PROPAGANDA AND LIES ABOUT GENERAL BUHARI

You are on it again! I thought you agreed with me that a military government is not a Tea Party. It is not the best of times. A military regime brooks no dissension and opposition. I thought we agreed that the matter is res judicate, settled. You are going back. This is inconsistency. You made a massive volte face by citing the stale commentary of Dominic Ogbonna. Dominic Ogbonna is a propagandist for PDP.  He a master sophist. He writes rubbish and plain lies with his superb mastery of prose. Sometimes he lies plainly. Take whatever he writes with a pinch of the salt. Is he not the guy who told us in these fora that Buhari was suffering from a terminal ailment? However it turned out to be a massive lie. He suffers from what I call “Buhari phobia".  I thought you will think differently. What must you take stock and barrel what comes out of the stable of a subjective and emotional commentator like Dominic Ogbonna? It is surprising you are a lawyer! We are trained to be objective not emotional and sentimental.

Buhari’s government did a lot of positive things within one year of its existence. There is nothing wrong with enforcing the law to the hilt. Have you not read the confession of a top shot of the Nigerian Medical Association that protest of the Doctors during Buhari’s time was instigated by reactionaries in the Military like IBB and David Mark! Why did Labour instigate all those crises in the country when the same labour lost it voice during IBB time? IBB was even more dictatorial. He banned media houses; proscribed Academic Staff Union of Nigeria Universities, National Association of Nigerian Students; executed officers over phantom coups, masterminded the military clash that led to the whipping out of an entire generation of officers in the military and exacerbated religious bigotry by taking Nigeria to the Islamic Conference Organization; banned all politicians; decreed and created two political parties; used the Police to shoot student demonstrators; increased the price of petrol; divide and rule to play one section of the government against the other; institutionalised impunity, settlement and corruption but IBB is a good man while Buhari who tried to clean up the country is a villain!

Ekwueme is not a clean man. He was even indicted by a Commission of Inquiry concerning the Nigerian Railway of the yore over a contract scam. As Vice President he awarded contract for the design of the Low Housing Projects of the Shagari government to his own architectural firm. Ekwueme is a Member of Every Government in Power. Have you ever heard him condemning the debauchery of the PDP controlled Federal Government? Shagari was not a corrupt man. He did not steal although he was never in charge. If Umaru Dikko was put in crate and so what? Why did he escape from justice? If Umaru Dikko was clean why didn’t he surrender himself to the government? He would have stayed in the country to account for his stewardship in government. This is a man who arrogantly said that Nigerians are not poor because they have not started eating from the dust bin?

In Buhari's time there was no sacred cow. Everybody who stole was made to face the music. Governors who stole under the guise of "security votes" were jailed. It was the first time in our country when the criminal law process was democratised. The wealthy, privileged and the poor were made to be equal before the law. It is only the reprobates and the corrupt that begrudges Buhari because he enforced the Law to the letter. It was not only Babatope who was incarcerated.

All leading politicians were arrested and incarcerated to give account of their stewardship. My maternal Uncle,Chief Eteng Okoi-Obuli who was Minister of Agriculture (He was also Minister of State for Communication) was arrested and incarcerated for almost Two years until he was released by IBB. I am amazed, your swallowed the lie that Buhari was Head of State for Two Years! I wonder aloud how a Lawyer of your Standing would manifest such ignorance of the constitutional History of the country. Buhari toppled the Shagari government on the 31^st December, 1983. Buhari became Head of State on the 1^st January 1984 and was toppled by IBB in August 1985, so where is the two years coming from.

 
A lot of damning lies have been contrived and told about Buhari. One of them was that Buhari said Muslims must vote Muslims only. However when the Reporter whom the story was attributed was confronted he was unable to substantiate what he reported! Another lie was that Buhari during his tenure as Head of the Petroleum Trust Fund developed only the North. I was a young lawyer in Calabar, Cross River State during that period I saw PTF funded drugs in hospitals in Calabar. I saw mass transit buses bought with grants from PTF to assist the poor move from one part of the country to the other in Calabar. My relation was then a Transporter benefited. He is not Fulani (like Buhari). I saw buildings in the University of Calabar constructed by the PTF. I know as a fact that Calabar-Ugep-Ikom-Ogoja-Katsina-Ala Federal Highway was rehabilitated. Since PDP came to power no single road has been constructed in that Axis. Have you travelled from Uyo (Akwa Ibom State) along the Calabar-Uyo-Ikot Ekpene-Aba Federal High way recently?    

We do not need to lie about Buhari if we do not like him. We should not be mean. We should talk lies in our frenzy to demonize Buhari. It is not fair! This how the Federal Government and PDP encourage the propangda that Buhari was behind BOKO HARAM but the truth has glaringly come out. History Shall Always Vindicate the Just.  Why are Nigerians so gullible? It is amazing even elites who are supposed to know better. We must live above ethnic and sectional considerations. This is one of the reasons why our country is in the nadir! Chief Nkereudofia, open your eyes!

OKOI OBONO-OBLA

THE REVOLUTIONARY NATURE AND CHARACTER OF MILITARY REGIMES

It is well settled that a Military Government is an aberration. The Constitution is usually suspended including the provisions relating to respect for fundamental rights including the freedom of the press. It is a revolutionary Government beyond the contemplation of the Constitution. My learned friend and Chief I commend the cause celebre of LAKANMI V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WEST) (1970) NSCC 143,ADEMOLA, CJN (as he then was) illuminated on the character and nature of a Military Government thus:

“...It is no gainsaying that what happened in Nigeria in January 1966 is unprecedented in history. Never before, as far as we are aware has a civilian government invited an army take-over, or the armed forces to form an interim Government. We disagree with the Attorney-General that these events in January 1966 are tantamount to a revolution. As Chief Williams for the appellants puts it, quoting from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, a revolution occurs when "there is an overthrow of an established government by those who were previously subject to it" or "where there is a forcible substitution of a new ruler or form of Government". These, from the facts, did not take place in Nigeria in 1966 as the situation to which we have previously referred - a rebellion by some members of the Armed Forces - caused the Acting President, with the advice of the Council of Ministers in the absence of the Prime Minister, to hand over power to the Armed Forces. We venture to put the attitude of the Acting President and the Council of Ministers to the head of the Army thus - your men have started a rebellion, which we fear may spread; you have the means to deal with them. We leave it to you to deal with them and after this, return the administrative power of the Government to us. Cases of revolution abound in history and in law, and an example is to be found in Pakistan where there is a proclamation annulling the Constitution of the country.

In Uganda v. Commissioner of Prisons (1966) E.A.L.R. 514;the Pakistan case of the State v. Dosso (1958), 2 P .S.C.R. 180, was referred to at page 538 in the following terms:

"That the President's proclamation of October 7, 1958 by which the Constitution of 1956 was annulled and Martial Law was proclaimed constituted an 'abrupt political change,' not within the contemplation of the said Constitution, that is a revolution. A victorious revolution is an internationally recognized legal method of changing a constitution. Such a revolution constitutes a new law creating organ, by virtue of having become a basic law creating fact. Laws which derive from the 'old order' may remain valid under the 'new order' only be- cause validity has expressly or tacitly been vested in them by the new constitution, 'and it is only the contents of these norms that remain the same, not the reason of validity'. Further no jurist would maintain that even after a successful revolution, the old constitution and the laws based thereupon remain in force on the ground that they have not been nullified in a manner anticipated by the old order itself".

The Attorney-General submits that both the legislative and executive were swept away by the uprising in January, 1966 and the judiciary was altered by prescribing a new code of appointing Judges; all these he said were nothing short of revolution; that the Republican Constitution of 1963 no more exists except and in so far as the revolutionary government decreed: that the authority of the Federal Military Government is not derived from the 1963 Constitution but from the revolution itself. He also relied on Hogde v. The Queen (1883) 9 A.C. 117. The Attorney- General argued further that there is no provision in the 1963 Constitution enabling the Acting President, in the absence of the Prime Minister, even with the advice of other Ministers of the Council of Ministers, to hand over the administration of the country to the Armed Forces of the Republic. What happened, he said, was that the Government "having ceased to function" agreed to abdicate its powers and that therefore there was a revolution.

We think it wrong to expect that constitution must make provisions for all emergencies. No constitution can anticipate all the different forms of phenomena which may beset a nation. Further, the executive authority of the Federation is vested in the President by section 84 of the Constitution and we think in a case of emergency he has power to exercise it in the best interest of the country, acting under the doctrine of necessity. Moreover, it must be remembered that it is not a case of seizing of power by the section of the Armed Forces which started a rebellion. The rebellion had been quelled the insurgents did not seize power nor was it handed over to them. But the state of affairs in Pakistan to which The State v. Dosso (supra) refers is different. In Pakistan the President had issued a proclamation annulling the existing Constitution. There was a disruption of the Constitution and the national legal order by an abrupt political change not contemplated by the Constitution. Such a change is a revolution...”

So your assertion laced with cynicism that “Decree No. 4 of 1984 promulgated by the Buhari Junta provided that a person could be sent to prison for telling the truth...” is balderdash and of no moment. Let me use the lawyerly jargon, it is non sequitor. Buhari has since reincarnated to a dyed in the wool DEMOCRAT. He has contested three presidential elections. He had challenged vigorously electoral robbery perpetrated by PDP from the Election Tribunal to the Supreme Court in 2003, 2007 and 2011. He has been consistently, persistently, vigorously and strenuously campaigning for the opening of the political space and for free, fair and transparent elections in Nigeria since 2003. The other day he said “I became a democrat in 1991 when I became confounded by the collapse of the defunct Soviet Union (empire) without the firing of a shot. The experience humbled me so much so that I elected to become a democrat...”

OKOI OBONO-OBLA

AGE IS NO BAR TO CONTEST FOR THE NIGERIAN PRESIDENCY

       EDITED

Age is not a Constitutional Requirement to contest the Nigerian Presidency. If a 100 Years Old Man decides to Contest for the Office of the President of Nigeria, It is within his Constitutional Right. This Right is undoubtedly Sacrosanct and Inalienable. For the avoidance of any doubt the requirement for an aspirant for the Presidency of Nigeria is plainly spelt out in Section 131 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended and altered) which reads as follows:

“person shall be qualified for election to the office of the President if -
(a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
(b) he has attained the age of forty years;
(c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and

(d) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent".

It is pertinent to mention that the Constitution is the Fundamental and Basic and Supreme Law, indeed the grundnorm of the Country. It follows that if any other Law or Regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, it is void to the extent of its inconsistency.

Section 1 subsections (1) (2)(3) of the Constitution baldly asserts thus:

“(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".

It stands to reason that the only thing to stop the candidacy of the "upright" General Muhammadu Buhari is the amendment of Section 131 of the Constitution to make "old" age a bar to aspiration to be President. Otherwise the proponents of Buhari should not contest on the ground should spare us. It is irrelevant, academic and hypothetical. Old age has never being a disincentive to Leadership. The Chinese Leadership that turned that country from backward and undeveloped to a World Economic and Military Power within a span of 60 Years was "old" but yet visionary.

The Great Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo (SAN) contested for the Nigerian Presidency in 1983 at the age of 72 or there about. The Zik of Africa, the Pan-Africanist, Dr. Benjamin Nnandi Azikiwe contested for the Nigerian Presidency in 1983 when he was already 76 Years Old. So there is a Nigerian precedent.

The Iconic Nelson Mandela contested for the Presidency of South Africa at the age of 71 Years in 1994. President Ronald Reagan of the United States of America was elected President at the age of 70 in 1981. Reagan was re-elected again in 1985 at the Age of 74 Years. He remained President until 1989 when he was 78 at the expiry of his term. The current President of the West African State of Guinea, Alpha Conde is 73. He was born on the 4^th March, 1938. He was elected President at 74 Years. He was born on the 12^th May, 1942. Alpha Conde had previously unsuccessfully contested presidential elections in 1993 and 1998 respectively. He was elected eventually in 2010. He had been the longest standing opposition leader in Guinea before he was elected in 2010.

President Jacob Zuma of South African is 70. It is likely that President Zuma will seek tenure when the current one expires. One for the top contenders for the presidential run of is Ahmed Mohammed Shafiq. He was born in November, 1941 which makes him 71 Years old. Ahmed Shafiq has been Commander of the Egyptian Air Force (1996-2002); Prime Minister (31^st January, 2011-3^rd March, 2011) and Minister of Civil Aviation (18^th September, 2002-31^st January, 2011). So there are numerous International Precedents.

We should allow the Nigerian Electorate to decide whether or not they want a President who is 74 Years old. This is the only democratic way to settle this issue.

If Buhari decides to contest for Nigerian Presidency from now until his death it is within the limits of his constitutional right. If Buhari decides to be the Nigerian version of Ralph Nader of the United States of America, it is his cup of tea. Buhari phobia should spare us. There are so many issues they can engage us on. Anybody who suggests that Buhari should not contest on ground of age is a pseudo democrat. Anybody who is ire by the fact that Buhari has contested in 2003, 2007 and 2011 should go and read about the electoral travails of Abraham Lincoln, the 16^th President of the United States of America we are told contested election many times before he won.

Our people who have been Senators, Governors, Representatives, Members of the Houses of Assembly, Governors and Local Government Chairmen and Councillors; Ministers and Commissioners since 1999 are as incompetent, visionless and corrupt as the old generation! Example abound. James Ibori, Bankole, Donald Duke, Orji Kalu, Chimaroke to mention just but a few.  

OKOI OBONO-OBLA

AGE IS NOT A CONSTITITIONAL BAR TO CONTEST FOR NIGERIAN PRESIDENCY

Age is not a Constitutional Requirement to contest the Nigerian President. If a 100 Years Old Man decides to Contest for the Office President of Nigeria, It is within his Constitutional Right. This Right is undoubtedly Sacrosanct and Inalienable. For the avoidance of any doubt the requirement for an aspirant for the Presidency of Nigeria is plainly spelt out in Section 131 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended and altered) which reads as follows:

“person shall be qualified for election to the office of the President if -
(a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
(b) he has attained the age of forty years;
(c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and

(d) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent".

It is pertinent to mention that the Constitution is the Fundamental and Basic and Supreme Law, indeed the grundnorm. It follows that any other Law or Regulation which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is void to the extent of its inconsistency.

Section 1 subsections (1) (2)(3) of the Constitution baldly asserts thus:

“(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".

It stands to reason that the only thing to stop the candidacy of the "upright" General Muhammadu Buhari is the amendment of Section 131 of the Constitution to make "old" age a bar to aspiration to be President. Otherwise the proponents of Buhari should not contest on the ground should spare us. It is irrelevant, academic and hypothetical. Old age has never being a disincentive to Leadership. The Chinese Leadership that turned that country from backward and undeveloped to a World Economic and Military Power within a span of 60 Years was "old" but yet visionary.

The Great Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo (SAN) contested for the Nigerian Presidency in 1983 at the age of 72 or there about. The Zik of Africa, the Pan-Africanist, Dr. Benjamin Nnandi Azikiwe contested for the Nigerian Presidency in 1983 when he was already 76 Years Old. So there is a Nigerian precedent.

The Iconic Nelson Mandela contested for the Presidency of South Africa at the age of 71 Years in 1994. President Ronald Reagan of the United States of America was elected President at the age of 70 in 1981. Reagan was re-elected again in 1985 at the Age of 74 Years. He remained President until 1989 when he was 78 at the expiry of his term. The current President of the West African State of Guinea, Alpha Conde is 73. He was born on the 4^th March, 1938. He was elected President at 74 Years. He was born on the 12^th May, 1942. Alpha Conde had previously unsuccessfully contested presidential elections in 1993 and 1998 respectively. He was elected eventually in 2010. He had been the longest standing opposition leader in Guinea before he was elected in 2010.

President Jacob Zuma of South African is 70. It is likely that President Zuma will seek tenure when the current one expires. One for the top contenders for the presidential run of is Ahmed Mohammed Shafiq. He was born in November, 1941 which makes him 71 Years old. Ahmed Shafiq has been Commander of the Egyptian Air Force (1996-2002); Prime Minister (31^st January, 2011-3^rd March, 2011) and Minister of Civil Aviation (18^th September, 2002-31^st January, 2011). So there are numerous International Precedents.

We should allow the Nigerian Electorate to decide whether or not they want a President who is 74 Years old. This is the only democratic way to settle this issue.

If Buhari decides to contest for Nigerian Presidency from now until his death it is within the limits of his constitutional right. If Buhari decides to be the Nigerian version of Ralph Nader of the United States of America, it is his cup of tea. Buhari phobia should spare us. There are so many issues they can engage us on. Anybody who suggests that Buhari should not contest on ground of age is a pseudo democrat. Anybody who is ire by the fact that Buhari has contested in 2003, 2007 and 2011 should go and read about the electoral travails of Abraham Lincoln, the 16^th President of the United States of America we are told contested election many times before he won.  

OKOI OBONO-OBLA

WHY JONATHAN CANNOT RUN IN 2015

By the provisions of Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 no President can take oath of office twice. President Jonathan first took oath of office on the 5th May 2010 as President after the death of late President Umaru Musa Yaradua. President Jonathan took another oath of office on the 29th May 2011 after INEC had declared him the winner of the presidential election held on the 16th April 2011.

Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution provide thus: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of President until- (a) his successor in office takes the oath of office; (b) he dies whilst holding such office; or (c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or (d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when - (a) in the case of a person first elected as President under this Constitution , he took the Oath of Allegiance and the oath of office; and (b in any case , the person last elected to that office under this Constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and the oath of office but for his death, have taken such oaths.

The Supreme Court has held in the case instituted BRIG-GEN MOHAMMED MARWA VS. ADMIRAL MURTALA NYAKO & ORS for interpretation of Section 180 subsections (1) & (2) of the Constitution that no Governor can take Oath of Allegiance and Oath of office more than twice. The Supreme Court held that tenure elongation under any guise is not envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. The Governors had sought interpretation of when their tenure would start to run having taken Oath of Allegiance and oath of office twice after they won elections ordered by the Court arising from the nullification of previous ones won by them. The Supreme Court said that the Oaths after they won the elections ordered by the Court were a nullity. The proper oath is the one they first took even though the election was eventually cancelled by the Court it does not cancel the Oath taken. Onnoghen, JSC illuminated thus:

“The fact that there was an election in 2007 as a result of which the 1st respondents (Governors) took their Oaths of Allegiance and of Office are facts which cannot be wished away, just as the acts they performed while occupying the seat. The said governors may not have been de jure governors following the nullification of their elections, which is not supported by the acceptance of their acts in that office as legal and binding on all and sundry, they were certainly governors de facto during the period they operated ostensibly in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and Electoral Act and as such the period they so operated has to be taken into consideration in determining the terminal date of their tenure following, what I may call, their second missionary journey vide a re-run election particularly as the constitution unequivocally grants a tenure of four years to a person elected governor of a state calculated from the date he took the Oaths of Allegiance and of Office which was the 29th day of May, 2007. It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states. To calculate the tenure of office of the governors from the date of their second Oaths of Allegiance and of Office while ignoring the period from 29th May, 2007, when they took the first oaths is to extend the four years tenure constitutionally granted the governors to occupy and act in that office which would be unconstitutional. It is therefore clear and I hereby hold that the second Oaths of Allegiance and of Office taken in 2008, though necessary to enable them continue to function in that office, were clearly superfluous in the determination of the four years tenure under Section 180(2) of the 1999 Constitution." Per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C (Pp. 64-65, paras. B-C) .

Section 135 subsections (1) and (2) of the Constitution is identical (pari materia) with Section 180 subsections (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The truth of the matter is that Jonathan has taken the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office twice. Jonathan took Oath on 5/5/2010. He took another Oath on 29/5/2011. CHIEF EDWIN Clark is a long standing lawyer he should read the Constitution objectively and leave out politics and sentiments out of it. It is well settled that politics and sentiments have no place in the interpretation of the Law. It is what the Law says not how it ought to be. The Constitution does not contemplate that a President should enjoy an extra day outside his four years tenure. Jonathan has four year tenure, 2011-2015. Jonathan had served for one year before he took Oath on winning the 2011 election. If we add this one year together with four years of his present term, it means that at the end of his present tenure he would have been President for FIVE YEARS. Assuming Jonathan contest and wins in 2015, he would have served as President for NINE YEARS.

This is more than the EIGHT YEARS prescribed for a President who has wins election twice. It is unconstitutional and illegal for a President to be in office more than what is prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitution does not contemplate that a President will be in office more than eight years at most. There is no tenure elongation under any guise. The Supreme Court except under extraordinary circumstances will never depart from the PRINCIPLE it has laid down in the GOVERNORS' case. Jonathan has obviously found himself in a legal quagmire which only the Court will entangles come 2015. Jonathan cannot eat his cake and have it. The only legacy he can leave is to carry out comprehensive and far reaching electoral reform to usher in a FREE, FAIR & TRANSPARENT ELECTION in 2015. He should shun the advice and advocacy of sycophants and ethnic champions such as EDWIN CLARK. When Clark is talking about NIGER DELTA or SOUTH/SOUTH he is only thinking about his IJAW ETHNIC nationality.

OKOI OBONO-OBLA

RE: PETITION AGAINST THE DELIBERATE OMISSION OF THE NAME OF DR. OKOI ARIKPO (SAN) OF BLESSED MEMORY FROM THE LIST OF 50 EMINENT NIGERIANS & FOREIGNERS HONOURED BY THE FEDEERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA TO MARK THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF NIGERIA’S INDEPENDENCE.

<><> <><> <><> <><> <><> <><> <><> <><> <><> <><>

   

OKOI OFEM OBONO-OBLA

PLOT 1132 FESTUS OKOTIE EBO

UTAKO DISTRICT,

 ABUJA,

 FCT, NIGERIA.

08033490404

2nd October, 2010.

His Excellency,

Dr. Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan (GCFR)

President, Federal Republic of Nigeria,

Presidential Villa,

Aso Rock, Abuja,

Nigeria.

Your Excellency,

RE: PETITION AGAINST THE DELIBERATE OMISSION OF THE NAME OF DR. OKOI ARIKPO (SAN) OF BLESSED MEMORY FROM THE LIST OF 50 EMINENT NIGERIANS & FOREIGNERS HONOURED BY THE FEDEERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA TO MARK THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF NIGERIA’S INDEPENDENCE.

May, I respectfully use this medium to congratulate you on the 50th Anniversary of the attainment of Independence of Nigeria from Great Britain. I will further congratulate you on your declaration to contest the election to choose the Presidential Candidate to carry the banner of the Peoples Democratic Party in the 2011 General Election. I fervently pray that the Almighty God will see you through the forthcoming contest.
You will recall that as part of activities lined up for the nation’s 50th Independence Anniversary Celebrations, 50 eminent Nigerians and Foreigners (Britons) were listed to be honoured by the Federal Government of Nigeria by Mr. President for their contributions to the development of the country since Independence was attained on the 1st October, 1960.
The recipients are: Herbert Macaulay (Lagos), Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe (Anambra), Alhaji Ahmadu Bello (Sokoto), Chief Obafemi Awolowo (Ogun), Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa (Bauchi), Chief Samuel Akintola (Oyo), Mallam Aminu Kano (Kano) and Chief Anthony Enahoro (Edo), Ernest Okoli (Bayelsa), Jaja Wachukwu (Abia), Dennis Osadebay (Delta), Maj-Gen J.T.U Aguiyi-Ironsi (Abia), Generals Yakubu Gowon (Plateau), Olusegun Obasanjo (Ogun), Abdulsalami Abubakar (Niger), and Prof. Kenneth Dike (Anambra). Also, Profs Wole Soyinka (Ogun), Chinua Achebe (Anambra), Alhaji Abubakar Imam (Kaduna), Alhaji Babatunde Jose (Lagos), Justices Adetokunbo Ademola (Ogun), Egbert Udo Udoma (Akwa-Ibom), Prof. Teslim Elias (Lagos), Chief Rotimi Alade Williams (Lagos), Justice Mamman Nasir (Katsina), Alhaji Alhassan Dantata (Kano), Alhaji Aliko Dangote (Kano), Chief Mike Adenuga (Ogun), Richard Ihetu aka Dick Tiger (Abia), Kanu Nwankwo (Abia) and Chioma Ajunwa (Imo), Daniel Igali (Bayelsa), Michael Akinwunmi (Ogun), Mrs Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti (Ogun), Mrs Margaret Ekpo (Cross River), Hajia Gambo Sawaba (Kaduna), Hajiya Ladi Kwali (Abuja), Princess Alexandra (Britain) and Lillian Joel Williams (Britain). Others are Profs. Jacob Ade Ajayi (Ekiti), Ishaya Audu (Kaduna), Iya Abubakar (Adamawa), Chief Emeka Anyaoku (Anambra), Alhaji Shehu Shagari (Sokoto), Alhaji Yusuf Maitama Sule (Kano), Joseph Tarka (Benue), Shettima Ali Monguno (Borno), Cardinal Francis Arinze (Anambra), Alhaji Abubakar Sadiq 111, Sultan of Sokoto (Sokoto) and Oba Adesoji Aderemi (Osun).
I, immensely thank Mr. President for his thoughtfulness in remembering to honour these people who have greatly contributed to the development of the country. The honouring of these eminent people by Mr. President would go a long way in encouraging other Nigerians that a good name is better than silver and gold. However, Mr. President I do not know the parameters you used in arriving at your decision to honour these people who as I had previously submitted are eminently qualified to be honoured, but I am hugely disappointed that the name of Dr. Okoi Arikpo (SAN) of blessed memory was conspicuously omitted or missing from the list. I do not know if this was deliberate or an omission but it amounts to gross injustice that the name of this great Nigerian whom I fervently believe is one of the most qualified Nigerians to be honoured from whatever criteria was employed in arriving at the decision.
Mr. President, I seriously think there is a deliberate policy by the successive Federal Governments of Nigeria to blot the name of Dr. Okoi Arikpo out of human memory. I vividly remember that recently the Federal Government of Nigeria under the aegis of the Federal Capital Territory Development Administration decided to name some major Streets in Abuja after some eminent Nigerians but nobody remembered Dr. Okoi Arikpo.
I can say without fear or contradiction that no major Street in the Country is named after this great Patriot. I will not want to subscribe to the view of some people that Okoi Arikpo is forgotten because he is from the wrong part of the Country. However, the recent decision made by Mr. President (I believe on the advice of some bureaucrats) seemed to reinforce this view. Some of the people honoured were contemporaries and colleagues of Okoi Arikpo in the Federal Executive Council under the leadership of General Yakubu Gowon (1967-1975). These include Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Joseph Tarka, Chief Anthony Enahoro, Mallam Aminu Kano, and Shettima Ali Monguno. If your decision not to include Okoi Arikpo was informed by the advice you got from the Government of Cross River State (his home State), I will humbly submit that such advice was tendentious and bias for obvious political considerations. This advice by the Government of Cross River State was probably informed by a deliberate policy to use revisionism to distort history and suppress the truth.

 
I respectfully submit that the omission of the name of the Great Okoi Arikpo among the list of 50 distinguished Nigerians who were honoured by President Jonathan for their contribution to the development of the country as part of the activities to mark the country’s 50th anniversary of Independent from Great Britain is a sad commentary and an injustice. There is no reason why Dr. Okoi Arikpo from Cross River State of Nigeria should not be on the list. I agree that Margaret Ekpo and several others on the list contributed immensely to the development of the country but I do not see their contributions weightier than that of Okoi Arikpo.

 
Mr. President, kindly permit me bore you with some of the contributions made by Dr. Okoi Arikpo which from a dispassionate and objective standpoint are outstanding and indelible in the history of Nigeria.
1. Okoi Arikpo was a Chemist, Anthropologist, Lawyer, Politician and Diplomat. He was born in Ugep in 1916 and died in 1995. He was educated at the famous Hope Waddell Training Institute, Calabar. Dr Arikpo was a distinguished Academic. He bagged a First Class Degree in Chemistry in the University of London. He strayed into anthropology and bagged a Doctorate Degree in the University College, London; He later studied Law and was called to the English Bar in 1956. He authored many books including the classic: the development of Modern Nigeria (1967). He was reputed to be the First West African to bag a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology.

Dr. Okoi Arikpo was President of the West African Student’s Union in the United Kingdom in the early 1940s. This organization was the rally point for students from West Africa who were studying in the Great Britain. WASU was lobbying members of the British Parliament to draw their attention to the political problems facing African Colonies and their leaders back home in different African Countries. The organization was the pivot for galvanization for support of some left thinking people to the plight of the colonial territories. WASU was the fulcrum of social and political activities of Students and people of West African Origin in the United Kingdom. Some of its activities include lobbying members of the British Parliament to draw their attention to the political problems facing African Colonies and their leaders.

Dr. Okoi Arikpo was the first Minister for Lands & Survey in the Nigerian Government that was formed after the Macpherson Constitution came into force. Okoi Arikpo was one of the four Legislators elected into the Eastern Regional House of Assembly who were chosen to represent the Eastern Region in the Central House of Legislature in Lagos that was promulgated after the coming into force of the Macpherson Constitution. Okoi Arikpo was also a cabinet Minister in the 1957 Government formed by Sir Abubukar TafawaBalewa.

Okoi Arikpo was an Activist. He was at the vanguard of the campaign to draw the attention of the Colonial Government to the plight of the minority people of the Eastern and Northern Region. He resigned from the NCNC in protest at the treatment meted out to the then Leader of Government Business in the Eastern Nigerian Government, late Professor Eyo Ita, who was pressured by the leadership of the NCNC to step down in order for Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe to assume the position he was occupying after he had lost out in the power struggle in the Western Nigeria where members of this Party in the Western Region had succumbed to pressure mounted on them not to allow Dr. Azikiwe, an Igbo become leader of Government Business after his Party won the Western Regional election.

Thereafter Dr. Okoi Arikpo teamed with other minority rights activists to form the United Nigeria Independence Party which later allied with the Action Group as the opposition in the Eastern Region. He was in the forefront of the fight for autonomy of the ethnic minorities in the East for a creation of the Calabar/Ogoja/ Rivers State. He was the Secretary-General of the COR State and Honourable Justice Udo Udoma was the President. Gladly, Justice Udo Udoma was among the people you honoured.

 

Okoi Arikpo was among the people from the minority ethnic groups who drafted and articulated the position of the minority groups in the country before the Willink Commission was set up by the departing British colonizers to examine the fears of minorities of the Niger Delta. The Willink Commission called attention to the grave dangers in the Niger Delta.

Okoi Arikpo was the first Executive Secretary of the National Universities Commission. Okoi Arikpo was the longest serving Minister for Foreign Affairs (External Affairs) 1967 - 1975. He was the person who was sent to all the Western Capitals and the United States of America to make a strong case why Nigeria should not be allowed to be Balkanized during the heady days of the Civil War. This was after the secessionist Regime had launched a vehement and vociferous propaganda in Western Capital and the United States of a deliberate policy of genocide being waged against the Igbo people of Nigeria which always turned the scale against Nigeria. Okoi Arikpo, a cerebral intellectual of no mean standing, employed his formidable intellectualism and savvy to turn the tide against the Biafra Regime.

In the Africa continent, Okoi Arikpo’s effort to ensure that Biafra does not win more recognition after the dramatic recognition accorded it by France, Cote de Voire, Tanzania and Gabon was commendable. A commentator noted thus
“Meanwhile, the OAU Council of Ministers meeting in Kinshasa began on September 4 and lasted till September 11, 1967. The Council meeting normally prepares the agenda for the Heads of State meeting. Okoi Arikpo, Gowon's External Affairs minister had a short but firm mandate for the preparatory meeting: ‘Under no circumstances allow the Nigerian crisis to appear on the agenda for the OAU Summit.’ To back up his mandate, Arikpo would cite Article II (2) of the OAU Charter, which states that member states should not interfere in the internal affairs of other members unless invited to do so. He also insisted that Nigeria was not keen to invite the mediation of a third party. Gowon also mandated Arikpo to stage a walk-out from the Summit should the matter, by any means, appear on the agenda or be mentioned during the Summit’’.

Another commentator, Ufot Bassey Inamete in his Book, “Foreign Decision Making Policy in Nigeria’’, rightly noted the immense contribution of Okoi Arikpo during the Civil Wars thus:

“The pivotal role that the Ministry of External Affairs was able to play in the foreign policy decision-making system was also due to the sort of leadership that the Commissioner for External Affairs was able to provide. Dr. Okoi Arikpo, who was the Commissioner, was a respected politician and an able administrator. His steady and competent leadership earned respect and support of the career diplomats who dominated the Ministry of External affairs. Arikpo’s ability to work effectively with the career diplomats was also enhanced by his cautious and moderate foreign policy approach shared by the career diplomats. The effective and competent manner in which Arikpo and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that he headed managed Nigeria’s international relations during the Civil War period and the immediate Post- War period showed that Gowon’s Government was correct in allowing the Ministry to have clear primacy in the foreign decision making system. During the Civil War, the Ministry was able to help Nigeria to develop new vital relationships with East European (Military weapons from the Soviet Union and other East European countries) were very important in helping the Nigeria Military extinguish the succession of Biafra) while still maintaining adequate relationships with the traditional friendly countries of the West’’.
I will want to believe that the omission of the name of Okoi Arikpo was an act of inadvertence which can be corrected now that I have pointed it out. I, therefore respectfully nominate Okoi Arikpo to be included in the list of those honoured as part of the activities to mark the 50th anniversary of Nigeria’s Independence by Mr. President and accordingly a date set aside by Mr. President to present the Gold Medal which was given to the honourees to representatives of members of Okoi Arikpo’s family.

Undoubtedly, it is a blatant injustice of immense proportion and great disservice to the memory of Okoi Arikpo for successive Federal Governments to continue to blot his name from the list of those whom she has honoured over the years for their various contributions to the development of Nigeria.
Alternatively, I respectfully propose that the new Building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory be named after Dr. Okoi Arikpo Egede.

Yours Sincerely,

Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla

CC
Senator Liyel Imoke,

Governor of Cross River State of Nigeria,

Governor’s House,

Hope Waddell Avenue,

Calabar,

Cross River State,

Nigeria.

FRESH FACTS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

BY OKOI OBONO-OBLA

I was aghast when I read in the media about the arrest, arraignment and incarceration of the chairman of the editorial board of the Fresh Facts newspapers, Sam Asowata, on the order of the governor of Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio over the publication of story exposing a housing scam, which the governor was allegedly deeply involved, running into billions of naira.

In a reminiscence of the hey days of military dictatorship, Mr. Asowata was arrested in his office in Abuja with his daughter, by a contingent of well armed police officers and taken to Akwa Ibom State and immediately arraigned before a chief magistrate's court in Uyo on a charge of publication of seditious article with the intent to cause disaffection. Mr. Asowata was denied bail by the magistrate and ordered to be remanded in custody. The Akwa Ibom state government, obsessed with vengeance through its attorney-general filed a civil action in the High Court, Uyo, against the Fresh Facts.

I wondered aloud how a governor, who is a lawyer, and his attorney-general, would readily exhume a law (sedition) which was effectively laid to rest more than 24 (twenty-fours) ago by the then Federal Court of Appeal in a remarkable decision in the case of Arthur Nwankwo v. The State. Arthur Nwankwo, a radical politician, Writer and member of the left wing Peoples Redemption Party had published an acidic and ferocious critique of the government of the old Anambra State under the leadership of Jim Nwobodo, alleging mindless corruption and bad governance against the governor and his cohorts. He was arrested and charged to court. He was found guilty of sedition by a High Court and sentenced to jail. On appeal, the Federal Court of appeal set aside the conviction and declared that the section 50 of the criminal code which makes the seditious publication a criminal offence was at variance with the right of Freedom of expression and the press enshrined in the then 1979 constitution.

It is indeed a sad commentary that the learned attorney- general of Akwa Ibom State could not professionally advise the governor that charging a journalist for an offence founded under the law of sedition, is against the spirit and intendment of the constitution which he had sworn to preserve and protect when he became governor of Akwa Ibom State.

It shows that most professionals in government in this country hardly allow the professional dictates of their calling to reflect on the quality of advice they give. This attitude and mindset of professionals in the public service pandering to the whims and caprices of their appointers rather than being guided by professionalism, has invariably to do with the general belief that appointment in the public service is a passport and, indeed, an avenue for quick enrichment and personal aggrandisement. This is why public officials in the government hardly resign their appointments, even when they disagree with the policy direction and thrust of the government. It is a shame that the attorney-general of Akwa Ibom State would quickly rush to the court and exhume an archaic and anachronistic piece of legislation designed by the colonialists who held sway at the hey days of colonialism in these shores to stem the rising tide of nationalism fired by the change brought about the aftermath of the second World War.

The harassment and intimidation of the press and journalists in Akwa Ibom State by a governor whose legitimacy is still the subject of an intense legal challenge in the Court of Appeal, is a clear signal to a critical segment of the civil society that dictatorship is on the rise and would stop at nothing to ensure that the whole society tilts towards docility and timidity, and that people should think twice before deciding to express an alternative view point.

It is sad that a government supposedly founded on the rule of law and constitutionalism could readily resort to gestapo tactics to drive under ground dissenting segment of the civil society. Little wonder the South- South region has seen little development despite the huge amounts of money at the disposal of these governors. It is in the South-South that one will find the crudest and most authoritarian of governors who behave and carry on as a potentate to whom the people must genuflect. As we continue to forge ahead, it will be necessary to sound a note of caution to these governors to realise that they just have to tread softly and carefully. The governors have a stake in ensuring that democratic culture is fostered in the country; it is in their interest to so do.

To this end, the principles of separation of powers must be respected. There must also be an absolute respect for fundamental human rights, particularly the rights to freedom of association; and freedom of thought, conscience and expression. The governors must appreciate the unassailable fact that these rights are observed and practiced because the people voted them into office.

They are therefore, at all times, accountable to the people who gave them their mandate to leadership. They must be less magisterial and imperial in all their dealings and actions, otherwise they will lose the good will of the people and whether they like it or not, they could be voted out of office in 2011. Any Governor who thinks that he can hold the people in contempt because he can rig himself into power in 2011 in a phantom election had better think twice.

It is clear that the people are wiser and would never tolerate any phantom election where the votes of the people do not count. Anybody who wants to challenge the resolve of the people should take a cue from Kenya and other abundant evident lessons.

The inability to accommodate alternative views has seen state governors largely behaving as military administrators, reminiscent of the dark days of military dictatorship. In most of the states, opposition has been totally crippled so much so that the legislatures, which ought to be the constitutional watchdogs of these governors, are rendered otiose.

The desperate bid of governors to emasculate the legislative arm has seen most states having, a large turnout of impeachment of speakers of House of Assembly. As governors continue to show hostility to competing political view, they have further elevated the politics of exclusiveness, nepotism and cronyism to unprecedented heights. In almost all the states of the federation, the governors have seized total and absolute control of their party machinery.

By this arrangement, the political space is closed to all other competitors. Any attempt to challenge the status quo is met with the use of state apparatus to stifle it, and most often than not, in a very crude and brutal manner. This is civilian dictatorship. Dictatorship in any form or guise is bad. It is odious, whether it is wearing the military or civilian toga. The dictatorship of these governors has reached a ridiculous level, that media organs controlled by the states are used to practice a sort of personality cult seen in North Korea and the old Soviet Union.

These governors are so obsessed with the splendour and grandeur of power that less attention is invariably paid to the pressing needs of the people, such as good roads, healthcare and water, etc. These governors must understand that democracy is all about competition and disagreement; choices and options without which the beauty of democracy either fades away and or assumes a different name.



•Obono-Obla, a barrister and human rights activist, writes from Calabar, Cross River State. He is a member of the General Assembly of International Forum for Democracy and Peace .



This essay was published in the fresh facts newspaper & leadership newspaper in January, 2008