AFR Business Media

AFR Business Media

Ad example

AFR Business

The Burden Of Elections By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa

by

The Electoral Act, 2022 is commendable in its own ways given the challenges faced with the Electoral Act 2010 with its manifest limitations and shortfalls.

In a democratic setting, the only form of leadership change acceptable worldwide is through the ballot, whereby aspiring contestants submit themselves to the will of the people. Nigeria as a nation has gone through so many experiences in the course of change of leadership. Without any doubt, we have not had the best of times midwifing this process, given the desperation and manuevrings accompanying the system. In the words of the Electoral Act, 2022, “election” means ‘any election held under this Act and includes a referendum’ whilst “general election” means ‘an election held in the Federation at large which may be at all levels, and at regular intervals to select officers to serve after the expiration of the full terms of their predecessors’. According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, election is the right, power, or privilege of making a choice and when this is extended to politics, it then means the process of choosing leaders to occupy political offices. Depending on the situation, elections are supposed to be a transparent, effective and credible method of raising leaders by the people. It should be devoid of drama, violence or any form of manipulation.

One of the reasons why it is important that the will of the people be made known through an election is so as to hold the leaders accountable to the people that elected them. So, if we have free, fair and credible elections, then it becomes so easy to hold leaders to the promises made during the campaigns knowing well that non-performance or breach of these promises will be roundly met with rejection through the ballot. This is why we agitate for free and fair elections because that is the best way to guarantee performance by our leaders. In Nigeria presently, the process of choosing leaders is very complicated, starting from the rancorous primaries to the main elections, all tension soaked and reeking of violence and mind-bending manipulations. There is no transparent means of guaranteeing that the outcome of the various elections will produce the true choice of the people, which is why there are so many election-related cases in court. The chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC lamented that there are not less than six hundred cases pending in various courts on pre-election disputes, whilst the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court said that the cases are well over one thousand.

The Electoral Act, 2022 is commendable in its own ways given the challenges faced with the Electoral Act 2010 with its manifest limitations and shortfalls. However, the new Act is not without its own shortcomings, especially in the area of resolution of electoral disputes. It used to be the case that litigants could approach any court for the ventilation of their grievances with the exclusive jurisdiction granted to Election Petitions Tribunals to deal with all disputes arising from the conduct of elections. Whatever may be the motive of the legislators, they should not make laws to target individuals. In most cases, the legislators in the National Assembly are always at loggerheads with the governors of their respective States to their ultimate disadvantage. This is why in the present dispensation, almost half of the legislators are not returning to the National Assembly, no thanks to the governors who are akin to emperors. As a way of whittling down the powers and perceived influence of the governors on the judiciary in the States, the legislators inserted a clause in the Electoral Act, 2022 denying the High Court of the States jurisdiction to entertain pre-election cases. Section 84 (14) of the Act provides thus:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.”

The above provision effectively ousts the jurisdiction of the State High Courts from adjudicating upon pre-election cases, in favour of the Federal High Court, exclusively. Let me share my recent experience in court with you in order to appreciate some of the problems caused by the above provision of the Electoral Act and how elections have become burdensome to us all. I had a matter before the Federal High Court in Lagos, involving a commercial dispute that dictates some urgency, in that ex-parte orders were granted by the Court and there was need for an urgent determination of certain issues as many people were being affected. The case was to come up on November 8, 2022 for hearing until we got a notice from the Court to the effect that the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court had constituted a special task force of certain judges to hear and dispose of certain pre-election disputes, within one month. They were to set aside all other assignments arising in other cases pending before them for a whole month. What led to this? A certain political party had conducted its primary elections and was said to have forwarded the list of all its candidates in the State for the 2023 general elections to INEC, until a new presidential aspirant emerged on the scene who was said to have produced a fresh list of candidates that displaced the existing list. In the end, all the previous candidates filed separate suits in court numbering close to one sixty-five different cases. There were also other areas of disputes in the other political parties.

On November 8 when my case was scheduled to come up before the Court, I attended the Court session with my clients. The Court sat no doubt, but my case and indeed all other cases were not listed for the day. The judge sat early enough but the politicians and their lawyers that filed the pre-election cases which aborted our own and other important cases were nowhere to be found so the judge had to rise. The judge could not attend to our case due to the pending memo from the Honourable Chief Judge directing him to attend to only pre-election cases and our hearing was aborted that day. The recklessness of politicians, the impunity of leaders and their inability to follow their own constitution and rules of engagement led to the disruption of the schedule of the judiciary. This same scenario will play itself out next year, when over four hundred judges will abandon their regular court schedules to attend to various election petitions arising mostly from the fraud, manipulation and misconduct of politicians. When you have countless number of pre-election cases and numerous election petitions to be adjudicated upon, they are clear indications of the burden of elections, when those entrusted with political power refuse to play by their own rules. And we all carry the burden, in one form or the other. But they can and should be avoided.

In the appellate courts, that is the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, it is easier for the Carmel to pass through the needle than to secure a hearing date for pending appeals. It is said that the appellate courts have become burial grounds for litigation in Nigeria. Once your matter goes on appeal, you just go and relax or gather the parties and their counsel together to agree to resolve their dispute amicably. This is affecting investments, it is affecting our national life in many ways than we can imagine and it is wreaking great havoc on our common existence. We all say it openly that the court is the last hope of the common man because he has no one else to turn to whenever he suffers oppression and injustice from the high and mighty. In these very difficult times when life has become brutish and short, when the average person is finding it difficult to survive, the areas of worry for him should not include denial of access to justice, in any form whatsoever. An employee whose job has been unfairly determined without payment of his benefits should not have his case languishing in court for years, a wife who has been beaten, bruised and battered and thrown out of her matrimonial home should not have to endure endless adjournments for her to secure justice and it should not be the case that a helpless widow who is being deprived of the benefits of the estate of her deceased spouse should remain in court till she dies.

The other aspect of incongruity of section 84(14) of the Electoral Act conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in pre-election matters is that it constitutes a total disregard for the concept of federalism. Why should a court set up by and for the federal government be the one to determine disputes arising from primary elections conducted in Rivers, Kano or Lagos States, for the purpose of choosing candidates into the House of Assembly of those States. Why should disputes relating to the governorship election of Taraba State be the business of the Federal High Court? The National Assembly is dominated by members of the ruling All Progressives Congress which promised the people of Nigeria restructuring, true federalism and devolution of powers before the 2015 elections. How can that same political party, in 2022, enact a law that speaks against federalism in favour of a unitary system of government? It is an avoidable drawback. If the judges of the States are said to be under the control of their governors, is there no room for appeals against any judgment or decision that may be perceived to be wrong?

The Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court made an open statement recently that judges were not consulted by the National Assembly prior to the enactment of the Electoral Act which has now led to the unmanageable congestion of the dockets of that court, to the detriment of all other cases. To enact such an important law without consulting major stakeholders is a great disservice to nationhood by our legislators, with due respect. Maybe it was an oversight but now that the reality of that error is staring us in our faces to the point of blindness, it should be corrected urgently. In this regard, it is suggested that pre-election disputes should fall within the jurisdiction of the court that is closest to the venue of the election. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Electoral Act or indeed the constitution and guidelines of the political parties that judges of the State High Courts cannot interpret or decide upon. After all, these same judges form the nucleus of the Election Petition Tribunals that would adjudicate upon the main election in 2023. So how come they are disqualified from deciding pre-election disputes when they are the ones to resolve the disputes from the main election? We should not allow the conduct of elections and the resolution of the disputes arising therefrom constitute any burden to our people.

Illegal Reinstatement Of Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia By Peter Adefemi

by

Access to Justice, a respected civil society organisation has rightly condemned the purported reinstatement of Mrs Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia as a Judge of the Federal High Court. In a well-worded press statement, Access to Justice rightly observed that

“The NJC’s decision to reinstate Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia, in the face of serious and damning accusations against her, which the Council itself investigated and substantiated, is deeply unfortunate. The Council’s decision will cast a long, dark shadow over the Judiciary for a long time to come and amplify questions whether the Nigerian judiciary can continue to legitimately exercise judicial power.”

According to Access to Justice, “A judiciary’s legitimacy rests on the pedestal of public confidence and trust. A Judiciary that cannot offer that trust loses the moral authority to sit in judgment over others. By foisting a judge with an incredible load of baggage – details of which, by the way, are in the public domain – to sit in judgment over cases involving other people, the NJC pollutes the justice delivery process, and violates the rights of litigants to fair trial before a judge with requisite skills and reputation.”

It is not in dispute that Mrs Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia’s purported reinstatement as a Judge is based on the judgment of the Honourable Justice Binta Nyako which had set aside her suspension by the National Judicial Council. But another Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice R. Aikawa had ruled that the President has dismissed her as a Judge on the basis of the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.

Since the President has dismissed Mrs Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia as a Judge of the Federal High Court and her dismissal has not been challenged by her where then has the National Judicial Council acquired the powers to overrule the President and reinstate her? Under what law or rule has the National Judicial Council quashed the judgment of the Federal High Court which has confirmed her dismissal from the federal judicial service? Why did Mrs Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia not appeal against the judgment of Justice Aikawa on her dismissal as a Judge of the Federal High Court?

We are compelled to call on President Muhammadu Buhari not to allow the National Judicial Council to overrule him and reinstate a dismissed Judge. The National Judicial Council must not be permitted to set a dangerous precedent in an attempt to cover up a Judge that has been exposed in a public trial as fantastically corrupt. How will members of the public have confidence in the Federal High Court if the judicial officers presiding cases in the court are people of questionable character? One of the allegation at her trial is that she collected a bribe of N12 million from the Comptroller-General of Customs in order to fix a case for the organisation. Are Judges no longer expected to be above board like Caesar’s wife?

It is embarrassing that the National Judicial Council did not envisage the fact that the judgments and proceedings of the court presided over by Mrs Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia are going to be set aside on the ground that she has been dismissed from the federal judicial service. The costly implication is that all appeals against the ‘Judge’ be set aside by the Court of Appeal. Indeed, some lawyers and litigants will pray not to have their cases assigned to her court.

Re-instatement Of Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia: Pristine Justice Finally Served By Mike Ozekhome

by

News that the National Judicial Council (NJC) – the nation’s judicial regulatory agency – has reversed its earlier suspension (on corruption charges), of Hon. Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia and re-instated her as a judge of the Federal High Court, has elicited mostly positive – even if muted – responses from a large section of the society, particularly stakeholders in the justice – delivery sector. So far, the apparent lone voice of dissent appears to be that of a Civil Society Organization (CSO) – the Access to Justice (or A2J for short). Let me clearly state here that A2J is one of the few credible CSOs still available in the country, many others having become nothing but mere merchantilistic money-guzzling and international donor- recipients, who merely look the other way even as the nation is being brazenly and rapaciously stripped bare by her minders, of what remains of her respect, dignity and claims to nationhood. Like the Egyptian Nero, the 5th Roman Emperor – (AD 54 – AD 68), a man who was notorious for his treachery and debauchery, they “fiddled while Rome burned”.

This is why I was surprised to read a press release, titled (rather most unkindly): “A brutal agonizing stab on the soul and body of Nigeria’s Judiciary”, made by A2J. The respected organization in the said statement frowned at NJC’s action in reinstating Justice Ajumogobia, a refreshingly welcome act, which it described as “unfortunate”; given what it called, “serious and damning accusations against Justice Ajumogobia”. In its opinion, NJC’s decision “will cast a long and dark shadow over the Judiciary for a long time to come and amplify questions whether the Nigerian Judiciary can continue to legitimately exercise judicial power”. The CSO therefore called on the NJC to immediately reverse its decision to reinstate Justice Ajumogobia. No. It is the other way round. The NJC should be commended and accorded plaudits and encomiums for this uncommon act of observance of due process and the rule of law.

BACKGROUND FACTS

To enable us have a full grasp and understanding of the depth and breadth of the circumstances surrounding the NJC’s overdue decision, it is necessary to put forward and review Justice Ajumogobia’s painful and agonizing travails over the years. Her Lordship was first dragged before Hon. Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the High Court of Lagos State on 28th November, 2016 (over six years ago), alongside a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Godwin Obla.

They were arraigned on 30 counts, in which the latter was accused of offering Justice Ajumogobia the sum of N5 million as gratification allegedly to influence her decision in a Suit marked FHC/L/C/482c/2010. Furthermore, Justice Ajumogibia was accused of receiving the sum of $793,800 in several tranches from different sources between 2012 and 2015 “so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.” That trial went nowhere and Justice Ajumogobia was reprieved after she was discharged.

Not satisfied, however, the EFCC re-arraigned her before Hon. Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, who in a ruling delivered on the 19th day of November, 2021, brought her ordeal to an end, as the court accepted her counsel’s application and quashed all the 18 counts against her, which had alledged unlawful enrichment, bribery and money laundering. In the words of the court: “An order is hereby granted striking out or quashing the charge against the applicant in its entirety for being incompetent and this court lacks the jurisdiction to try same.” If the public thought that the ruling had far-reaching implications for the Judiciary in terms of obedience to court orders, more hair-splitting was to arise as to how the learned trial Judge arrived at his judgement.

The answer lies in a subsequent judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 11th of December, 2017, in the case of FRN vs Hon. Justice Nganjiwa. The court in that case held that a serving Judge cannot be prosecuted by the EFCC or any prosecutorial agency unless the Judge had first been probed by the NJC, found guilty and dismissed. Justice Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, who delivered the lead judgement which was unanimously endorsed by other members of the panel, declared that “the NJC is the sole body empowered by the Constitution to determine allegations of misconduct against judicial officers even on criminal allegations of bribery and corruption made against them”.

Continuing, the intermediate court held that “NJC is created by the Constitution to solely regulate affairs of the appointed judicial officer without interference from any authority, and that it is only when the NJC has given a verdict and handed over such judicial officer (removing his toga of judicial powers) to the prosecuting authority that he may then be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate security agencies”. This judgement was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court earlier this year on 27th May, 2022.

It was against this background that Hon. Justice Allagoa, upon being presented with the true and correct position of the law, discharged and acquitted Justice Ajumogobia, on the 21st day of November, 2021, as aforesaid. Pray, where is Ajumogobia’s fault in any of these? Is she to blame for seeking justice through the constitutionally – guaranteed medium, having her day in court and prevailing in hotly contested cases that dragged her name in the mud for over six years? Must she be persecuted for being successful and coming out triumphant against all odds – the serial attempts to truncate her illustrious judicial career, prematurely? Must NJC be unfairly lampooned for obeying court orders and refusing to appeal same after discovering its earlier error in hastily terminating her appointment? Is the NJC a court of law with supervisory jurisdiction over courts of law? The answers to these posers are too obvious to admit of any sophistry or Baba Sala’s Kerikeri histrionics. This conveniently takes us to the next question, which is:

IS ACCESS TO JUSTICE RIGHT IN ITS OPINION?

This question is legitimate because, even though opinion is free, it must, however, be expressed responsibly, with due regard to the facts of each case and the rights of other persons; and – in the peculiar circumstances of this case – the observance of the rule of law, equity, fairness, justice and respect for citizens’ fundamental rights. Yes, A2J has a right to its opinion on the re-instatement of Justice Ajumogobia; but is that opinion correct? Is Ajumogobia’s case of reinstatement to her duties unique, uncharted, or unusual? Is there anything to suggest that NJC’s decision was motivated by any untoward considerations? Was it actuated by inappropriate motives such as a desire “to protect one of its own”, seemingly at all cost? Was the decision, all things considered, in the public interest? Is it fair for Access to Justice to have jumped to the conclusion that it was not? Was Justice Ajumogobia’s case special? Is it unprecedented? Why should she – as the Organization suggests – remain suspended and traumatised indefinitely for over a year (since November, 19, 2021),even after the Federal High Court had quashed the charges for which she was indicted in the first place? Is law an instrument of oppression? Is it no longer an instrument of social engineering as Prof Dean Roscoe Pound once propounded?

AJUMOGOBIA NOT AN ISOLATED CASE

These questions are pertinent because not only was Justice Ajumogobia in ‘judicial limbo’ for well over six years (since November, 28, 2016, when she was first arraigned), hers was certainly not an isolated case. A host of judicial officers who were similarly indicted and charged to court for alleged corrupt practices and unjust enrichment by the EFCC, the Code of Conduct Bureau and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, had since been reprieved, with some of them fully restored or reinstated to their various posts and positions in the judiciary.

Some of these Jurists include, but not limited to, late Hon Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC,of the Supreme Court; and Hon. Justice Adeniyi Ademola( rtd) of the FHC; Hon. Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa ( FHC); and Hon.Justice Agbadu Fishim ( NICN). All the charges against them were quashed and dismissed for incompetence; and all of them were reinstated as judicial officers by the NJC. The only curious exceptions were Hon Justices Agbadun Fishin and Gladys Ololtu ( FHC ), whose secured victories from courts of competent jurisdictions were surprisingly appealed by the NJC, a judicial organ that ought ordinarily to protect the dignity of the courts and to bow to superior decisions of such courts of law that delivered judgements after full-blown trials and hearings duly witnessed by members of the public. Justice Ngwuta later resumed his duties fully at the Supreme Court. I had the opportunity to appear before him in some cases before he transited.Not few Nigerians believe that his subsequent death not long after his reinstatement to the apex court was occasioned by the humiliation,mental trauma,agonizing ordeal and psychological depression that attended his state – sponsored persecution. Hon Justice Ademola honourably retired from judicial service after his reinstatement. Continuing in service to an apparently ungrateful and lynching country was no longer necessary. Do you blame him? Former CJN, Walter Onoghen, was literally humiliated,intimidated, harassed, hunted, and finally hounded out of the apex court through a mere ex parte order instigated by an intemperate Executive that bayed for his juristic blood.So, why and how is Justice Ajumogobia’s case different,having won her case? Yet, some other Judges were merely investigated and never charged to court at all. Why? That is the question which Access to Justice should seek answers to. For example, the unfair case of Hon.Justice Nnamdi Dimgba cries to high heavens here.The house of the cerebral and intellectually – grounded Scholar-Jurist was crudely attacked, broken into and ransacked by hooded SSS operatives who pulled down doors and windows. Nothing incriminating was ever found on him. But, did the government deem it fit,decent and noble to apologise to him; to balm his bruised ego ? No. Has this government ever realized what harm and mental torture are thereby inflicted and etched forever in the psyche of such innocent citizens whose houses were brutally invaded, viet armies, and with them and their families brazenly subjected to intimidation, coercion, fear and humiliation?

THE UNFAIR CRITICISM

In castigating the NJC for reinstating Justice Ajumogobia, Access to Justice (which has undoubtedly made its mark as a credible Civil Society Organisation over the years), unfortunately terribly missed the mark this time around. This is because, without proffering any convincing logical, moral, legal or constitutional arguments for impugning Justice Ajumogobia’s reinstatement following her exoneration by various courts of law, A2J came across in its press release, as less-than-professional (with all due respect); and motivated by less than altruistic considerations. Perhaps, one of the very few instances,though.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL REGIME

For the avoidance of doubt, any criticism of Ajumogobia’s reinstatement can only be accommodated and must be located within the precincts and four corners of the clear provisions of sections 6,153(1)(i),158,292(1) and Paragraph 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, which clearly spell out the plenitude and amplitude of the functions of the NJC –and no more. Anything short of that would be unconstitutional. Yes, corruption is bad; and judicial corruption is even worse – infact, more deadly and cancerous. I once described corruption,on 12th September, 2013 ( after my release from my three week excruciating ordeal in the hands of kidnappers),as the 37th State of Nigeria,which I described as the wealthiest and most powerful. I had therefore theorized, and I still maintain my theory, that we must kill corruption before corruption kills us all. But, in fighting corruption, we must do so within the realm of decency, with respect to citizens’ rights and observance of the rule of law and due process.Fighting corruption with corrupt, unorthodox or unconscionable means is a worse form of corruption. Thus, to condemn a Ajumogobia’s reinstatement to her position from which she was wrongly and unconstitutionally removed in the first place, so as to perpetually subject her to the asphyxiating and hanging Sword of Damocles, despite having been fully cleared of all charges by courts of competent jurisdiction – as A2J appears to suggest– is simply most unfair and uncharitable, to put it mildly.

This stance is surprising, given A2J’s pedigree as an organization consisting mostly of legal practitioners. They are, first and foremost, Ministers in the Temple of Justice. They therefore ought to be familiar with the famous aphorism that, “it is better for 10 guilty men (or women) to be set free than for an innocent man or woman (in this case, Justice Ajumogobia) to be convicted”. This is even worse where such conviction is by the court of public opinion that lacks all the necessary facts and the peculiar workings our justice system. Put simply, A2J got it wrong this time around – big time.

CONCLUSION

My humble take on this is that instead of the NJC apologizing for doing the right thing and obeying valid court orders as A2J appears ro suggest, it is the organization that ought to apologise to both the NJC and Justice Ajumogobia, for allowing itself to buy into frenzied ‘mob’ sentiments; the usual government’s ” name-and-shame” mantra; and pedestrian logic in its knee-jerk reaction to NJC’s action, which ought to be applauded by all and sundry.

Justice Ajumogobia has been tried in courts of law, discharged and given a clean bill of health. She has had her day in court. She has been vindicated. Whoever is aggrieved by her well-deserved exoneration and reinstatement should give her – and the NJC – a total break; and move on. The courts have spoken and it is final. Decisions of the NJC are inferior to that of a court of law. That is the extant position under our constitutional dispensation. There is no room for jungle justice, trial by media, sensationalism, hype, or speculation-least of all, from respected senior lawyers that ought to know better.

Beyond this, it remains to be emphasized that the Common law or Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence which we operate in Nigeria is accusatorial. It is not the French model, which is inquisitorial. In the accusatorial model, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the State. This has been enacted into section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.This is different from the inquisitorial French model which is inquisitorial; where a defendant is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. Consequently, to the extent that Hon.Justice Ajumogobia has undergone the full rigours of a trial and came out unscathed, to that extent is it most uncharitable for anyone to suggest, let alone insist, that she should continue to prove her innocence, as it were.

THE WAY FORWARD

The role of the NJC in all this also deserves some commentary. This is because, as a constitutional body, its role should be no more than to dispassionately investigate allegations of misconduct against Judges and, where unproven or disproved, it should unhesitatingly and promptly reinstate such Judges, in the event that they had earlier been interdicted. Under no circumstances should NJC go so far as appealing against a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction which exonerates a judicial officer-as it is currently doing with respect to the cases of Hon.Justice Gladys Olotu and Hon Justice Agbadu-Fishim. This, with all respect, due deference and full humility, is patently wrong. I hereby humbly appeal to the NJC to immediately discontinue and withdraw those appeals. They are as unnecessary as they are persecutory. The NJC should admit to errors and fallibility. It is not God.

The NJC should only indict Judges in the clearest of cases. It should never allow itself to be used or misused, wittingly or unwittingly, by the other arms of Government (particularly,the intolerant and unaccountable Executive), to hound, hunt, or persecute hapless Judges doing their legitimate work. That would be grossly unfair and amounting to a flagrant affront to the Constitution. Those arms of Government should first cleanse and deodorize their stinking Augean stables – where confirmed cases of corruption-on-steroids abound – before turning to the Judiciary – Alexander Hamilton’s weakest of the three arms of government (Federalist Paper No 78 ). This is because, compared to these other arms of government, the Judiciary – as a body – is a Saint occupying mother earth. Please, let Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia, a brilliant and fecund quintessential Jurist, be.

Exposing The Media’s Underbelly In The Town Hall By Dr Akin Olaniyan

by

Until next February, I think Nigerians should take some time to think about what the last two weeks of ‘roforofo’ fight says of the quality of the media.

If you were to look across the Nigerian media landscape, you would be an incurable optimist to not find the view distressing. The Nigerian media is renowned for its vibrancy and for famously leading a pushback against the military between 1985 and 1999. But it has lately struggled under the crushing weight of a harsh economic environment and digital disruption. The two issues have eroded revenue and public trust as media managers struggle with the effects of new dynamics of and the demands to fulfil its statutory role. Critics will add though that these are not the only reasons the Nigerian media is losing colour; because investigative reporting thrived in the dark years of military rule, when the likes of Newswatch, TheNEWS and Tell served as powerful centres for investigative reporting. The commitment of the founders of those news organisations and their journalists to the social responsibility of holding those in power to account also placed them, along with many other newspapers, at the centre of pro-democratic struggles against the military. As some suggest, the media is guilty of internal failures including but not limited to its addiction to converting influence to money and the loss of biting power that this entails.

Some studies of the Nigerian media have found that investigative reporting is at an embarrassingly low six percent of published stories. That of course means two things: most of the media favour ‘recycling press releases’ from the political and business elite; and ‘circulating spins and partisan rhetoric’ as news. The result is that despite the recent commitment of a few digital-born newspapers to return to investigative reporting, most newspaper reports offer the same diet of predominantly elite voices that come through press releases. It’s so dull that reading one lead story in a major newspaper is enough to guess correctly what you would find in the others. That’s until the simple issue of an invitation to a presidential debate or what the organiser calls a Town Hall meeting gifted Nigerians a ring-side view of the media equivalent of a brawl or what the late Fela Anikulapo Kuti liked to describe as ‘roforofo’ fight. I see that some young journalists have expressed their fears that the public spat between the editors of THISDAY and ARISE Television on one side and the All Progressives Congress (APC’s) Presidential Campaign Council amounts to a washing of the media’s dirty linen in the public. Of course, any young journalist who is serious about his craft should be worried about the long-lasting effect of the kind of narrative that has emerged in the last two weeks.

Take a close look at the arguments from both sides and you could summarise those four statements issued in the last two weeks into a simple question of elite domination of the media. The picture being painted is a media environment in which those who are powerful enough could influence the way in which they are reported. To therefore dwell on the refusal of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the presidential candidate of the APC to appear at a debate hosted by THISDAY and ARISE is to miss the chance to openly debate the cancer that’s killing the media. Some quick words on the presidential debates though. The United States, which made this exercise popular offers some lessons on organizing credible debates and I think we should pay attention. Apart from the first one that was held in 1960, and which was sponsored by ABC, CBS and NBC, the three media giants; the debate appears to have moved away from direct media sponsorship since then. The ones in 1976, 1980 and 1984 were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, while the ones from 1988 to 2016 were organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit set up for the sole purpose of organizing these all-important debates. Even so, the CPDs choice of corporate sponsorships had raised concerns.

So, clearly, if we cared so much about the debate that brings the presidential candidates of the political parties together, why should we not care about the platform on which they gather? I think it is reasonable to believe that a debate organized on the platform of the Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) or the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigerian (BON) or even both would be sufficiently stronger than one by a media organisation that is not trusted by some of the candidates and their parties. I agree that Nigerians deserve the chance to see and listen to the candidates present their detailed programmes in the format of formal debates but if there are concerns that affect the credibility of the platform on which those debates are organized; those concerns ought to be addressed at the very least. Otherwise, and as it is not a requirement for standing in the coming elections, Nigerians should be allowed to decide who rules them. If they choose to punish those who have avoided the debates, our democracy would have moved a step forward; If they don’t, we would have another evidence of the arrogance of the media, which is still holding on to the diminished idea that it is an agenda setter. Until next February, I think Nigerians should take some time to think about what the last two weeks of ‘roforofo’ fight says of the quality of the media.

I will try to summarise the allegations from both sides. The Board of Editors of THISDAY/ARISE News accused APC’s presidential campaign media team led by its Director of Media and Publicity, Mr. Bayo Onanuga and its Director, Strategic Communication, Mr. Dele Alake of trying to ‘silence independent media, cower as well as bully free press ahead of the 2023 general elections in what they described as a copycat style of former US President, Donald Trump against independent media’. The Board in a joint statement titled: “Tinubu and THISDAY/ARISE Media Group and the Attack on Free Speech,” noted that Tinubu’s campaign had resorted to attacking the Chairman of THISDAY and ARISE TV, Nduka Obaigbena and accused him and his organisations of bias against the APC Presidential Candidate. On their part, the APC’s presidential campaign media team point to a story they claimed baselessly linked their candidate with a drug case in the US and accused the two organisations of a dubious attempt to blackmail their candidate into attending the Town Hall meetings they had organized. Even if you ignored the other allegations that questioned the character of both Obaigbena and Tinubu because they are on the borderline of libel, the ones relating to the performance of the media deserve attention.

It might be difficult to prove that there was an attempt to muzzle the media in this case but for anyone who has passed through a newsroom in Nigeria, this in nothing strange at all. Elite influences come in different guises and they trump editorial independence all the time because media owners have prized friends that are untouchable, just as advertisers want favour for their money. Media managers do not hesitate to move journalists who do anything to hurt the ‘business,’ even though this business model has done little to halt the decline that is killing media houses.

With print runs down to a meagre 1,000 to 5,000 copies in some of the newspaper houses and advertisers migrating online, it might be tempting for media owners and managers to indulge the clientelism that puts money in private pockets. That model enriches a few, weakens editorial independence and erodes ethics. In this model, you might see ‘celebrity’ journalists whose egos grow but only at the expense of the organisation, which gives them a platform to ‘bully’ the reluctant business and political elite into playing ball. In this sort of environment, how does a battered and discredited media remake itself? It looks to me like this should be the question that journalists should be asking because it goes to the root of most of the things wrong with the industry.

In an industry where only a few organisations manage to pay staff regularly, the crooked and lopsided relationship between the media and the elite exposes journalists to manipulation. The temptation to compromise is high, and in the attempt to serve special interests, breeds bias and blackmail. Interestingly, media organisations that have attempted to discourage such practices by imposing ethical codes have experienced a pushback from the business and political elites. Either way, you hardly hear of these things outside of newsrooms. If your editor or publisher moved you because you wrote a negative story against a ‘client,’ you simply moved because that would be good for ‘business’. You only hear organisations complaining about requests to move a journalist for doing what he is paid to do when money is not involved.

Dr. Akin Olaniyan is the Executive Director of the Centre for Social Media Research

Court jails Okupe for money laundering

by

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, convicted and sentenced Mr Doyin Okupe, former Senior Special Assistant (SSA) on Media to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, Doyin Okupe, to two years imprisonment.

Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, in a judgment, found Mr Okupe guilty in 26 out of the 59 counts preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the money laundering offence.

Justice Ojukwu ordered that the 26 counts, which attracted two-year jail-term each, would run concurrently.

The judge, however, gave an option of N500, 000 in each of the counts, amounting to N13 million, which must be paid before 4:30pm ,(the close of work) today.

Mr Okupe’s wife and son of Okupe had pleaded for leniency after he was convicted.

Besides, former Governor of old Anambra, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife, and former National Orientation Agency (NOA), Dr Idi Farouk, had also urged the court to temper justice with mercy in Okupe’s sentencing.

The court, presided over by Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, had convicted Okupe for breaching the Money Laundering Act.

Justice Ojukwu, in a judgment, held that Okupe was found guilty of contravening Sections 16(1)&(2) of the Money Laundering Act, for accepting cash payments without going through financial institution, in excess of the threshold allowed under the Act.

Okupe is the Director General of the Presidential Campaign Council (PCC) of the Labour Party (LP).

Okupe was said to have received N240 million in cash from the office of the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (retired).

The judge had, earlier, stood down proceedings tfor Okupe to exercise his right under Section 310 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to call witnesses to testify about his character, before the court could proceed to pronounce sentence on the convict.