserved Seats for Women Bill, and why do you think it’s such a crucial issue for Nigeria?

A – My inspiration comes from years of gender advocacy and from witnessing

how women, despite their competence and contributions, continue to be excluded from political spaces. Throughout my broadcasting career, I have worked at the forefront of gender policy advocacy and grassroots mobilization, championing inclusive governance and amplifying women’s voices in Nigeria’s democratic process.

As a broadcaster, I host Gender Agenda on Africa Independent Television (AIT), a flagship programme dedicated to amplifying women’s voices, interrogating policy frameworks, and spotlighting inclusive governance, so I know the structural gaps women face in accessing power. In 2019, I contested for a seat in the Imo State House of Assembly and later served as Special Adviser on Information and Advocacy in Imo State. I experienced first hand, the level of party bias against women at both the party level and in the electioneering process, it was a heartbreaking experience for me. I was prepared for it but I was taken aback by the extent of the bias.

As former Chair of the Women and Gender Affairs Cluster Committee of the African Union Economic, Social and Cultural Council (AU-ECOSOCC) Nigeria, I also saw how critical gender parity is to continental development priorities.

And as the founder of Gender Strategy Advancement International (GSAI) and WeWe Network Afrique, I design programmes on gender advocacy, civic literacy, and youth inclusion, so I know how vital it is to equip women and young people with the tools to engage.

All of these experiences have inspired me to get involved in the Reserved Seats for Women Bill Campaign, I see this legislation as the most consequential gender reform of our democratic era. After nearly 26 years of democracy, this Bill represents a historic opportunity to constitutionally guarantee women’s voices in governance. That is why I have resolved to advocate and amplify this bill.

How do you envision the Reserved Seats for Women Bill impacting the representation of women in Nigerian politics, particularly in the National and State Houses of Assembly?

When I think about the Reserved Seats for Women Bill, I don’t just see a piece of legislation, I see endless possibilities. I see a Nigeria where women are no longer fighting for a seat at the political table, but where their voices are guaranteed, respected, and valued. This Bill ensures that women will have seats at the National and State Houses of Assembly. And when women are in the room, the conversation changes.

Our laws become fairer, our politics becomes richer. It means that our perspectives will consistently shape the laws that govern this country, and our daughters can look up with confidence and say, yes, there is space for me in politics too.

As the Producer & Host of Gender Agenda, leading the public hearings in Enugu and Owerri, walking into those rooms, listening to the debates, I realized just how important this fight for this bill is. In Imo and Abia states, for instance, not a single woman sits in the State Assembly. Think about half the population of these states, completely missing from the conversation because of under representation.

The vision for the Reserved Seats for Women Bill is bold but it’s also practical. The Bill (HB 1349) proposes one reserved Senate seat for women in every State and the FCT, two in the House of Representatives, and three in each State Assembly. That’s not tokenism. That’s dozens of women gaining real power, votes, committees, influence. And with the 16-year sunset clause the goal isn’t dependency; it’s to normalise women in politics so completely that future elections don’t need quotas.

I know that this is already working in other countries. Countries like Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa have shown us that when you open the door to women in politics, everything shifts. Maternal health improves, girls’ education becomes a priority, laws against gender-based violence get stronger. In short: when women lead, societies thrive.

That’s what this Bill represents for Nigeria. And if we can achieve that, then generations from now, young women will not have to ask whether politics is for them, they will know that it is for them.

What specific challenges do you think women face in Nigerian politics, and how does the Reserved Seats for Women Bill aim to address these challenges?

Women in Nigerian politics face many interlocking challenges. At the structural level, patriarchy and cultural expectations continue to frame politics as a man’s business. Even when women are competent and willing, they are often discouraged or dismissed simply because of long-standing gender norms.

On top of that, running for office is very expensive. Campaign costs, logistics, and community engagement require resources that women, who often have less access to financing, find harder to secure.

There is also the issue of party gatekeeping. Inside most political parties, nomination processes and structures are tilted in favor of established male networks. Even when women manage to secure nominations, they face the realities of electoral violence, intimidation, harassment, and discrimination in the field.

All of this makes it incredibly difficult for women to build the kind of visibility and credibility that sustains a political career.

And because there are so few women in elected positions, young women struggle to see politics as a viable path for themselves,

representation begets representation, and the lack of role models becomes its own barrier.

The Reserved Seats for Women Bill is designed to directly respond to these

realities. By creating seats that are reserved exclusively for women, it guarantees a baseline of representation even before all these barriers are dismantled. Importantly, it doesn’t take away the option for women to

contest in general seats; it simply ensures that women are not perpetually locked out of the system.

How do you respond to concerns that the Reserved Seats for Women Bill might be seen as tokenistic or insufficient to address the deeper structural issues facing women in Nigerian society?

A – First, it’s important to define what people mean when they say “tokenism.” Tokenism is when you include one or two individuals from a marginalized group, not because you are committed to real change, but just to create the appearance of diversity. It’s a superficial representation without power or influence.

The Reserved Seats for Women Bill is the opposite of that. It is not about sprinkling a few women into politics for optics; it is about creating constitutional guarantees that open the doors of governance to women in a structured and sustainable way. By reserving seats, we are not saying women can only come in through this path. Women will still be able to contest in general seats, but the Bill ensures that no matter how steep the barriers remain, women will have a real presence in the National and State Assemblies.

Of course, this legislation alone will not erase patriarchy, cultural bias, or financial exclusion. But it will shift the baseline. Once women are inside, they gain legislative experience, visibility, and networks, which in turn help dismantle the deeper structural issues over time. In that sense, the Bill is not tokenistic at all, it is a strategic entry point, a bridge toward long-term parity.

How do you respond to critics who might argue that reserved seats are a form of “handout” or “special treatment” for women?

I think it’s important to reframe that argument. Reserved seats are not handouts, and they are certainly not about special treatment. They are corrective measures. For decades, women have been excluded from Nigeria’s political process not because they lack competence, but because the structures of our politics: party systems, financing, cultural bias, even electoral violence, have consistently blocked them out.

When a system is already tilted, creating a mechanism to level the playing field is not charity, it is justice. The Reserved Seats Bill is designed to give women a fair shot at participation by guaranteeing that their voices are present in governance. It’s worth remembering that this is a temporary

measure. It comes with a 16 years sunset clause precisely because the goal is not to create permanent exceptions, but to correct a historic imbalance so that, over time, women can compete on equal footing. So, when people call it a handout, I would counter by saying it’s really a bridge that allows women to cross into legislative spaces where they have always belonged but have too often been denied.

What role do you think men can play in supporting the Reserved Seats for Women Bill and promoting greater representation of women in Nigerian politics?

Men have a critical role to play in supporting the Reserved Seats for Women Bill and promoting greater representation of women in Nigerian politics, not just as allies, but as active participants in building a more

inclusive democracy.

The truth is that Nigerian politics has historically been designed and dominated by men, so they hold much of the influence and

decision-making power in parties, in legislatures, and in communities. That means meaningful change cannot happen without their buy-in. I believe that when male leaders, whether in politics, business, or faith

communities, speak openly in support of women’s political participation and of the Reserved Seats Bill, it reduces stigma and makes women’s leadership part of the norm rather than the exception. So this is a good

place to start.

Men can also support women candidates directly too. That means mentorship, financial support, and helping women navigate the very tough terrain of building campaign structures. These gestures are not charity; they are investments in a stronger democracy.

Men should advocate for women within their political parties. They are often the gatekeepers in party structures, so pushing for fairer nomination processes, internal quotas, or reforms that reduce the barriers for women is one of the most powerful ways they can drive change from the inside.

Men should challenge harmful norms wherever they see them. Whether it’s calling out sexist comments, refusing to condone intimidation, or raising boys and girls with the understanding that leadership has no

gender, men help shift culture in everyday ways.

And finally, men should vote for women. They should cast ballots for female candidates and, in the legislature, vote for the Reserved Seats Bill itself. Equality is not a threat, it is progress. When men back women, society wins.

How do you plan to engage with different stakeholders, including lawmakers, civil society organizations, and the general public, to build support for the Reserved Seats for Women Bill?

As host of Gender Agenda on Africa Independent Television, the only dedicated gender advocacy programme on national television, I see my platform as both a tool and a bridge for advancing the Reserved Seats for Women Bill. Through this programme, I engage lawmakers, civil society

organizations, and the wider public in conversations that bring clarity to the Bill, highlight comparative successes across Africa, and spotlight the lived realities of Nigerian women.

With lawmakers, the programme provides a space for consistent engagement. By airing evidence-based discussions, comparative case studies from countries like Rwanda, Uganda, and Guinea, and direct testimonies from constituents, I create a forum where legislators can see both the cost of exclusion and the benefits of inclusive governance. It goes beyond statistics; it humanizes the Bill and underscores its urgency. Civil society and women’s groups also use Gender Agenda as a coalition-building platform.

By featuring their voices and grassroots

stories, I help amplify their work, coordinate outreach, and strengthen the visibility of their advocacy. When their efforts are projected on national television, it creates momentum and signals that this is a united national cause.

Finally, Gender Agenda also provides a respectful avenue for engaging traditional and faith leaders. By giving them space to articulate their views, and gently challenging cultural norms that hinder representation, the programme fosters dialogue that can shift values at the heart of communities. In every sense, Gender Agenda is more than a programme; it is a convening table. It ensures that every stakeholder feels not only consulted but seen and heard, and that the Reserved Seats for Women Bill is framed as a national democratic imperative, not just a women’s issue.

What motivates you to continue advocating for women’s rights and representation, even in the face of challenges?

What keeps me going is the vision of a Nigeria where no one is invisible, especially not half of the population. Every time a young girl looks at a woman in public office and thinks, “maybe I can,” that moment expands

what is possible for her and for the country. Representation matters; it changes mindsets across generations. I am also motivated by the consequences of exclusion. They show up in very real ways: in maternal mortality, in low educational attainment for girls, in inadequate healthcare, in poor budgeting for women’s needs, in unsafe environments. Across Africa, the evidence is clear that when

women are present in governance, more attention is paid to health, education, and welfare. Inclusion literally saves lives.

Finally, I am motivated by the reminder that courage is not the absence of fear but action in its presence. The hurdles are real, but my commitment is to be part of the action that dismantles them. For me, gender advocacy is

not just about women’s representation; it is about building a democracy that works for every woman.

How do you balance your work as a gender advocate and policymaker with your personal life, and what self-care practices do you prioritize?

Balancing this calling with my personal life is never easy, but I have learned that it is necessary. I try to set clear boundaries so that there is time for rest, for family, and for friendships outside of the advocacy space.

I rely on trusted support systems, whether mentors, peer networks, or family members who understand the demands of this work and remind me to pause when needed.

Delegation has also been important. I do not try to do everything alone. Working with strong teams allows me to collaborate, share responsibilities, and stay focused on the areas where I can add the most value.

In terms of self-care, I lean on practices that ground me spiritually and emotionally. Prayer, meditation, and reflection keep me centered.

Reading and sometimes stepping away to reconnect with nature help me reset. I also turn to creative outlets, music, art, and expression, which brings balance and joy.

And I make it a point to celebrate small wins. Every time a bill moves forward, every time a woman feels encouraged, every time a young girl is inspired, that gives me fuel to keep going. Those moments remind me why the work matters and why it is worth sustaining.

What impact do you hope the Reserved Seats for Women Bill will have on the lives of Nigerian women, particularly those in marginalized or underrepresented communities?

I hope it means that women in rural areas, women with little formal education, women from minority ethnic or religious communities, and women with disabilities will finally see themselves reflected in

governance. In my role in leading public hearings for the Reserved Seats for Women’s Bill, I have come face to face with widows, farmers, and teachers, women who have never imagined that someone like them

could one day hold leadership at the state or national level. I want this bill to unlock that imagination, to give them tangible reasons to believe in governance again.

Representation is not a privilege; it is a right. And when that right is honored, development follows. Development that is not abstract but

practical, touching communities in ways that matter. It could mean more responsive laws and policies around maternal health, childcare, schooling, and safety. It could mean greater investment in infrastructure like roads and electricity, which shape women’s daily lives. It could mean that resources are allocated more fairly to address issues that predominantly affect women and girls.

Most of all, I hope the bill creates role models in local communities. When a girl in a village sees a woman elected to office, she begins to believe that leadership is possible for her too. Over time, this creates a cultural shift where women are no longer treated as exceptions in politics but as regular, indispensable features of our democracy.

How do you see the Reserved Seats for Women Bill fitting into Nigeria’s broader democratic development and efforts to strengthen governance and representation?

I see the Reserved Seats for Women Bill as part of the natural maturity of our democracy. True democracy is not just about casting ballots, it is about whose voices are heard, whose needs are represented, and whose perspectives shape the laws and policies that govern us.

For nearly 26 years, women have been largely excluded from that space, and this Bill is a

corrective measure to bring reality closer to the democratic promise of “government of the people.”

When women are included in decision-making, governance becomes stronger. Global evidence shows that corruption tends to be lower, policies become more inclusive, and social cohesion improves. Nigeria cannot continue to sideline nearly half of its population and still claim democratic

legitimacy.

Reserved seats also strengthen our credibility, both internationally and

domestically. They bring us in line with commitments we have already made, whether through CEDAW, the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, or the Sustainable Development Goals,

especially SDG 5 on gender equality.

Passing this Bill would not only transform representation within our country, it would signal to the world that Nigeria is ready to practice what it preaches about democracy and inclusion.

What are your goals and aspirations for the Reserved Seats for Women Bill, and how do you see it impacting Nigerian society?

My primary goal is for the Reserved Seats for Women Bill to pass into law as a

constitutional amendment. That is the foundation. But for me, the work does not stop at passage. Effective implementation is just as important, we must ensure that these seats are real, not symbolic. They must be properly funded, contested fairly, and backed with the institutional support that allows women to serve effectively.

Another aspiration I hold is to monitor and measure impact. Each election cycle, we need to evaluate whether these seats are doing what they are designed to do in helping women not to only occupy the reserved spaces but also gain the confidence, networks, and visibility to win in the general seats.

Reserved seats should be a launchpad, not a ceiling. On a deeper level, I want this Bill to shift culture. For too long, women in

legislative chambers have been treated as exceptions or novelties. My aspiration is for Nigerian society to see women’s leadership as normal, expected, and essential to governance.

If we achieve this, the impact on Nigerian society will be profound. We will see more just and responsive policies, stronger inclusion across every sector, and a meaningful reduction in gender inequalities. Girls growing up in Nigeria will be able to look at the National Assembly and know without doubt that they too can lead at the highest levels. Ultimately, this is about creating a

democracy where opportunity is not defined by gender, and where every voice counts equally.

What are the next steps in the passage and implementation of the Reserved Seats for Women Bill, and what role do you see yourself playing in this process?

The Reserved Seats for Women Bill, HB 1349, has already had its public hearing, and the next step is to ensure it successfully moves through the stages of legislative approval. That means securing two-thirds support in the National Assembly and, if required, ratification by the state legislatures. This is a tall order, but it is also a historic opportunity to write gender equity into the heart of our democracy.

Beyond the legislature, we need to keep building momentum. That involves continuous engagement with lawmakers, amplifying why this Bill matters, and holding conversations with different social groups so that their concerns are heard and their support consolidated. It also requires

deep collaboration with civil society—providing evidence, driving awareness, and showing ordinary Nigerians what reserved seats will mean for their daily lives.

We are also thinking ahead to implementation. Passing the Bill is not the

end of the journey. We must build mechanisms of accountability to ensure

that women who occupy reserved seats are visible, supported, and resourced and that they are not intimidated out of the space they have fought so hard to enter.

Looking back on your journey as an advocate, what advice would you give to young women who are just starting out in this field?

The first thing I would say is this: believe that your voice matters. That may sound simple, but it is often the hardest step. Many young women question whether what they feel or what they want to change is valid, and I want them to know that it absolutely is.

I would also urge them to find community. None of us succeeds alone. You need allies, mentors, and other women who will lift you up, share their mistakes as well as their victories, and remind you that you are not alone in this work.

Persistence is another lesson I have carried. Change can feel painfully slow, even invisible at times, but steady work builds momentum. Small sacrifices, consistent advocacy, and daily acts of courage eventually add up

to something larger than yourself.

And never stop learning. Whether it’s understanding policy, law, culture, or

studying what has worked in other African countries and beyond, knowledge is one of the greatest sources of power you can have as an advocate.

I also encourage young women to start local. Sometimes the most transformative changes happen in a community group or a local council. Those small wins ripple outward and prepare you for bigger battles.

Finally, care for yourself. Activism without rest leads to burnout. Celebrate the victories, however small, rest when your body and mind demand it, and keep hope alive. Because in this work, hope is fuel and without it, we cannot sustain the journey.

Hot Source
Hot News
September 29, 2025
4 views

TOWARDS CEASEFIRE DEAL IN SUDAN

Can the Quad’s ambitious plan succeed where Jeddah failed? asks SAMI ABDELHALIM SAEED

On September 12, 2025, the Quad—comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America—released a joint statement proposing a path to end the conflict in Sudan. The statement recalls that the war has provoked the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and poses grave risks to regional peace and security. The Quad ministers called for an initial three-month humanitarian truce to facilitate the swift entry of humanitarian aid, which should lead to a permanent ceasefire and an inclusive transition process immediately.

Earlier, in May 2023, the United States and Saudi Arabia facilitated lengthy negotiations between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), resulting in the signing of the Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan. Both the Jeddah Declaration and the Quad proposal share the fundamental goal of ending the conflict in Sudan, protecting civilians, and facilitating humanitarian aid. However, there are significant differences in their scope, approach, and the political context in which they were created.

Humanitarian Focus: Both initiatives prioritise addressing the humanitarian crisis. They call for the protection of civilians, ensuring safe passage, and providing unhindered access for humanitarian assistance.

Adherence to International Law: Both documents explicitly reference the obligations of the warring parties under International Humanitarian Law. The Quad proposal even references the commitments made in the Jeddah Declaration, indicating a continuity of purpose.

Rejection of a Military Solution: Both statements agree that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily and that a political solution is the only viable path forward.

Civilian-Led Governance: Both initiatives emphasise the importance of a future Sudanese government being led by civilians. They emphasise that the Sudanese people, not the warring parties, should determine their country’s future.

External Mediation: Both are products of external diplomatic efforts. The Jeddah Declaration was facilitated by Saudi Arabia and the United States. At the same time, the Quad proposal involves a broader coalition of regional and international powers (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the U.S.).

Key Differences in Scope and Approach

Scope and Detail: The Jeddah Declaration is a “Declaration of Commitment” focused on specific, on-the-ground rules of conduct for the warring parties regarding civilians and humanitarian aid. It is essentially a humanitarian and short-term ceasefire framework. In contrast, the Quad proposal is a more comprehensive political roadmap. It not only addresses humanitarian issues but also lays out a detailed timeline for a political transition, including a three-month humanitarian truce followed by a nine-month transition to civilian rule.

Actors Involved: This is a crucial distinction. The Jeddah Declaration was a direct agreement signed by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The Quad proposal is a joint statement from a group of concerned nations, not a direct agreement between the warring parties themselves.

This is the fundamental point at which the Quartet initiative differs from the Jeddah Declaration. The challenge facing the Quartet initiative is how to persuade the two parties to sit down for negotiations and sign a ceasefire agreement. This challenge tests the Quartet countries’ influence on both parties, as well as the strength and cohesion of the Quartet alliance itself. It is necessary to consider the Jeddah Declaration as part of the negotiating framework, as it represents the foundations of the ceasefire and was previously signed by the parties under the auspices of Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Rejection of Specific Groups: The Quad proposal goes a step further by explicitly rejecting a role for “violent extremist groups part of or evidently linked to the Muslim Brotherhood” in Sudan’s political future. This political dimension was not explicitly stated in the initial

Jeddah Declaration.

After the war lasted for more than two years, the role of extremist and violent groups became prominent. Social media has begun documenting the roles of these groups and the crimes they commit. Due to their danger and clearly growing role, the US Treasury Department issued sanctions against some of them, describing them as a threat to regional stability.

External Military Support: The Quad proposal specifically calls for an end to external military support to the conflict parties, acknowledging a key factor that has prolonged the war. The Jeddah Declaration, while focused on the actions of the SAF and RSF, did not explicitly address the role of foreign powers in supplying them.

An Uphill Battle: Challenges Facing the Quad Proposal: Despite its comprehensive nature, the Quad proposal faces several significant challenges, primarily stemming from its nature as a high-level diplomatic plan rather than a signed agreement.

Lack of Buy-in from Warring Parties: The most immediate challenge is the lack of direct commitment from the SAF and RSF. The Sudanese government, aligned with the SAF, has already rejected the proposal. It has pushed back against the suggestion of being excluded from a post-war transition, arguing that only the Sudanese people, led by existing institutions, should decide their future. Both the SAF and the RSF are still pursuing a military victory, making it unlikely that they will agree to a political process that would sideline them. The SAF has repeatedly refused direct negotiations with the RSF, a stance observers attribute to the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood within key military institutions, which insist on being part of the future political equation.

Failure of Past Agreements: The Jeddah Declaration itself, despite being a signed commitment, was repeatedly violated. This history of non-compliance raises doubts about whether the warring parties will honour a new proposal, especially one perceived as being imposed from the outside. Members of the former National Congress Party and Islamists within the military fear any future change that might lead to accountability for past crimes and corruption. This fear is also present within the RSF leadership, which has committed widespread violations of the rules of war.

External Influence and Proxy Conflicts: The proposal’s call to end external military support acknowledges a significant challenge. The conflict is fueled by foreign powers providing arms and funding to both sides. Persuading these external actors to cease their support is a significant diplomatic hurdle, complicated by the fact that some Quad members have themselves been accused of taking sides.

Internal Divisions within Sudan: The proposal calls for an “inclusive and transparent transition process.” However, unifying Sudan’s diverse political and civil society groups is a monumental task. The conflict has deepened existing political, ethnic, and regional divisions, with numerous factions holding competing visions for the country’s future.

Ambitious Timeline and Weak Enforcement: The proposed timeline—a three-month truce followed by a nine-month transition—is highly ambitious given the ongoing hostilities. Without a robust and effective enforcement mechanism, this timeline risks being disregarded, as were previous ceasefire attempts. The Quad’s ability to “exercise their good offices” and “discuss further steps” may be insufficient to compel compliance.

Whatever else is said about the Quad Initiative, it is the result of international and regional consensus to halt the devastating war that has been ongoing in Sudan since 2023, during which thousands of people have died. The country’s infrastructure has been destroyed to an extent unprecedented in any other war. The initiative came after the world had remained silent on the war in Sudan for so long that the Sudanese felt the world had abandoned them to death, destruction, and genocide. This initiative is expected to achieve many milestones in favour of peace if it succeeds in engaging all influential actors in the Sudanese political scene and exerting pressure on the warring parties.

Dr Saeed, a Sudanese constitutional lawyer, is the Vice President of the African Network of Constitutional Lawyers (ANCL), based in Cape Town, South Africa. He can be reached via: advosami@gmail.com

Can the Quad’s ambitious plan succeed where Jeddah failed? asks SAMI ABDELHALIM SAEED On September 12, 2025, the Quad—comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States of

Hot SOURCE News

Or check our Popular Categories...

Hot SOURCE News

Or check our Popular Categories...

When Contradictions in Prosecution’s Evidence are Incapable of Undermining Prosecution’s Case

Related

Hot Source

Related Posts

Sydney-Jack: Why N’Assembly Should Pass Reserved Seats for Women Bill

TOWARDS CEASEFIRE DEAL IN SUDAN

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Business & Economy

New Tax Regime and Industrialisation, Investments Concerns

Best Western Plus Yenagoa Set to Revolutionise Hospitality in Bayelsa State

FG Urged to Focus on Agriculture, Manufacturing, Trade, to Translate Growth to Prosperity

FIRS, ADEDEJI AND TINUBU’S $1 TRILLION ECONOMY

NBC Spurs Recycling Awareness in Apapa on World Clean-Up Day

Ayinde: Poor Regulatory Support for POS Operators Threat to Cashless Economy

Nigerians Get over 225,000 Electricity Meters in Q2 Amid 5.4m Deficit

Market Cap Hits N90trn on Demand for MTN, BUA Cement, Others

NEITI: Why Nigeria Must Reform Solid Minerals Sector Now

Premium Power Solutions to Graduate First Technician Academy on October 6

FIRSTHOLDCO tops trading volume as All-Share Index surpasses N90 trillion

Strike: Court restrains PENGASSAN from cutting gas supply to Dangote refinery

CPPE calls for stronger social protection measures to sustain Nigeria’s economic gains

CBN’s shift to orthodox monetary policy restores investor confidence – Ugo Obi-Chukwu

CJN reveals Supreme Court delivered 369 judgments from 2,280 matters in one year

FAAN launches contactless payments at Lagos, Abuja Airports

Strike: PENGASSAN shuts down NNPC, NMDPRA, NUPRC headquarters

Independence Day: FG declares October 1 public holiday

Explore Kapital Villa by Mshel Homes

Nigeria Police Academy begins screening for 12th Regular Course on October 6

Trump to impose 100% tariff on foreign-made films

FG secures N250 billion for Kaduna, Kano light rail projects

MTN Group backs Nigeria’s push for African language AI datasets

NELFUND to close 2024/2025 session loan application September 30

Utility-Scale Solar EPC and BESS projects take root in Nigeria

FCMB converts N23bn loan to shares, lists 3.16bn units on NGX

Why 25% CGT for share sale is self-inflicted wound for Nigeria

Tinubu makes NERD compliance mandatory for NYSC mobilisation

Lagos unveils two-year flood plan to integrate lakes, canals

NGX Group forges stronger policy-market alignment through dialogue on Tax Reforms

Naira trades at N1,485/$ on Monday as Dollar index falls

Investing in health, securing our future: Leading the way with Nnobi

Top NGX oil and gas companies by revenue in H1 2025

Top 10 most profitable consumer goods companies in Nigeria, H1 2025

Nigeria’s top 10 most downloaded fintech apps in Q3 2025

Otedola files N1 billion libel suit against Umar Sani, denies subsidy allegations

Explore Kapital Villa by Mshel Homes  