When you control massive resources even if it is not yours it gives one some aura of power and control. The Small, the Big and the Mighty will always try to be on your side.

The office of the Minister of Finance of the Federal Republic Nigeria is powerful because it has the awesome power to dispense funds to the various arms of governments, individuals and companies, that is why even fellow Ministers are cautious when they speak on matters that affects the Minister.

When the Finance Minister speaks, the big and mighty fall in to line for fear of being strangulated of flow of funds.

If its true that the National Assembly detected that the Minister of Finance submitted fake NYSC certificate and yet she was cleared to hold public office then something must be wrong in the way we are fighting corruption.

Amazingly also is how the Minister waggled her way through all the agencies responsible for vetting individuals that are being prepared to hold public office?

The actions of the NYSC headquarters in trying to sweep the matter under the carpet by not responding to the enquiries of the press to simply determine whether the certificate of exemption used by Minister Finance to secure her employment as minister is fake or not is to say the least disturbing.

In addition the in action by the executive and the failure of the relevant agencies of the state such as the ICPC to wane in to the controversy and do the right thing is regrettable.

The reason why I am saying this is because the law regarding somebody who violates the provisions that establishes the NYSC is so clear and it does not require further interpretation of the courts to apply.

To wit the law states that ;
“The year-long service, organised by the National Youths Service Corps (NYSC), is compulsory for all Nigerians who graduate from universities or equivalent institutions at less than 30 years of age.

In addition to being a requirement for government and private sector jobs in Nigeria, the enabling law prescribes punishment for anyone who absconds from the scheme or forges its certificates.

Eligible Nigerians who skipped the service are liable to be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and/or N2,000 fine, according to Section 13 of the NYSC law.
Section 13 (3) of the law also prescribes three-year jail term or option of N5,000 fine for anyone who contravenes provision of the law.

ASubsection 4 of the same section also criminalises giving false information or illegally obtaining the agency’s certificate. It provides for up to three-year jail term for such offenders.

The only category of Nigerians are qualified for exemption are those;
1. who graduated after turning 30.
2. holders of national honours;
3. persons who served in the armed forces or the police for up to nine months.
4. staff of intelligence agencies, or the armed forces.

In all these the Hon. Ministers Finance did qualify to be exempted from the one year mandatory period of the NYSC.

Available educational records of the Minister which has not been denied by her or spokes person shows that;
Mrs Adeosun graduated from the Polytechnic of East London in 1989, at the age of 22.

The curriculum vitae, of Mrs Adeosun shows that she was born in March 1967.

Having graduated at 22, it is obligatory for Mrs Adeosun to participate in the one-year national service, for her to qualify for any job in Nigeria.

By this it is indisputable that Minister knows the certificate of NYSC she is holding is fake.

Consequently, for the Minister to say that she was swindled by a third party, whom she requested to handle the exemption request with the NYSC is not only a lie but an abuse to our collective psyche.

Her explanations are therefore disrespectful, absurd, disgraceful and arrant non sense.

The only moral high ground that remains for the Minister is for her to voluntarily resign.

I am saying this because when the Minister was having her running battles with the embattled Director General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange, She based her arguments on moral high ground.

She claimed that the DG was involved in activities that are un expected of a public officer. These are some the reasons she gave in suspending the DG;
“ she alleged the DG is a Director in Medusa Investment Limited which is in violation of Public Service Rule 030424.
“ she alleged DG was involved in awarding contracts to the same company and others to which he was related, thus resulting in a conflict of interest”.

So we believe what is “good for goose is good the gander”

Mr. President you must know that the conspiracy theorist are going the round postulating that you refused to act because of the dark clouds hanging over your head on issues bordering certificates forgery.

The third columnist are urging you Mr. President to end this national embarrassment by releasing the signed copy of the Minister’s resignation letter under your custody and end matter.

Mr. President, your body language on the matter is giving agencies of government responsible to handle this case some discomfort in holding the minister accountable for the criminality of her actions.

Mr. President if the Minister in spite of the clear position of the law on her actions still wish to cling to her position. In this regard you may wish to do the needful by sacking the Minister in order come out clean on the matter and remain on the moral high ground.

Any thing short of this will expose the in sincerity of your government in its fight against corruption.


I am an ardent believer in the separation of power. It ensures that no single arm of government has too much of power.

The intent of separation of powers is to prevent the concentration of unchecked power and to provide for checks and balances in governance.

I had on many instances sided with the National Assembly on issues of national concern but this time I vehemently dis agree with the assembly on the State Police.

While the Executive may be reluctant in introducing a bill on the state Police the assembly should not because of some infringements in the political space hasten to legislate on the creation of state police without looking at our history as a people and where we are coming from.

The Nigeria Police is an amalgamation of the various para military establishments in the regions that constitute the entity we call Nigeria today.

In 1879 a total number of 1,200-member armed paramilitary Hausa Constabulary was formed. This was followed by the setting up of the Lagos Police in 1896.

The Niger Coast Constabulary, was formed in Calabar in 1894 under the newly proclaimed Niger Coast Protectorate.

In the north, the Royal Niger Company set up the Royal Niger Company Constabulary in 1888.

When the protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria were proclaimed in the early 1900s, part of the Royal Niger Company Constabulary became the Northern Nigeria Police, and part of the Niger Coast Constabulary became the Southern Nigeria Police. For most of the time during the colonial period, the police were associated with local governments (native authorities).

In the 1960s, under the First Republic, these forces were first regionalised and then nationalised.

The reasons that gave rise for the nationalization and the unification of the police force are relevant then and still now.

The clamour for the setting up of the state Police arises from the dis satisfactions of how the National Police locates its loyal.

The state governors who are the chief security officers in their respective state feel they are not getting the cooperation and loyalty from the Commissioners of Police in their states. They accuse the state police commissioners of siding with the central government.

This position arguably does not appeal to reason more especially when governors from states controlled by the central government also complained of lack of similar cooperation from the Police.

The other school of thought that argue for the state police do so on the premise that if police recruitments are done from the catchment areas or simply put from indigenes of a particular state it would be easy to police the community. This argument is un tenable and simplistic considering the level of sophistication and changes the society has undergone.

Crime and criminality in the society has gone beyond human physical surveillance. The limitations of the human ability in geo physical surveillance is vivid and empirical it does not need any scientific postulation to prove that. The widening scope in spatial settlement increases the burden in the human ability to protect and provide proper surveillance of its environment.

Time and space plays a very important role in dealing with crime in our sophisticated society today.

Even countries that we are looking up to and setting our bench mark for success and using it for the need to create state police did not make it because of physical human surveillance. They rely heavily on some combination of factors such as technology, citizen participation and ethos of policing policies.

The argument that the creation of state Police will address our security challenges in the country is not only simplistic, not well thought out, but selfish and stupid.

This is considering the fact that we are not looking at our history as a people and also learning what is going in our current political space.

The call for the state police is not different from that of restructuring the country.

Recent history has shown that every effort put in place by the crafters of our national constitution to devolve powers to state for smooth governance has failed woefully.

Take for example the powers devolved to the state by the constitution to supervise the local government adminitration and conduct elections in to there councils. which of it is being successfully carried out the by governors that you can vouch has reached the minimum standard of international best practices.

The local government councils are still glorified administrative villages and drain pipes of our collective national wealth.

Recently I visited china I was amazed by the development in their Provinces and local councils. In each of the Provinces which is analogous to our state capitals you can five at least five standard international airports, first track railway services connecting the provinces and the local and communities.

Citizens can afford to live hundreds of miles away from their work place and yet commute easily from work place to their homes.

What we need really is the development of our infrastructure not the constant elite propaganda of restructuring or state place.

We shown our massive failure in managing some of the powers devolved to the others tiers government by the constitution. We have squandered the stupendous resources meant for the development of our infrastructure.

We must allow the national assembly to impose the state police on us unless if we are prepared to put this country on flames. For the governors to have their state police simply means are inviting chaos and anarchy.

We have witness enough clashes between the police and military and even between the police and police.

We must allow the agitators of the state police divide us as a people.

We must device a policing policy that would take care of some the infringements that may occur in our march towards developing a viable nation state.

The national assembly must not rush the bill on state police, it must consult far and wide before it put this country on “flames”.


Communication is an integral part of human activity that separate us from other species. It gave us the power to dominate and control our environment.

Our ability to develop both sign, written and spoken language to deal with our in satiable communal communication needs to share and disseminate information in order to take a leap forward and to protect mankind in the face of various threats in the environment that our existence as species has been phenomenal.

As the society continue to grow and expand, the need to alter our primordial communication methods, processes and infrastructure became more compelling.

More so as the society became more heterogeneous people now became more individualistic, they live far apart from one another and the need to expand and develop our communications resource becomes even more necessary in order to reach out and connect.

The development of Nation States, Commerce, and Trade compelled the society to develop more pragmatic means and method of communication to reach out instantaneously and effectively.

Man in every epoch has developed a dominant communication infrastructure that propel its well being to the next stage.

From the town criers, gongs, smoke and the paintings on the stones, man has gone a long way in trying to modernize his communication infrastructure to reduce the waiting time for information dissemination and delivery.

In every epoch, changes occur in the intervening period depending on the level of sophistication of the society at any given time.

The transition from one dominant technology to another was guided by variety of reasons. Information shared between tribal groups is limited in application and usage between different tribes and it can not be applied outside ones community.

Drums and smoke were used by the primitive society, but they have their limitations as both methods can attract un wanted attentions from enemy tribes and predatory animals.

Gutenberg revolutionized the way books were made with the device he developed that utilize movable type using blocks with pre printed text. The method with the use of paper, ink and a printing press achieved the mass production of books there by creating larger reading groups as against the few religious manuscripts exclusively meant for the monastery, the clergy and the rich.

Samuel F.B. Morse was attributed with the development of Telegraphy in America in 1837 even though by 1747 William Watson had previously sent messages via telegraphy.

Telephone was attributed to the works of Alexander Bell whose dream work was based on the concept that sound vibrations could be transmitted through the air and received at the same pitch in another room. Bell archived this dream and thus the birth of telephone for human communications.

Radio entered the scene in the early 1990. It started as a short-wave communication medium used during WW1 and developed in to one of the versatile communication technology after the war.

The development of photography added another dimension to human communication while other methods focused more on conveying one message, photograph has the ability to depict man himself and interpret events in many ways by deferent observers.

Television came on to scene in 1939 and since then it has became a dominant technology in human communication. This is because of its ability in creating reality and make believe.

Further more all emerging technologies relied on the television screen to translate electronic signal to reality. The global society became obsessed with television and relied on it for their quest for entertainment and news and self esteem.

Another technology that changed the face of human communication is the Cell Phone. It came into being through
the pioneering works of Michael Faraday in 1843 when he conducted a research that if space could conduct electricity. The first portable hand set was however credited to Dr. Martin Cooper.

The most revolutionary technology of our era is perhaps the emergence of the Internet. Even though the internet was originally invented for the Military in 1967. It gained further application in all sectors because of its ability to incorporate components of other communication technologies that preceded its debut. Today internet is available every where and to every one.

The 21st century, is the age of globalization, Internet and the social media.

What is therefore the social media? The social media consist of computer mediated tools that people use to create, share or exchange information, ideas, pictures, video promptly with ease.

It is defined as a “ group of internet based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that it allow the creation and exchange of user generated content” (Kaplan & Hainlein, 2010).

Social presence theorist (Short, Williams & Christie, defined social media as audial, visual and physical contact between two related and communicated actors through which they can mutually influence and impact.

And it is related to mobile and web based technologies that individuals and communities use to share, co-create, discuss modify user generated content.

They introduce common, substantial and widespread changes to communication between groups of organization as well as organizations and individuals (Kietzamann & Hermkens, 2011). No actor in the communication process can now have absolute monopoly to access, content of mass mediated messages. Information is no longer a one way traffic from one to many but from one to one.

The social media has open up the way we communicate no single actor can now control the information flow. It is no longer vertical, from top to bottom. The source, sender, encoder and receiver are diverse and heterogeneous. Age is no longer an encumbrance as to who receive, disseminate, create or start the process of communication.

The threat to hegemonic dominant control by the owners of the main stream media are being challenged on daily basis. The gap keep widening to the extent it is postulated that the traditional media will loose it dominance by 25% in the next decade.

The State control over access and content of what goes in and out of the mass media waned as actors in the communication processes are no encumbered seriously by draconian state legislations that hither to hinder information flows.

Information and communication technology has changed rapidly over the past 20 years with a key development being the emergence of social media.

The development of mobile technology has played an important role in shaping the impact of social media.

Across the globe, mobile devices dominate in terms of total minutes spent online. This puts the means to connect anywhere, at any time on any device in everyone’s hands.

A fascinating study by New York Times Consumer Insight Group revealed the motivations that participants cited for sharing information on social media.

These include;
1. desire to reveal valuable and entertaining content to others;
2. to define themselves;
3. to grow and nourish relationships;
4. to get the word out about brands and
5. to causes they like or support.

These factors have caused social networks to evolve from being a handy means for keeping in touch with friends and family to being used in ways that have a real impact on society.

The impacts it makes on the society could be positive or negative depending on how it is used and how one looks at it .
Social media is being used in ways that shape politics, business, world culture, education, careers, innovation, and more.

We have heard how the social media has destroyed and promoted marriages, caused death, built political alliances, assisted in toppling governments and electing Presidents.

And how it has become a medium for reaching to the electorates and sending policy statements by political leaders.
A new study from Pew Research claims that 62 percent of people get their news from social media, with 18 percent doing so very often.

In comparison to other media, social media’s influence in political campaigns has increased tremendously. Social networks play an increasingly important role in electoral politics.

Firstly, in the ultimately unsuccessful candidacy of Howard Dean in 2003, and then in the election of the first African-American president in 2008.

The New York Times reports that “The election of Donald J. Trump is perhaps the starkest illustration yet that across the planet, social networks are helping to fundamentally rewire human society.” Because social media allows people to communicate with one another more freely, they are helping to create surprisingly influential social organizations among once-marginalized groups.

Almost a quarter of the world’s population is now on Facebook. In the USA nearly 80% of all internet users are on this platform. Because social networks feed off interactions among people, they become more powerful as they grow.

Thanks to the internet, each person with marginal views can see that he’s not alone. And when these people find one another via social media, they can do things — create memes, publications and entire online worlds that bolster their worldview, and then break into the mainstream.

Without social media, social, ethical, environmental and political ills would have minimal visibility. Increased visibility of issues has shifted the balance of power from the hands of a few to the masses.

The rise of social media means it’s unusual to find an organization that does not reach its customers and prospects through one social media platform or another. Companies see the importance of using social media to connect with customers and build revenue.

Businesses have realized they can use social media to generate insights, stimulate demand, and create targeted product offerings. This is important in traditional brick-and-motor businesses, and, obviously, in the world

Social media has been blamed for promoting social ills such as Cyberbullying, teenagers have a need to fit in, to be popular and to outdo others.

This process was challenging long before the advent of social media. Add Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp, and WeChat into the mix and you suddenly have teenagers being subjected feeling pressure to grow up too fast in an online world.

Michael Hamm, a researcher from the University of Alberta conducted a study that showed the effects of social media on bullying. 23% of teens report being targeted and 15 percent said they’d bullied someone on social media.

Teenagers can misuse social media platforms to spread rumors, share videos aimed at destroying reputations and to blackmail others.

Stalking, identity theft, personal attacks, and misuse of information are some of the threats faced by the users of social media. Most of the time, the users themselves are to blame as they end up sharing content that should not be in the public eye. The confusion arises from a lack of understanding of how the private and public elements of an online profile actually work.

Social networks help the businesses in a variety of ways. Traditional marketing mediums such as the radio, TV commercials and print ads are becoming completely obsolete. However, with social media the businesses can connect with their targeted customers for free, the only cost is energy and time. Through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or any other social site you can lower your marketing cost to a significant level.

The increasing popularity of social sites like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, social networks has gained attention as the most viable communication choice for the bloggers, article writers and content creators.

These social networking sites have opened the opportunity for all the writers and bloggers to connect with their tech savvy clients to share your expertise and articles. Your audience will further share your articles, blog or expertise in their social circle which further enhance your networks of the followers.

Social networks have removed all the communication and interaction barriers, and now one can communicate his/her perception and thoughts over a variety of topics. Students and experts are able to share and communicate with like-minded people and can ask for the input and opinion on a particular topic.

Another positive impact of social networking sites is to unite people on a huge platform for the achievement of some specific objective. This is very important to bring the positive change in society.

Other negative effects of the social media or network is it leads to addiction. Spending countless hours on the social sites can divert the focus and attention from a particular task. It lowers the motivational level of the people, especially of the teenagers and students. They mainly rely on technology and the internet instead of learning the practical knowledge and expertise of the everyday life.

Kids can be greatly affected by these social networking sites if they are allowed to use them. The reason is that sometimes people share photos on social media that contains violence and sex, which can damage the behaviour of kids and teenagers. It put the negative impact on overall society as these kids and teenagers involve themselves in crime related activities.

Another downside of the social media is that the user shares too much information which may pose threats to them. Even with the tight security settings your personal information may leak on the social sites.

The state, big business and the traditional or main stream media have recognised early the threat by the social media to their dominant control over the allocation of frequencies and channels.

What they have not recognised early were the impact of the phenomenon called social media. They were caught hands down in terms of legislations that would curtail the awesome power the social media has created for itself.

The state, big business and the main stream media in the face of freedom of expression and democratization of information and information flow are hesitant in subjecting the social media to state control because they are afraid of the repercussions that it may generate from the users and owners of the channels who have the years amassed awesome information on almost everybody over the years.

The owners of the social media channels have in themselves also become big businesses with massive resources and power to control the minds of people

There are now over 3 billion people logging onto social media accounts around the world, meaning that almost half of the world’s population spends at least part of their day updating their status or story.

A new report compiled by “Hoot suite and We Are Social” published by The Next Web found that there are 3.028 billion active social media users around the world. That’s a mind-boggling number, especially when you consider that the Earth’s population is estimated to be 7.524 billion people.

That means about 40 percent of the global population is using social media, and only a small portion of the estimated 3.819 billion people with internet access around the world don’t have at least one social profile. Mobile users make up a large chunk of the base, with Facebook being unsurprisingly, the king of the social media platforms, with an estimated 2.047 billion monthly active users (MAU), while other vehicles such as WhatsApp and Messenger are over the billion MAU mark as well in the third and fourth position, respectively. Instagram followed closely behind with roughly 700 million MAU.

So the next time you find yourself wasting your time on Facebook or Twitter, don’t feel bad you’re not alone. Most of the world’s population is spending their spare moments scrolling through their news.

Now imagine this world without the social media channels, how do you deal with the over 3billion people whose number keeps increasing by the day?

Free, uncontrolled platform to speak your mind is the perfect way to filter ideas in a truly objective environment. Social Media is arguably the second coming of free press and should not be regulated or controlled.

People over the internet as a whole are intelligent enough to demand proof or links to any claims made and curate ideas by popularity without meddling of any powerful entity.

To shut down or meddle with visibility of ideas in a free and interdependent society will anaguoles killing the freedom to hold opinion and freely express them.

Shutting down social media is a threat to liberal democracy and the attempted control over opinions is the cause that created the level of polarisation we are witnessing today in the western world.

Diversity of opinion reminds us why bad ideas are just that and sharpens our minds against arguments made against liberal democracy.

Social media provides a platform for a larger section of people. They need not remain hostage to the corporate controlled media and can air their views freely and fearlessly. The society is tired of state censorship. We are sophiscated, civilized, educated to discern and filter messages

The conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that no matter how much the States Actors, the Big Business and Main Stream media feels about the negative effects and presence of the Social media it has come to stay as a dominant source of information, just like its predecessors.

We can only regulate some aspects of its applications but we can not wish it away.
Long live the freedom of expression and free press!


It is no longer in the realm of gossips or rumour the letter conveying the approval of Mr President to posthumously honour the acclaimed winner of the June 12 election with the highest honour of the land exclusively reserved for the occupants of the office of the President of the Federal republic of Nigeria.

We commend Mr. President’s attempt for the unprecedented action to re write some of the wrongs in our political journey towards building an enduring democracy in Nigeria.

Like always government actions tends to generated controversies and great debate and this is not an exception.
We are therefore going to examine the implications of the President’s decision of declaring June 12th as the new democracy day for Nigeria and the honour done to Alhaji M.K.O Abiola the acclaimed winner of the June 12th Presidential elections?

The countervailing forces are pushing all hypothesis on the merit and the demerit of the President actions.

To begin with the National Assembly in a rowdy session introduced to the debate the legality of the President’s action.

At the House of Representatives, Honourable Edward Pwajok (APC, Plateau) drew lawmakers’ attention to the Public Holidays Act, which declares May 29th as Democracy Day. He queried that for Buhari’s proclamation to take effect, the Act would have to be amended.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Pwajok explained that a contestant has to be declared winner by the National Returning Officer before he can be referred to as president-elect.

He noted that there was a court order prohibiting the then National Electoral Commission (NEC) from releasing the result, stressing that this would, first, have to be set aside or overruled by a higher court. Contributing to the debate

Hon. Nicholas Osai (PDP, Delta) challenged the declaration, condemning it as yet another usurpation of legislative powers by the executive arm of government.

He argued that a mere declaration by a president is incapable of changing an Act of parliament. Due process must be followed through an amendment of the Public Holidays Act.

Hon.Toby Okechukwu (PDP, Enugu) agreed with Osai, also posited that, the country must be ruled by law and not by persons or groups. He said though Buhari had good intentions, the declaration has to be guided by law. This, according to him, would forestall future challenges to the honour done Abiola.

In dousing the seeming uproar on the floor of House, the Speaker, Yakubu Dogara restored order and forwarded the motion to the Committees on Justice, and Rules and Business, mandating them to look into the matter and make recommendations before the House arrives at a decision.

In the red chamber however the embattled Senator Dino Melaye, had also insisted the Act provides that only Nigerian citizens could be eligible, arguing that since Abiola is dead, he is not a Nigerian in the context of the Act.

He buttressed his opinion by quoting the act which states that;
“(I) Subject to paragraph (2) of this article, a person shall not be eligible for appointment to any rank of an Order unless he is a citizen of Nigeria.
(2) A person other than a citizen of Nigeria shall be eligible for appointment as the honorary holder of any rank of an Order; and appointments made in pursuance of this paragraph shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (3) of the foregoing article.”

Meanwhile, in continuation of its deliberations, on the saga, the Senate urged Buhari to pay the family of the late M.K.O. Abiola all the entitlements due a former president and commander-in-chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
It also asked Mr. President to mandate INEC to announce the suspended results of the election.

The resolutions followed adopted Order 42 and 52 raised by Senator Biodun Olujimi (PDP, Ekiti).
“Mr. President, my distinguished colleagues. I want to thank Mr. President (Buhari) for the feat he scored yesterday by posthumously honouring the late M.K.O. Abiola for winning the annulled 1993 presidential election. To make good his intentions, I would implore him to ensure the release and declaration of the annulled presidential results by INEC,” said Olujimi.

She added: “Also, Abiola’s family should be paid reparations and all other entitlements due him as a former President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, while Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, who was Abiola’s running mate, should be recognised, henceforth, as former vice president of Nigeria and paid his accompanying entitlements.”

A massive request that has the tendencies of triggering some ripple effects on the whole exercise.

The Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, however, submitted that a posthumous award is a constitutional matter and called for a legitimising amendment.

Senate President Bukola Saraki firmed up the resolutions, saying: “We all agree, as a country, that the recognition of June 12 has been long overdue one way or the other, (given) the contribution of Chief M.K.O. Abiola and events of the June 12 election. We commend that action and we hope it will go a long way in reconciliation and broadening the unity of the country.”

From then on the debate was taken over by the legal luminaries, arguing for and against based on law.

Abubakar Sani, Abuja, based lawyer commented that legally, it might be wrong under the National Honours Act for the president to give such an award to a dead Nigerian, when the Act provides that the honour should be for serving or past heads of states.

He stressed that the decision is more political than legal. “Abiola was never sworn in. Yes, he was presumed to have won the election, but he didn’t serve. So, going by that, one may say that he doesn’t deserve it.

“But it is. uncharitable for anyone to say he should not be given the honour because Abiola and his wife paid a huge price for our democracy. It is very understandable that the motivation is more political than legal,” said Sani.

He, however, added no one can successfully challenge it in court, even if the decision was taken illegally.

The former secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osuigwe, re-echoed the point on mounting a valid legal challenge. He said the court would want to know what the litigant has lost personally. “It would want to know the locus standi of the person challenging it. The court usually uses this issue to knock people off.”

The former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Alfa Belgore, had reportedly described the award as illegal. Citing section 2 (1) and (2) of the Honours Warrant of the National Honours Act 1963, which borders on eligibility for appointment to Orders,

The politicians were not also left out in their contribution to the debate.
Junaid Mohammed, a Second Republic lawmaker, lambasted President Muhammadu Buhari for declaring June 12 as the new Democracy Day and posthumously awarding Chief M.K.O. Abiola, Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR).

Mohammed maintained that Buhari’s recognition of Abiola at a time elections were close was “deceitful”. The former lawmaker speaking to Daily Post, stressed that Buhari’s “sinister antics” was aimed at amassing votes from the South West in 2019.

The fierce critic of the current administration said Buhari should be, “ashamed of himself” for waiting till 2018 before correcting a past “injustice.”

He called the whole process “deceitful politics, Buhari is doing that in anticipation of the forth coming election in 2019 but those who know him like I do will tell you that he has never respected or admired Abiola. So doing this now shows that he is so desperate and is prepared to do anything deceitful and dishonourable to motivate votes.

For him “Buhari has no other arithmetic because the bulk of the votes Abiola got did not come from the South West, they came from the North and the East, so he thinks this action is the master’s stroke that will win him the election but he is mistaken. “Nigerians are smart enough to see through this deceitful antics,

Buhari was one of those against Abiola. To confirm this deceit, he took a traitor of Abiola, Babangana Kingibe to honour him too.
“I don’t understand why anybody who was familiar with that election will honour Abiola and Kingibe, who is a traitor never known to be loyal to anybody than himself.
“As we speak, Kingibe is an employee of the Presidency and he is part of the cabal, so this is sinister because 2019 is around the corner.
“Buhari has been in power since 2015, he didn’t remember to rectify an injustice but only now that elections are coming that he remembered to do so, he should be ashamed of himself.”

Recall that Buhari, in a statement issued yesterday, had declared Abiola as the winner of the annulled June 12 election and replacing May 29 with June 12 as new Democracy Day.
Buhari had argued that June 12, 1993, the date of the election considered to be the fairest in Nigeria’s history, “was far more symbolic of democracy in the Nigerian context than May 29 or even October 1.”

Politicians that spoke on the matter included the former Vice President Atiku and Balarabe Musa but were more amiable to decision of the President for varying reasons.

For Atiku who is in contention for the office of the President has to be circumspect not anger the South West as he may need their votes come 2019.

Atiku wrote in his twitter account “I rejoice with the Abiola family over the recognition bestowed on its late patriarch, Chief MKO Abiola; my friend & political ally & acclaimed winner of June 12 1993 elections, better known as June 12.
“The symbolic honor done his memory & the struggle he died for is commendable.”

The former Governor of the old Kaduna State Balarabe Musa added by saying that “President Buhari’s action with regards to declaration of June 12 as democracy day and award of the highest honour to late Chief MKO Abiola are relevant, just, courageous and patriotic.
“The actions give hope that President Buhari can do the right thing and correct wrongs before it’s too late for him and for the nation.’’

In summing up the whole arguments the Anthony General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami said “the declaration of June 12 as a public holiday was a mere statement of desire by President Muhammadu Buhari,

He made the clarification after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting, while answering questions from reporters whether Buhari’s declaration contravened the Public Holiday Act.

Malami said: “As it relates to public holidays, there is truly a Public Holiday Act. The Act can be amended and the process of amendment has been put in place. When the Act has been fully amended, the declaration of the President will come into effect. It is a declaration of intention, a declaration of desire and that will eventually be given effect with the amendment of the existing law.”

This is consistent with argument advanced ealier by legal luminaries and this was perhaps the reason why June 12th was not celebrated as public holiday.

The Abiola family were relished in their praise for Mr. President this was aptly captured in the advertisement by the Abiola’s children praising Buhari’s actio. Hafsat Abiola-Costello, the founder, Initiative for Democracy, said she lacked words to express her “depth of gratitude” and thanked God she is “alive to witness this day.”Rinsola Abiola, a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) board of trustees chided former President Olusegun Obasanjo by saying. “What did he do to acknowledge it all, despite being a direct beneficiary of that struggle?” she asked, adding: “The fact that some people refuse to acknowledge the truth does not mean others won’t do the right thing.”

On her part, Wura Abiola, Managing Director of Management Transformation Limited, said: “You can kill the dreamer but not the dream. Dearest Daddy, Bashorun Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola GCFR! Wonderful to finally be able to write this, 20 years on! Thank you President Buhari.”

The salient pertinent questions being avoided in the ensuing debate by the Public Affairs Commentators and the Politicians themselves because of the exigencies of the times are;

1. Was the President action meant to appease the vociferous group in the south west and its media that had continued to push the June 12th agenda

2. Was it to cement the new found support the President “enjoys” in the South West?

3. Was it for national reconciliation?

4. Was it an election strategy?

5. Was the June 12th truly the most freest election in the history of the Nigeria State not an agenda package by the dominant South West media to keep the agenda alive?

6. Was the decision by Mr. President to declare June 12th democracy day consistent with the aspirations, desire and wish of the majority of Nigerians?

7. Was the President right in giving the acclaimed winner the highest national honour exclusively reserved for Presidents of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?

8. Was the President taking his pound of flesh against the Military hegemony for betraying him at all times when he needed their support most?
These are some of the issues this discourse is going to put in the public domain in the light of the polar views being expressed by Nigerians on this important national issue.

Three paradigms howver emerged in the ensuing debate;

1. The group that stressed that the decision is more political than legal, argued that the President did so because he wanted to secure his votes in the south west. This position was however debunked by the pro political apologist because they held the opinion that Abiola got most of his votes from the North and South east and the Presidents tactics will therefore fail.

2. Those arguing from the legal point view have however identified the lacuna in process early. They noted the Executive did not consult widely and it therefore failed by rushing to press with its decisions in declaring a new democracy date for the country which is matter under legislative order and rule of law.
The truism of this position resulted in the AGF to come out and beat a retreat by saying that;
“It is a declaration of intention, a declaration of desire and that will eventually be given effect with the amendment of the existing law.”

3. The third paradigm revolves around the argument that there are actors who were active participants in the June 12th debacle but were not recognised by the state. Chief among them were public officers more especially the INEC chairman of that time and others like Mrs Kudirat Abiola who paid the supreme sacrifice but were not considered. To this group the state action has not gone the whole hog.

It for these reasons we feel the issues regarding the June 12th conundrum is not finally settled.
We pray that the right things would now be done so that the whole matter will form part of our genuine political history.



Since the military dictators decided to relinquish power that herald the return of democracy in 1999. We were euphoric that we may now have the opportunity build our nascent democracy, but recent developments in the political space does not support these desires.

The high hope of building an enduring democratic ethos is being shattered by the brazen attitude of intolerance, hate campaign, gangsterims manipulation and selective punitive actions by those in control of political power.

Their love to cling to power by whatever it takes, has put to question whether we have really learnt any lesson from the nineteen (19) years that liberal democracy returned to the country.

All efforts to build and nurture an enduring democratic culture is constantly being threatened by the un democratic behaviours of the actors in the political game.

Their attitude, mannerism, behaviour and actions to say the least are nothing but democratic.

Democracy is a system of government that thrives on the multiplicity of opinions, associations where the will of the citizens are supreme.

Political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. The electorates have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern.

The constitution also guarantees the peoples right to associate, form opinions freely criticize and replace their elected leaders and representatives if they do not perform well.

The people are sovereign they are the highest authority and government is based on the will of the people.

Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and be responsive to their need.
However, when citizens are denied these rights that government may be tilting towards dictatorship.

Dictatorship flourish even under liberal democracy. When the ruler take absolute control over a government by playing on the people’s fears, there by cajoling them to submission through the cohesive apparatus of the state.
Usually a dictator gains power by offering simple solutions to complex problem.

They try work on the sensitivity of the people at times when everything seem hopeless. They capitalise on these weaknesses and rise to power and use power for the sake of it.

what happened during 2015 general elections is classical example of how dictators cash on the peoples despondency to grab power and use it to further cement their rule, develop their agenda for the domination of the political space through planned propaganda that appeals to sensivity of the citizens.

The gullible citizens came out in their troops to choose and welcome the opposition party regardless of whether they have the programme to move the country forward or not.

Three years down the lane political pundits are x-raying the performance of the government.

If in 2015 the people had no milestones to measure the performance of the government. The situation in 2019 would not be the same.

People have seen the government at work and can now predict and measure its ability to deliver on its promises .
Governments actions are no longer in the abstract, they are real and measurable.

No blame game can ever stop the people from commenting on the government performance.
The real issue people are now asking for is the “change” they have been promised.

Once the people can not feel, touch and identify with the change and how it touches their lives they will criticise the government no matter how effective the crusade against corruption and the other vices in the society for which the regime is anchoring its success.

The President himself came on national television defending the performance of his government like all others have done, by resorting to the blame game.
Apportioning the blame for the failure of his government to his predecessors and the national assembly.

He even said some of the parliamentarians have been in the green and red chambers for more than ten years without doing anything.

The President may be right, the assembly in the name of protecting there party leader have abdicated on some the roles granted to them constitution.

I know for the past nineteen years the assembly have kept the nation and our nascent democracy together.

Is the accusation by the President reminding the assembly of their failure invoke impeachment process for the travesty to the constitution being committed by the executives at all levels of government? A word is enough for the wise.

The parliaments must awaken up to their responsibilities and do the needful for the Nigerian people.

We are tired of disregard to the rule of law by the government. It is increasingly becoming so alarming and distressing that court rulings are no longer respected.

Selective punitive punishment and arraignments of opposition members before the courts of law for corrupt practices, in order to whittle the strength of the opposition is becoming the norm.

The only immunity against persecution and arrest is to decamp to the ruling party or be part of the cabal.

The running battle between the Executive and Parliamentarians for control of the assembly shows how suspect the relationship between the two arms of government has been.
The relationship between the judiciary and the executive is also anything but cordial.

The democratic culture in the states to say least are non existent.
The state assemblies no longer function as a check on the activities of state governors.

They can simply be regarded as glorified civil servants, whose main duty is to rubber stamp the deals of the state executive.

The members have been reduced to call boys to legitimise yearly appropriations put forward by the executives without scrutiny.

It is also worrying the way some of the governors have completely taken control of the states affairs as if it is their personal companies.

More worrying is how some of them out rightly use abusive languages on elected representatives and barring them from going to their constituencies.

This is not only regrettable but is demeaning to our democratic ethos.
To add more salt to injury, senior citizens can no longer comment freely on public affairs for fear of being branded sectionalists, religious bigots or apologist to the previous government.

The disregard by government officials to appear and answer legitimate queries when required to do so by the national assembly, under the over sight functions given to them by the constitution is continuously being abused by state officials.

It is now clear that their action has the tacit support of the executive.
If this is allowed to continue then something must be wrong with the way we practice democracy.

The citizens loyalties had also been fractured and divided along individuals camps, the parties no longer command respect. Followers no longer see issues from the point of view of the country.

We have lost our nationalistic fevors, sense of reasoning and what we stand for as a people. We fight with fire and furry in defence of our political idols even if their actions are dragging the country to the mud.

Is this types of democracy we all yearn for? Is this type of democracy we would bequeath to our children?
Are we gradually tilting towards dictatorship?

Any one who is a student of politics can see where the country is heading to. This is how autocratic and dictatorial governments emerge.

We must not allow this to happen. We must not be cajoled to accept the culture of silence, because we afraid the cohesive institutions of the state will swoop and walk us to gulag.

No nation however mighty it is has grown without the sacrifice of the few for better tomorrow.

The key role of citizens in a democracy is participation. This takes many forms. Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to monitor the conduct of their leaders and representatives, and to express their own opinions.

Participate freely voting in elections, debating issues, attending community meetings, becoming involved in private, voluntary organizations, and even protesting.

In a democracy, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens, maintains order, and limits the power of government.

All citizens are equal under the law. No one may be discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion, ethnic group, or gender or political persuasion,

No one may be arrested, imprisoned, or exiled arbitrarily.

No one may be denied their freedom without a fair and public hearing by an impartial court.

No one may be taxed or prosecuted except by a law established in advance. No one is above the law, not even a king or an elected president.

The law is fairly, impartially, and consistently enforced, by courts that are independent of the other branches of government.

In a democracy, anyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial.

Just because someone is accused of a crime does not mean that he loses his rights. Anyone arrested is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A person’s guilt must be proved in a court of law, through a fair, speedy, and public trial.

In a democracy, a person accused of a crime has the right to know the charges against him, to remain silent, to have legal representation, to participate in his defence, and to question witnesses for the prosecution. No person who is acquitted of a crime may be tried again on that charge.

No one under any circumstance may ever be subjected to torture, or to cruel and inhuman treatment. No one may be imprisoned or have their property seized without legal justification.

We must therefore stand up and defend our democracy. We must not allow some few to hijack our democracy to rule us with iron fist, fear, intimidation and acquiescence .

However, in doing so, political participation in a democracy must be peaceful, respectful of the law, and tolerant of the different views of other groups.

Nigeria is greater then any one person.


Now that the learned members of the society have talked and cancelled one another on the legality of whether or not the National Assembly has the powers to legislate on the INEC calendar for the 2019 general elections is cooling down.

Having internalised all the arguments for and against the amendment saga. It would safe to look at the social, cultural, economic and political desirability of the actions of the senate in the interest of promoting vibrant and enduring democratic culture for the country.

The constitution in giving INEC the powers to conduct, organise and supervise elections in to the offices of the President, Vice President, Governors, National and Houses of Assemblies members freely, also required it to do so in the best possible manner that would promote good Governance.

The matter under discussion, originated from the House of representatives, on some observed issues of national concerns, that requires some changes in order to move our nascent democratic processes forward.

The lower House adopted a motion to the tinker the election dates, then passed it to the Senate as required by law. Any matter that originate from lower house the two houses by law are required to set up a joint committee to harmonise their positions.

The senate adopted the report of the joint committee and passed the bill, which the President declined his accent.

INEC in carrying these responsibilities for the Nigerian people said, it will do so guided by the following principles;
1. INEC shall carry out all its functions independently, free from external control and influence;
2. INEC shall display openness and transparency in all its activities and in its relationship with all stakeholders;
3. INEC shall maintain truthfulness and honesty in all its dealings at all times;
4. INEC shall ensure that no action or activity is taken in support of any candidate or political party;
5. INEC shall ensure the creation of a level playing field for all political actors;
6. INEC shall be committed to providing quality electoral services efficiently and effectively, guided by best international practice and standards;
7. INEC shall ensure fairness and justice in dealing with all stakeholders;
8, INEC shall be committed to the promotion of merit and professionalism as the basis for all its actions;
9. INEC shall create a conducive environment that promote teamwork among its staff at all levels.

I do not doubt the ability of INEC or the integrity of the Chairman of the commission, no any of its commissioners to be fair to all, but what worries here is that members of the commission were appointees recommended by the executive and people tend to perceive them as such. By these it also give the impression that on some issues they will tend to be on the side power, especially on matters where their impartiality is put to test.

INEC on all issues is expected to act within the privileges guaranteed to it by the constitution and up hold the principles it set for itself to deal with all matters autonomously, transparently, credibly, impartially, with dedication, equity, integrity and the excellence it promised the Nigerian people.

To begin with INEC before joining issues with the national assembly ought have consulted with the senate on the import of their decision to tinker with the calendar of the elections. This would have save us the media frenzy and over heating of the polity.

From this point on I was amazed how the whole matter was reduced to the interpretation of the constitution on whether or not the National Assembly has the power to make laws to amend certain activities of INEC, that the Assembly found will promote good governance and enduring democracy for the country.

The import for which the assembly deemed there was the need to tinker with dates of the 2019 elections was lost amidst the controversy generated on the appropriateness of the senate to legislate on matters affecting INEC.

The legal luminaries as usual have had their days arguing citing laws for and against, the courts have made their judgements, even though the matter I believe is not all over yet.

The national assembly exist because it is a living concern it can feel, touch, smell and respond to any stimulus in the environment.

If the intentions of the crafters of the Nigerian constitution was to ensure the separation of powers and to prevent the concentration of unchecked power and to provide for checks and balances to avoid autocracy, inefficiencies and promote good governance then it does not need further probing to understand why the National Assembly attempted to legislate and tinker with the calendar for the conduct of the 2019 elections.

Its a fact that over the years in all the previous elections we have conducted the Presidential election comes first and no one has questioned why in the past.
For two house now to consider reversing the arrangements they must have perceived that something is fundamentally wrong and it is their duty as law makers to come up with laws that can correct the lapses to ensure good governance.

With benefit of hindsight the assemblies must have observed once the Presidential election comes earlier it affects the quality of the out come of preceding elections as it becomes fait accomplice, the band wagon effect weighs so much on the outcome of results that follows the Presidential election.

This now bring us to the qualities of the representations we have in the assemblies. You and me will agree in light of several developments that had taken place some of the Senators and Members we have in our national assemblies are not fit to be their but for the bandwagon effect.

A cursory look at the states assemblies also goes on to show how this has badly affected the quality of representation at the State Houses of Assemblies because the Gubernatorial elections comes earlier then that of members of the state houses of assemblies. If this is aloud to continue then something must be wrong with us as a people.

It will be seen as a tapestry to democracy.
That is why today we see all sorts of despotic and autocratic leadership emerging in the states. The state assemblies no longer check the excesses of the

Governors because of the enormous powers they possesses.
The same principles also occurs in election to the local government councils.

The quality of the elected officials in the local government councils to borrow from the Hausa proverb are nothing but “Yan amshin Shata”. Elections into local government councils are nothing but allocations.

In fact to say that we are practising democracy at the local council level is laughable and crazy.

I believe these are some of the issues the national assembly wanted correct by legislating on the INEC election calendar.

I am therefore amazed with the way we think in this country.
The APC as a party which is flying the kite of integrity, reform, rule of law and social justice, failed to grasp the meaning of the lofty ideals in the move by the national assembly of which they are both in control to refine our nascent democracy for the good of the country. As a reformer such opportunities does come only once.

INEC also with cover given to by the constitution have consistently decided to look the other way by allowing things to continue the way they were, might be for fear of being branded as impartial or whatever.

The change agents all took the simplistic path of blaming their predecessors for not correcting the problem, it should therefore continue “business as usual”

This is the puzzle for me, many voted President Buhari because they feel he is above board and would make any positive changes that will improve the way are governed. Unfortunately whether the President was wrongly advised he decided to kill what would have solve one of the major albatross of our electoral process.

The national assembly also chicken out by failing to invoke the constitutional provision that gave it power to over ride the President?

What is wrong with power, does it really intoxicates as they say or are really putting our personal interest first before that of the country?

When shall we as people begin to look at our issues within prism of how to make this country work better? When are we going to stop personalising issues to serve our selfish individual or group interest?

When shall we put the country first before any other considerations?

What a lost opportunity.

What a shame!



The tragedy about this Nation is we do not learn from history and any society that does not learn from its history may not get its acts right.

It will only be repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
On this medium some few weeks ago when the Fulani – Settler conflict was raging on, I advised that for us to understand the complexities of the conflict we need to go back in to history.

The roles played by our fore fathers, colonial administration, and successive governments to tackled or at least contained the conflict for decades will give us an in sight how to deal with the delicate situations.

In my earlier piece I used historical analogy, to bring out how successive authorities dealt with the problems.

I also used my experiences while growing up in a village very close to the plains of the River Gongola. An important resource that nature bestowed on us to share between the settlers and pastoralists. And how the natural resource was managed by our grand parents for the good of all the communities.

In that piece I argued that the layers of administrative structure put in place enabled the community to monitor and police its environment.

I also shared some of the advise given by the colonial administration how they tackled the conflict which I repeat here because of its relevance to this day.

The former Nigerian Governor General, Sir Fredrick Lord Lugard, captured in his memo who is the Fulani Man? He gave his portrait of a Fulani Man.
As a people he said,

“They are ascetic, kind and generous, BUT Never fight a war (hot or cold) with the Fulani because they have:-
1. No rules of engagement (they just hit again and again)
2. No POW’s (they don’t take prisoners)
3. No mercy (once they pick you out as the enemy)
4. No fighting fatigue (they are forever fit and prepared, due to their lifestyle)
5. No need for adequate provisions and permanent abode (they live on very little and sleep in the wilderness)
6. No end to hostilities (they fight to finish)
7. No ignorance of terrain and location ( their lifestyle makes everyone of them a human GPS )
8. No deterrence due to casualties (they are strategically distributed all over West and Central Africa, and highly mobile)
9. No need for tranquillity (they have no permanent settlements which need peace to thrive).”
10. No fear of consequences.

These positions echoed what our grand parents told us when we were growing, never engage in a fight with a Fulani Man, they never forgive disputes even on social matters between families. It is often transmitted through generations to ensure that they take revenge no matter how long it takes.

But here we are in the 21st century with all the technological advantage on our side messing up unable draw from the abundant resources we have in government vaults and research institutions around the country on matter.

Rather we resorted to blaming each other and capitalising on what divide us as a people to fan the amber of the discourse.

This fight will never be won until we put our acts right.

The blame game, the exploitation of our divide us a people will only widen the scope of the conflict without necessarily tackling the real problems.

It has become the norm each time something defies immediate solution, religion, subterranean and political considerations are blamed for the source of the disturbance.

Now that the Fulani Herdsmen no longer carry the stick on their shoulders and radio around their neck but AK 47. we need to rethink.

Borrowing from the advise by the former Governor General that, the Fulani men are human GPS because they know the terrain, they have no need for tranquillity because they are not settled, they do not accept prisoners of war, they have no mercy once they pick you out as the enemy, they have no fighting fatigue, they are forever fit and prepared, due to their lifestyle.

With these the society will never know no peace again, until we begin to truthfully talk to ourselves and engage widely and bring all stakeholders together and holistically deal with the situation.

Lives and properties will continue to be lost and destroyed.

Stop gap measures and in sincere solutions through parliamentary declarations will remain wishful thinking as some of the stake holders involved in conflict are highly itinerants and do not understand laws being created by the settlers to illicit compliance. The only law they respect is where to find pastures and water their animals.

The only way out of this is dialogue and respecting the rights of all the stakeholders.

May God give us the wisdom to learn from our past.