Opinion
ABBA KYARI AND THE TALE OF TWO CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONS
Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
Let us today deal with SuperCop, Abba Kyari and the tale of two jurisdictions conundrum. This is a serious constitutional, legal and political quandary matter.
BACKGROUND TO US’s APPLICATION FOR THE SURRENDER OF ABBA KYARI
The Diplomatic Representative of the U.S. Embassy in Abuja had made a request for the surrender of 46 year old Abba Alhaji Kyari, over the pending charges against Abba Kyari in the US. This request is allegedly based on the relationship of Kyari with Ramon Olorunwa Abbas, a 37 year old self-confessed international fraudster, popularly known as Hushpuppi. Hushpuppi had alleged that he bribed Abba Kyari to arrest and jail Kelly Chibuzor Vincent, one of his rivals in Nigeria, following a dispute over a $1.1 million scam on a Qatari business man. Kyari had denied any wrongdoing.
THEN NDLEA APPEARED ON THE SCENE
While on suspension over his role in the Hushpuppi’s case, Abba Kyari was arrested by the NDLEA in an alleged 17.5kg cocaine deal and allegedly tampering with 25kg worth of cocaine. As investigation into the said NDLEA case was ongoing, Kyari applied for his bail on health grounds. The NDLEA then secured a court order for further detention of Kyari and 6 others for 14 days. Indeed, immediately the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, okayed Kyari’s extradition, NDLEA suddenly slapped an eight count charge on him before the Federal High Court, Abuja. Was this a mere coincidence? Are some top level persons working hard to stall Kyari’s extradition for fear he may be squeezed and made to squeal when he gets to the US? Can the ongoing investigation, subsisting court remand order and fresh charge stall the extradition of Abba Kyari to the United States of America? This is the kernel of our discourse today and next week.
WHAT IS EXTRADITION?
Extradition is a process by which a person accused or convicted of a crime is officially transferred to the State where the person is either wanted for trial or required to serve a sentence after being duly convicted by a court of law.
NIGERIA HAS EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE USA
Nigeria has an extradition agreement with the USA by virtue of an Extradition Treaty signed between the UK and the US, dated the 22nd December, 1931. The Treaty came into force on 24th June, 1935. By virtue of Article 16 of the Treaty, it was made applicable to all British protectorates of which Nigeria was one. Article 16 of the Treaty provides:
“This Treaty shall apply in the same manner as if they were Possessions of His Britannic Majesty to the following British Protectorates, that is to say, the Bechuanaland Protectorate, Gambia Protectorate, Kenya Protectorate, Nigeria Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia, Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Nyasaland, Sierra Leone Protectorate, Solomon Islands Protectorate, Somaliland Protectorate, Swaziland, Uganda Protectorate and Zanzibar, and to the following territories in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, that is to say, Cameroons under British mandate, Togoland under British mandate, and the Tanganyika Territory.”
By Article 1 of the treaty, the contracting parties agreed to deliver up to each other (under certain circumstances and conditions), persons who, being accused or convicted of any of the crimes or offences enumerated in Article 3, committed within the jurisdiction of the one Party, are found within the territory of the other Party. There are 27 offences enumerated in Article 3. The crimes which touch on the substance of this article are the 18th and the 22nd: Obtaining money by false pretences; receiving any money, valuable security, or other property, knowing the same to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained and the offering, giving or receiving of bribes respectively. Some elements of the offence for which Abba Kyari was declared wanted in the United States of America include obtaining money/assets through fraudulent means.
By Article 4 of the treaty, extradition shall not take place if the subject has already been tried and discharged or punished for the offences over which he or she is wanted.
Article 5 states that extradition shall not take place if, after the commission of the offence or filing of criminal charges or conviction, exemption from prosecution was acquired by lapse of time according to the laws of the two countries involved.
By Article 6 of the Treaty, a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered for extradition if the offence for which his extradition is sought is of a political nature, or if the subject could prove that the demand for the extradition was made in order to punish him for an offence of a political nature.
Article 9 of the treaty states that extradition shall only take place if the evidence is found to be sufficient according to the laws of the contracting party applied to, to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial, in case the crime or offence had been committed in the territory of such High Contracting Party. In the case of ANUEBUNWA v. A.G., it was held that:
“The whole essence of an extradition proceeding … is for the Applicant to establish by credible evidence, that is by producing to the judge in the case of a fugitive criminal accused of an offence claimed to be an extradition offence, a warrant issued outside Nigeria authorizing the arrest of the fugitive.”
Two doctrines come into play when the extradition of a person is sought. There is the first- the doctrine of ‘Specialty’ or ‘Specialty Doctrine’. This doctrine requires that a person whose extradition is sought can only be tried for the crime for which his extradition was requested, and none other. Upon surrender of a fugitive, by a state where he sought refuge, the requesting state must only prosecute and convict such a person simply for the very crime for which his extradition was requested and for none other offence committed before the surrender of such fugitive. In the US case of States V. Raucher (119 U.S. 407, 7S.Ct. 234, 30 L.Ed. 425(1886)), the court held that an accused shall not be arrested or tried for any other offence other than that for which he was charged in the extradition proceedings. In a situation where a state prosecutes a fugitive for an offence other than that which the fugitive was extradited, it will be tantamount to an abuse of the principles of extradition.
The second doctrine is the doctrine of ‘Double Criminality’. It states that before a person can be extradited for an offence, such extradition offence or the offence for which a person’s extradition is sought, must constitute an offence or crime in both jurisdictions. In the case of Collins V. Loisel (259 U.S. 309, 42 S.Ct. 49, 66L.Ed.956 (1922)), the American Supreme Court held that the name by which the crime is described in the two countries need not be the same; nor must the punishment be the same. The requirement of double criminality is simply met if the particular act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES
NIGERIA’S EXTRADITION ACT
The Extradition Act, Cap E. 25, LFN, 2004, is the Act regulating the extradition of fugitive offenders/criminals in Nigeria. A “fugitive criminal” is defined in Section 21 of the Extradition Act as:
a. “Any person accused of an extradition offence committed within the jurisdiction of a country other than Nigeria; or
b. Any person, who, having been convicted of an extradition offence in a country other than Nigeria, is unlawfully at large before the expiration of a sentence imposed on him for that offence, being in either case a person who is, or is suspected of being, in Nigeria.”
Where an extradition request has been received by the Attorney General, he is obliged to decide (on available information), if the surrender is precluded by any of the provisions of section 3(1) to (7) of the Act. If the surrender of a fugitive criminal is not so precluded, he is to inform a magistrate that an extradition request has been received by him and thus require the magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, where the extradition of a fugitive criminal is so precluded by Section 3(1) to (7), then he need not inform the magistrate of the receipt of any such request (Section 6 (2)).
In the case of George Udeozor V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) LPELR-CA/L/376/05, the court held:
“Nothing in the Act gives the court the powers to question the discretion of the Hon. Attorney General in those matters, as the Hon. Attorney General exercises his constitutional duty under section 174 of the 1999 constitution.”
However, the Attorney General may, under section 8 (3), if he thinks fit, order the warrant cancelled and the fugitive released, if already arrested. Where a fugitive has been arrested, he shall, under section 8 (5) be brought before a magistrate as soon as is feasible and the magistrate shall either remand him in custody or grant him bail, depending on the receipt of an order from the Attorney-General. This order shall notify the Magistrate that a request for the fugitive’s surrender has been received; or give an order for the cancellation of the warrant and the release of the fugitive.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE NIGERIA-US TREATY AGREEMENT
Nigeria and the US have an existing Extradition Agreement for the surrender of persons wanted for prosecution or punishment. Section 3 of the Extradition Act stipulates instances where a person will not be surrendered for prosecution or punishment, notwithstanding the application for surrender by a foreign country. According to Section 3 of the said Act, a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence in respect of which his surrender is sought is an offence of a political character; or that the request for his surrender, although purporting to be made in respect of an extradition Crime, was in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race; religion, nationality or political opinions or was otherwise not made in good faith or in the interests of justice; or that, if surrendered, he is likely to be prejudiced at his trial, or to be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty, by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
A fugitive criminal shall also not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence is of a trivial nature; or that due to the passage of time since the commission, of the offence, it would, be unjust or oppressive, or be too severe a punishment, to surrender the offender.
A fugitive criminal shall also not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, such fugitive has been convicted of the offence for which his surrender is sought; or has been acquitted thereof, and that, he is not unlawfully at large.
Similarly, a fugitive criminal shall also not be surrendered if criminal proceedings are pending against him in Nigeria for the offence for which his surrender is sought.
In the same vein, by virtue section 3(6) of the Act, a fugitive who has been charged with an offence under the laws of Nigeria or any part thereof, not being the offence for which his surrender is sought, or who is serving a sentence imposed in respect of any such offence by a court in Nigeria, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged whether by acquittal: or on the expiration of his sentence or otherwise.
The last two scenarios pointed above are apposite in Abba Kyari’s case. He is now standing trial under the NDLEA criminal charge. The extradition request must therefore await the outcome of this trial by the Federal High Court, Abuja.
A fugitive criminal shall also not be Surrendered to any country unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that provision is made by the law of that country, or that special arrangements have been made, such that, so long as the fugitive has not had a reasonable opportunity of returning to Nigeria, he will not be detained or tried in that country for any offence committed before his surrender other than any extradition offence which may be proved by the facts on which his surrender is granted. Has Abubakar Malami ensured this? Let him tell Nigerians if the US may not try Abba Kyari for another offence different from his alleged offence with Hushpuppi.
THE EXTRADITION HEARING
If at the end of thirty days from the day of the arrest, no
order was received from the Attorney General, the fugitive offender must be released. There must be a hearing in order to determine if the fugitive ought to be extradited or otherwise. The magistrate is free to receive evidence that proves that the offence for which the fugitive is wanted is not an extradition offence; or any evidence that proves that his extradition is prohibited either under the act or under any relevant extradition agreement. The Court in Udeozor V. FRN, (supra), in stating the purpose of a hearing in extradition proceedings held thus:
“The purpose of a hearing which is in fact purely at the discretion of the Attorney General is not to ask the fugitive criminal if he desires to be extradited. That will be ridiculous. The purpose is to determine whether the requisition made shows sufficient cause to warrant extradition… to hold otherwise will be ridiculous…… “The purpose of the hearing in a trial court upon the application Hon. Attorney General is not for the trial of the fugitive criminal. Rather, it is to invoke the exercise of the judicial powers of the court over the fugitive accused as the court would over an accused person standing trial before it. In the circumstance, those powers are preliminary to the eventual trial of the fugitive accused, such as the power to remand or to release on bail pending the completion of investigation. It is not a criminal trial but a preliminary to such trial which shall take place where the offences are alleged to have been committed.”
HOW EXTRADITION REQUEST IS MADE
By virtue of Section 6(1) of the Extradition Act of Nigeria, a request for the surrender of a fugitive criminal in Nigeria must be made in writing to the Attorney General of the federation by a diplomatic representative of the requesting state and this should be accompanied by a duly authenticated warrant of arrest in the case of a fugitive criminal accused of an extraditable offence; and where the fugitive has been convicted of an extraditable offence, the written request must be accompanied by certificate of conviction issued in the requesting country. It should be noted that the essence of attaching a warrant of arrest or a certificate of conviction is to prevent frivolous requests that have no basis supporting the request. It is also important as it helps to prove that there exist sufficient facts necessitating the request for extradition. Where an extradition request has been received by the Attorney General, it is required that on the basis of the information available to him, he is obliged to decide if the surrender is precluded by any of the provisions of Section 3(1) to (8) for the refusal of extradition request. The Magistrate, under section 8 has powers to remand the fugitive, or grant him bail; or cancel a warrant and release a fugitive; as if he was trying the fugitive for an offence committed within his jurisdiction.
Consequently, if the surrender of a fugitive criminal is not precluded by the provisions of that section, he is to inform a magistrate that an extradition request has been received by him and thus require the magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, where the extradition of a fugitive criminal is precluded by the provisions of section 3(1) to (7), then he need not inform the magistrate of the receipt of any such request.
From the above provisions, it is fundamental to note that the authority conferred on the Attorney General to determine if an application is competent in relation to section 3 cannot be contested. It is only when the request has been transferred to the magistrate that the judicial process of inquiring into the case and the competence of the request can be begin. However, where the Attorney General decides that the request is precluded by section 3, then nothing can be done about it. It must be reiterated that in the process of extradition, the powers of the Attorney General are wide; but limited once he approaches a Magistrate, who thereby become dominus litis.
THE PENDING NDLEA CHARGE AND ABBA KYARI: THE NEXUS
Abba Kyari NDLEA’s pending charge before the Federal High Court has definitely put the whole extradition process on hold if the court decides to remand him pending the determination of the suit against him.
It is also important to emphasis that while the matter is pending in court, Abba Kyari is pressumed innocent until proven guilty as contained in Section 36 (5) provides that:”every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”.
This is also sanctioned by Article 1(1) of the UDHR, 1948; Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; and Article 7(b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Cap A9, LFN, 2004. Presumption of innocence is the golden thread that runs through our criminal justice system. See the case of The King v. Richardson & Anor (1985) Leach 387; Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC- 462; Ali v. State (2012) 190 NWLR (Pt 1309) 642;
Even if the Federal High Court were to give its judgment against Abba Kyari, he is still entitled to appeal such a judgment at the Court of Appeal, and even further to the Supreme Court.
Section 3(6) of the Extradition Act makes it clear that a fugitive criminal who has been charged with an offence under the law of Nigeria or any part thereof, not being the offence for which his surrender is sought, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged whether by acquittal or on the expiration of his sentence or otherwise. As stated above, the NDLEA has filed an eight count charge against Abba Kyari and six others for their alleged involvement in drug trafficking, barely 24 hours after the Attorney-General filed an application for the extradition of Kyari. It is important to note that Abubakar Malami, SAN, the Attorney-General of the Federation, is also the Minister of Justice. By virtue of Section 2(1) (f) of the NDLEA ACT, the Federal Ministry of Justice, headed by Abubakar Malami, SAN, has a representative in the Board/composition of the NDLEA. So, now that he is aware of the NDLEA charge, can the Chief Law Officer of the Federation consent to the prosecution of someone whose application for extradition is pending? What is the legal implication of this?
The case of A.G FED v. JONES (2017) LPELR-43551(CA), is worth considering. Though, the case was decided under Section 3(5) of the Extradition Act, some key observations made by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal are worth noting. The Appellant (A.G. Fed) had filed an application before the trial court seeking to extradite the Respondent on a diplomatic request from the United States of America on indictment, in Case No.11-CR0299, filed on the 28th day of April, 2011, for the offences of conspiracy to commit wired fraud and conspiracy to commit identity theft all in violation of US Laws. The Application was duly supported by an affidavit and exhibits, which inter alia, included a certified true copy of the indictment issued against the Respondents; certified true copy of the warrant of arrest issued by the US District Court for the arrest of the Respondent; and a photograph of the Respondent. The Respondent contested the proceedings, contending that the application was incompetent because as at the time of the application, there was an existing charge at the Akure High Court on charges similar to those he was being sought to be extradited to face in the United States of America. The Appellant contended that as at the time the application for extradition was ripe for hearing, the existing charge had already been withdrawn. The trial Court disagreed and found against the Appellant and discharged the Respondent.
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was emphatic that the main thrust of the appeal failed. It was consequently dismissed. Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, concurring with the lead judgment, held at page 26, that:
“… The provision of Section 3(5) of the Extradition Act is clear and unambiguous. It states: “A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if criminal proceedings are pending against him in Nigeria for the offence for which his surrender is sought.” It is obvious from the above provision that no extradition proceedings shall be brought against a fugitive criminal when there is a pending criminal proceedings against him. In the instant appeal, it is evident that the Appellant failed and/or neglected to comply with the mandatory provision of the statute.”
Regarding the uncoordinated role the Attorney-General played with the EFCC, Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, J.C.A. (delivering the Lead judgment) held that:
“The issue is not the timely withdrawal of the pending charges because the statutory requirement is that no proceedings should be pending when the application for extradition is made. The point of filing the application a decision was taken by the Attorney General to want to surrender the fugitive. The Appellant is wrong to think that it is only at the point of surrender that Section 3 (5) comes into play. It is activated on the filing of an application for extradition. The Attorney General would have decided on extraditing a fugitive before filing the application. The section applies in this case. The simple expectation is that the prosecuting authorities should work in a coordinated fashion complimenting themselves and not to be at cross purposes. The EFCC was already prosecuting the Respondent on charges similar to those he was being sought to be extradited to face in the United States of America and the simple thing would have been some sort of coordination by the EFCC and the office of the Attorney General of the Federation so that whatever was pending should be withdrawn before the filing of the application or the office of the Attorney to ensure that no proceedings were pending before filing the application. This was not done.”
As is provided in Section 3(6) of the Extradition Act and in line with the above judgment, a person such as Abba Kyari, who is charged with any offence not being the offence for which his surrender is sought, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or on the expiration of his sentence or otherwise. The statutory requirement is that no extradition proceedings for Kyari’s surrender should be going on until such time as he has either been discharged acquitted or convicted. By his actions, the Attorney-General of the Federation appears to be stalling, tacitly, the extradition of Abba Kyari, by allowing or consenting to the prosecution of Kyari for his alleged involvement in drug trafficking simultaneously as the pendency of an application for his extradition by the same Attorney-General. Since the court will assume jurisdiction on the criminal matter the moment Kyari is arraigned and his plea taken, the Attorney-General of the Federation still has the time to quietly back-off before the criminal court assumes jurisdiction and await the court’s decision. It is more honourable to do so.
By Prof. Mike A. A. Ozekhom, SAN, CON , OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.SC, DA, DHL
Labour has literally grounded Nigeria – from airports, hospitals, tertiary institutions, to electricity which has plunged the biggest black nation on earth into total darkness. I am in full, complete and total support of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress’ (TUC)’s current national strike for upward review of the FG’s proposed minimum wage of N60,000 per month. NLC and TUC had also demanded that the government reverses the increase in electricity tariff to N65/KWH. When talks broke down with none of the parties shifting grounds, Labour commenced a strike action on the midnight of Sunday 2nd June, 2024. FG’s proposed meagre salary is certainly not a living wage in today’s Nigeria. At the current parallel market exchange rate of N1,470 to one dollar, the wage being conceded by the Federal Government to labour is a mere $40.82 per month (N60,000), while the NLC and TUC are asking for a whooping N615,500 per month.
By way of comparative analysis with some other countries globally, the monthly minimum wage in the United States is US$1,160 ( N1,705,200); UK £1,376 (N2,528,950); Canada 2,464 CAD (N2,710,400); France £1,539.42 (N2,847,927); Ghana GHC 2,904 (N292,548.96) Rwanda RWF 56,668 (N64,602); South Africa R4,067.2 – R4,412.8 (N322,406.944 – N349,802.656); Botswana P1,168 (N122,056); Germany £1,985.6 (N3,673,360) Australia AUD3531.2 (N 3,490,414.64); Kenya is KES15,201 (N172,683.36). In UAE, there is no general minimum wage as it differs from profession to profession. However, for skilled Labourers AED 5,000 (N2,019,435); people with University degrees AED12,000 (N4,846,644); qualified technicians AED 7,000 (N2,827,209); South Korea is 2,010,580 Won (N2,161,574.558). China differs from city to city. However, Shanghai is RMB 2,690 per month (N551,181) and Heilongjiang RMB 1,450 (N 297,105). Singapore does not prescribe a general minimum wage for all its workers. However, the minimum Singaporean wage is averaged at 6,792SGD/Month = N7,464,408).
Even though Rwanda and Botswana’s minimum wage per month which is RWF 56,668 (N64,602) and P1,168 (N122,056), respectively, appears meagre, the two countries have since put in place social services that cushion the masses’ suffering and put them on a developmental path. Imdeed, they are two of the fastest growing economies not only in Africa, but also in the world. We do not have such in Nigeria. Nigeria is perhaps the only country in the world that brazenly defies Isaac Newton’s Law of Motion to the effect that “what goes up must come down”. In Nigeria, once prices of good go up, they never come down.
Are these countries and us not living on the same Planet earth? We are, of course.
With the present spirally inflation, N60,000 cannot even buy one bag of rice which today sells for between N80,000 and N120,000 depending on the grade and quality.
What is the way forward from this FG-Labour face-off and stalemate? Part of the solution lies in steering a middle course between labour’s N615,500 per month demand and the FG’s proposal of N60,000 per month. This is more so having regard to the impossibility of the private sector, especially small scale businesses and private professions, having the capacity and economic wherewithal to pay such exorbitant wage. Another solution lies in public office holders making deliberate sacrifices in the midst of public angst and disenchantment by cutting down their ostentatiously vulgar lifestyle of ugly display of opulence and their sheer exhibitionism of wealth in mindless convoys of vehicles in the midst of grinding poverty and wretchedness of the masses. The Nigerian people are not happy at all. Anyone who advises the government to the contrary is nothing but a fawner, bootlicker, ego masseur, toady flatterer and clapper.
By Ehichioya Ezomon
Has the political heat in Rivers State simmered in the past week to suggest perhaps – just perhaps – that conventional wisdom has taken hold of the dramatis personae in the crisis to pull back from the precipice they’ve pushed the state in the last eight months?
There’s nothing on the ground to suggest otherwise, even as Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Chief Nyesom Wike, played their brand of politics at separate locations, trying to undo each other in showcasing achievements in their official jurisdictions, to mark one-year in the saddles in Rivers and Abuja, respectively.
Amid “all the distractions from those that want to draw Rivers State backward,” Fubara invited prominent persons from within and outside Rivers – including Abia State Governor Alex Otti of the rival Labour Party (LP), and former Rivers Governor Peter Odili – to launch projects he “executed in record time, and with full payments to the contractors” – an obvious dig at Wike for allegedly failing to pay contractors for their services.
As is the routine in Rivers governance, especially since the Wike’s helm, Fubara, using his “State of the State” address to render account of his one-year stewardship, revealed the “huge debts to contractors” that Wike left behind for his government.
At the Dr. Obi Wali International Conference Centre in Port Harcourt on Wednesday, May 29, Fubara said his administration “inherited 34 uncompleted projects, valued at over N225.279bn in 13 local government areas of the state,” adding that the contractors, who executed the 34 projects, have come to him for payments.
Fubara stated that though he inherited a state, “whose economy was on a declining trajectory despite its growth potential,” his government has changed the narrative for the better by “increasing astronomically internally-generated revenue from N12 billion to between N17 billion in off-peak periods and N28 billion during the peak months.”
“Our liberalized business-friendly economic policies and programmes are boosting confidence and attracting local and international investors and investments into the State, judging by the expression of interest offers we receive every month.” Fubara said.
“We have kept our taxes low, frozen the imposing of taxes on small businesses across the State, and increased the ease of doing business by eliminating bureaucratic bottlenecks. No request for the signing of a certificate of occupancy (CoO) remains in my office beyond two days, except if I am otherwise engaged beyond two days or out of town.
“We have established a N4 billion matching fund with the Bank of Industry (BOI), to support existing and new micro, small, and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs) to grow their businesses to drive economic growth and create jobs and wealth for citizens. Over 3,000 citizens and residents have applied to access this loan to fund their businesses at a single-digit interest rate, and a repayment period of up to five years.”
Commissioning the completed projects – mostly inherited from the Wike administration (2015-2023) – the invited guests heaped praises on Fubara, not only for achieving commendable strides within a short time, but also for “liberating Rivers State” from Wike’s stranglehold – the same Wike that some of the invitees had praised to the heavens barely a year ago.
For instance, Dr Odili, an erstwhile ally of Wike, noted that Fubara “has taken full control of governance in the State,” stressing that the governor is “focusing on the people” in line with his chosen mantra: ‘People First’. It’s on Saturday, May 25, at the inauguration of the dualised Omoku-Egbema road in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni local government area (ONELGA) of the state.
An elated Odili even predicted a seamless second-term election for Fubara in 2027, and urged him to remain focused on the people, giving succour to the less-privileged and hope to those who do not have anyone to help them go through life’s challenges.
“I can tell our people that the next election is very far, but what the Governor has done so far, is enough to secure the support of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area going forward,” Odili said. “Thank you, Your Excellency, because the greatest assets of the State remain the people, not oil and gas.
“The people of Rivers are behind you, rallying support for you because they trust you, believing in what you say and convinced that you mean whatever you say,” Odili said, adding, “I want to agree with you that the sky would become the takeoff point of your administration.”
Relatedly in Abuja, it’s Wike’s days in the sky. Though he didn’t have the luxury of throwing brickbats at Fubara – and there’s no surrogates to do same for him – Wike had the rare privilege of enlisting President Bola Tinubu to launch some of the projects that were “abandoned for decades,” and received applause from Tinubu for returning and restoring Abuja’s Master Plan, and transforming the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
On Tuesday, May 28, at the commissioning of the Southern Parkway, which Wike proclaimed as “Bola Ahmed Tinubu Way” – a crucial infrastructure project that’s dormant for 13 years before Wike’s intervention – the President described the minister’s vision as “inspiring many and yielding remarkable results in the FCT.”
Tinubu said: “Barr Nyesom Wike, ‘Mr. Project,’ thank you for giving us this home and for your sincere commitment to shared values. Your revolutionary vision is inspiring many and yielding remarkable results in the FCT.”
Highlighting the significance of the road, the President said, “The Southern Parkway not only connects vital areas within the FCT, but also symbolises our collective aspirations for connectivity, ease of livelihood, and progress. This road will enhance mobility, ease traffic congestion, and spur economic development for residents and visitors alike.
“Infrastructure is an enabler of jobs, economic growth, and prosperity. We are committed to building a world-class capital city, and the completion of this road is a testament to that commitment. Making our citizens the central focus of our development is crucial for Nigeria’s success,” Tinubu stated.
Earlier, Wike noted: “This landmark project is the first amongst nine visionary projects scheduled for commissioning by Mr. President in the coming days. It represents a significant milestone in our collective efforts to enhance the infrastructure and livability of our great capital and her inhabitants.
“As we mark the first year of your transformative leadership, Mr. President, this event underscores our shared commitment to progress, innovation, and the enduring prosperity of Nigeria.”
Yet, the make-for-the-cameras pomp and ceremony, razzmatazz, accolades, hand-pumping and backslapping by politicians in Port Harcourt and Abuja are but a temporary relief or diversion to mask the “real politic” in Rivers, where Governor Fubara’s fighting the battle of his life to cage Chief Wike, and save his governorship and political career heading into the 2027 General Election.
The fourth installment of this article on Monday, May 27, 2024, examined two strategies that Fubara could adopt to handle Wike and his sacked loyal members of the Rivers Assembly, and local council chairmen, whose tenure ends in June 2024, but have vowed to remain in office until “elected officials” were installed in the Rivers local councils. Below’s a recap:
First, Fubara could evict the lawmakers from the Rivers State House of Assembly Residential Quarters in Port Harcourt – where they and their families domicile, and use as a legislative chamber – to deny them the venue and avenue to make laws and/or plot his impeachment.
Second, Fubara could copy his counterparts, and withhold the lawmakers’ emoluments, and allocations to the legislature – as he’s allegedly done to the April 2024 allocations to the councils – to checkmate the legislators, whose seats have lately been redeclared “vacant” by a Rivers High Court.
Let’s now proceed to interrogate the remaining measures, beginning with the Third, as follows: When push comes to shove, Fubara could muscle the pro-Wike lawmakers by physical attacks on them, their homes and businesses, the aim being to overraw, and hound them, to sabotage their plans to make his government ungovernable, and pave the way for his impeachment – the aim of the lawmakers from onset of the Rivers crisis.
Recall Fubara’s declaration about the lawmakers early in 2024: “I think it has gotten to a time when I need to make a statement on this thing, so that they (lawmakers) understand that they are not existing. Their existence and whatever they have been doing is because I allowed them to do so. If I don’t recognise them, they are nowhere. That is the truth.
“I can say here, with all amount of boldness, I have never called any police man anywhere to go and harass anybody. I have never gone anywhere to ask anybody to do anything against anybody.
“Even when I have all the instruments of State powers, I have shown restraint, I have acted as a big brother in the course of this crisis. I have not acted like a young man that may want the house to be destroyed but, I have behaved like a mature young man that I am.
“This is because I know that no meaningful development will be achieved in an atmosphere of crisis. And because our intention for Rivers State is to build on the foundation that had been laid by our past leaders, it will be wrong for me to take the path of promoting crisis.”
Interpreted, the pro-Wike lawmakers – already in the lurch over series of court rulings sacking and re-sacking them, and voiding all legislative actions they took in the course of the Rivers crisis – shouldn’t underrate Fubara’s powers and resolve – if pushed against the wall – to roar like the lion, attack like the hyena and bite like the crocodile!
Barring any “political earthquake” this week in the Rivers crisis, the remaining measures Fubara could deploy to arrest Wike’s alleged hegemonic hold on Rivers State will be interrogated in the next installment of this running header!
- Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria
Sent from my iPad. Ehichioya
Ezomon.
By Tunde Olusunle
When he flung Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, (SLS) out of the window of the Emir’s palace in Kano four years ago, Abdullahi Ganduje would have least imagined what is playing out today. Ganduje was the “Lord of the Manor” in Kano State, the all-powerful chief executive. Recall video clips of Ganduje allegedly stuffing wads and packs of crisp, mint-fresh dollar bills into the bottomless pocket of his babanriga ahead of the 2019 general elections. They were reportedly gifted to him by some contractor ally of the erstwhile Kano governor who was repaying a good turn. Graphic and unassailable as that short motion picture was, former President Muhammadu Buhari who rode into office on the camelback of now suspect integrity in 2015, volunteered a baffling defence for Ganduje. He swore Ganduje was most probably participating in a Kannywood movie, the way the film industry up North is described. Buhari who has never been known to operate a tablet, nay a notepad, suggested that advanced technology could actually simulate what we all saw in that short clip!
Ganduje was the prototype alagbara ma m’ero as we say in Yoruba. This interpretes as the “maximally muscular, minimally reasonable.” He fought a few other prominent Kano leaders during his heydays in Government House. Recall he carried his unabated squabbles with one of his predecessors, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso to the State House, Aso Villa, during the early weeks of the Bola Tinubu government. Told on one occasion that Kwankwaso was in a particular section of Aso Rock same time as he was in the complex, a vexed Ganduje said Kwankwaso should consider himself fortunate. He said he, Ganduje would have slapped Kwankwaso if he sighted him in the Villa! That would have caused a scene in Nigeria’s seat of power. I’m now just imagining how Tinubu would be trying to restrain Ganduje, in the forecourt of the office of the President, while Vice President Kashim Shettima will be pulling at Kwankwaso’s agbada in a bid to manage the situation.
Ganduje reportedly considered Sanusi too independent-minded and outspoken for a natural ruler. Sanusi was governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, (CBN), before being appointed Emir in 2014. He had always had a radical streak about him which culminated in his suspension as CBN head in 2014 for blowing the whistle on the theft of $20 Billion in accruals from crude oil sales. As Emir he considered aspects of the religious and cultural practices of his emirate repugnant. He opposed the “ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam” in some parts of northern Nigeria, which discouraged girl-child education, family planning, even inoculation against potential healthcare afflictions. He had reservations about the style of Ganduje as governor and didn’t put a veil over his dislike for the return of Ganduje to Government House in 2019.
He believed Ganduje shouldn’t have made it back if the poll was fairly and transparently conducted. March 9, 2020, Ganduje upended Sanusi. He was accused of negatively impacting the sanctity, culture, tradition, religion and prestige of the Kano emirate, and disrespecting the governor’s office. He was also alleged to have disposed of property belonging to the state and the misappropriated of the proceeds. It was a case of digging several manholes for a prey in a bid to ensure he falls into one of the several traps. He was summarily banished to Nasarawa State for effect. Sanusi sought reprieve in the courts which ruled it was an overkill to fling him to a remote community faraway from his family and more accustomed home in Lagos. Within a few days, Nasir El Rufai, Sanusi’s longstanding friend who was governor of Kaduna State, personally enforced the evacuation of Sanusi from Awe local government area in Nasarawa State.
For whatever his contributions were to the emergence of Tinubu as president after the 2023 polls, Ganduje believed he would be compensated with a ministerial slot in the former’s regime. Like Nyesom Wike, David Umahi, Mohammed Badaru Abubakar, Atiku Bagudu, Simon Lalong, former governors of Rivers, Ebonyi, Jigawa, Kebbi and Plateau states, Ganduje dusted his curriculum vitae to pitch for a slot on Tinubu’s federal executive council. His five colleagues in the “2015 – 2019- 2023 class of governors” made the cut, not Ganduje. Tinubu spontaneously made him chairman of the All Progressives Congress, (APC], the vehicle which delivered him as president. Abdullahi Adamu his predecessor and former governor of Nasarawa State was, as has become standard practice in Nigeria’s notorious political rule book, schemed out and compelled to resign from office.
If Ganduje ever thought his chairmanship of the APC was going to be a walk in the park, he was thoroughly mistaken. Indeed, he’s grossed sufficient experience in his present office to know that there are sharp differences between wholesale insulation in Government House, and the inevitable overexposure of party leadership. Last April, a faction of the APC in Ganduje’s primary “Ganduje ward” in Dawakin Tofa local government area of his home state, Kano, suspended him from the party. Haladu Gwanjo, legal adviser of Ganduje’s ward led some party leaders to pronounce the suspension. They advocated the return of the national chairmanship of the APC to the north central zone, where Ganduje’s predecessor, Adamu, hails from. The young Turks canvassed due process in party administration, consistent with the “renewed hope” mantra of the APC. Ganduje made a hurried recourse to the law courts for momentary reprieve.
Thursday May 23, 2024, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi was reinstated as Emir of Kano by Ganduje’s successor in Kano State, Abba Yusuf. His cousin and successor, Aminu Ado-Bayero, was unceremoniously removed from office. The splinter emirates created by Ganduje in his bid to whittle down Sanusi’s authority as prime monarch in Kano, were similarly dissolved. The edifice which Ganduje built four years ago was apparently built of straw and spittle. Governor Abba Yusuf is a product of the Kwankwasiya political tendency in Kano politics, a creation of Rabiu Kwankwaso. Those who know a little about Nigerian politics will recall that Kwankwaso’s emergence in our politics, predates the fourth republic. He was an ardent student of the talakawa political orientation, pioneered by the venerable Kano-born leader, Aminu Kano. Kwankwaso was Deputy Speaker in the House of Representatives of the Ibrahim Babangida political experimentation of 1992 to 1993.
Whereas the Kwankwasiya movement had long been entrenched, it was not until the run-up to the 2023 elections that Kwankwaso adopted a new platform, the Nigeria National People’s Party, (NNPP), on which he is espousing the populist philosophy of the Kwankwasiya brigade. Abba Yusuf rode to office on the back of this invention. It was the same way Chukwuemeka Odimegwu Ojukwu the famous Biafran war lord, established the All Progressives Grand Alliance, (APGA) in Anambra State. The party has remained a force in the politics of the state and indeed the south east. It has produced three Anambra governors in succession, notably Peter Obi, Willie Obiano and the incumbent Chukwuma Soludo.
Abba Yusuf has made no pretences about his disdain for Ganduje and everything he represents. Much as some of Yusuf’s early actions in office were generally perceived as wasteful, he nonetheless brought down as many edifices in Kano as bore the imprimatur of Ganduje. The “Kano golden jubilee roundabout” built to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the creation of Kano State and structures built inside the filin sukuwa, (Kano race course), were hewn on Yusuf’s orders. The hajj camp which was reportedly bastardised by Ganduje who allegedly parcelled parts of it to his friends and associates was equally felled. There were suggestions that the value of the demolitions carried out by Yusuf could be in excess of N200Billion. Such is the anti-Ganduje sentiment in contemporary Kano State.
The way and manner the legacies of Abdullahi Ganduje are unravelling in Kano State should serve as a lesson to the shortsighted, incapable of seeing beyond the bridges of their nose. History is replete with the deconstruction of many leaders after their rulership and indeed keeps repeating itself in our sociopolitical experience. Those who are not circumspect, however, are too distracted by the allure and bliss of their immediate office, to think. They continue to drift, blunder and flounder, unmindful that time is their ultimate nemesis. Ganduje is just one year out of office, yet many of the decisions he made while in power for eight years are being unmade and thrown at his face like rotten tomatoes.
Until I joined him on the table he was seated at a wedding reception we both attended in Lagos a few weeks back, Rotimi Amaechi, governor of the oil-affluent Rivers State for eight years and Transportation Minister for another eight years was a lonely man. It turned out we flew back to Abuja on the same flight same evening after the event and sat not too far from each other. He opened the overhead locker atop his seat to bring out his luggage himself. Is anyone following the Yahaya Bello saga? He mindlessly trampled upon the hapless heads of his constituents in Kogi State for eight unbroken years? He left office last January and life has not been the same again. He has been declared wanted by at least one anti-graft agency. He will be arraigned in the rectangular, wood-panelled cubicle of the courtroom in a fortnight. A lesson for all.
Tunde Olusunle, PhD, is a Fellow of the Association of Nigerian Authors, (FANA)
-
Crime1 year agoPolice nabs Killer of Varsity Lecturer in Niger
-
News1 year agoFCT-IRS tells socialite Aisha Achimugu not to forget to file her annual returns
-
Appointment2 years agoTinubu names El-Rufai, Tope Fasua, others in New appointments
-
News From Kogi1 year agoINEC cancells election in 67 polling units in Ogori-Magongo in Kogi
-
News From Kogi2 years agoEchocho Challenges Tribunal Judgment ordering rerun in 94 polling units
-
News2 years agoIPOB: Simon Ekpa gives reason for seperatists clamour for Biafra
-
Metro1 year ago‘Listing Simon Ekpa among wanted persons by Nigeria military is rascality, intimidation’
-
News1 year agoKingmakers of Igu/ Koton-Karfe dare Bello, urge him to reverse deposition of Ohimege-Igu
1 Comment