The hurt and hatred in us Like tantase in the sea, We asked, How did we get here?
The wile and guile in humanity Like an umbrella in the ocean We asked What is the need?
The whine and pretentious love Like the roses in pepper soup We asked Why must we be stupid?
Years and years of guerillas precariousness Like a fermented sombo (hot pepper) powder Gifted to the bride for a makeover How insensible shall we continue?
Will-o’-the-wisp For the love and light has lost their shine Humanity fading like unsaturated smoke Along the path of dereliction
I weep for the day a baby was born The day she knows not her death. If the debt of birth is death Shall it not be for a good cause?
Who are we to query the agent of death Perhaps it sticks around awaiting our head But if truth has a cudgel Why the wicked still rest needs an explanation
I cry for my insecurity As my safety scares me If our guardian becomes our guerrillas Who then is safe?
(Dedicated to Haneefah! Decrying the level at which humanity as gone sour⊠We love baby Haneefah! May Allah grant her family the fortitude to bear the loss. We hope we shall see the end of insecurity in this nation some days)
It emerged late last week that Communications and Digital Economy Minister Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami (or his agents) possibly instructed Zamfara State governor Bello Muhammad Matawalle to place an advertorial in the Daily Trust to congratulate Pantami on his âpromotion to the Rank of Full Professor of Cybersecurityâ by an unnamed university.
(In the advertorial, Matawalle repeated the dishonestly hyperbolized claims Pantami cherishes and promotes, such as the claim that he has over 160 publicationsâwhich donât show up in any scholarly repositoryâand that he was trained at Harvard, MIT, and Oxford even though he only attended a few daysâ workshops there. He used the American English âfull professorâ that the Islamic University of Madinah where Pantami taught also uses to describe what is simply called âprofessorâ in British and Nigerian terminology. Since Mutawalle isnât an academic, itâs obvious that Pantami wrote the advertorial for him.)
I later learned that Pantamiâs âprofessorshipâ was granted by the Federal University of Technology, Owerri, where he has never taught. It doesnât take much thought to see that the âprofessorial promotionâ and, worse, its promotion in the media is some self-humiliating intellectual duplicity perpetrated by Pantami himself.
The last academic position Pantami held before he became DG of NITDA in 2016 was an assistant professorship (roughly equivalent to a senior lectureship in the Nigerian system) at the Islamic University of Madinah where he taught for two years after his PhD in 2014.
Before earning his PhD in the UK, he taught at the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU) in Bauchi as a junior lecturer. At no point in his academic career did he ever teach at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri. So, only ATBU or the Islamic University of Madinah could have legitimately promoted him to the position of professor.
But he couldnât possibly be promoted to professorship at the Islamic University in Madinah because, having terminated his contract with the school to take up a government appointment, he is no longer in the schoolâs employ. Plus, his last rank at the university was an assistant professor.
To be promoted to full professor he would first need to be an associate professor for at least 5 years, but he was assistant professor for only two years, and you need to be an assistant professor for at least 5 years to be promoted to associate professor.
At ATBU, he was either a Lecturer II or a Lecturer Iâor perhaps an assistant lecturerâ before he left the school for his doctoral studies. To become a professor there, he would first need to be promoted to a senior lecturer and then a reader (which is called Associate Professor in the North American system) before becoming a professor. That would take at least 6 years.
In other words, Pantami is not qualified to be promoted to the rank of professor in the two universities he has some associations with. Most importantly, though, he is not qualified to be appointed professor by and at ANY university in the world because he does not teach, research, or render service at any university now.
A professorship isnât a flippant, honorary title that can be arbitrarily conferred on people who pay for itâlike honorary doctorates have become. It is the crowning accomplishment and the highest professional rank that is bestowed on people who teach and research at a university. Itâs like the position of permanent secretary for the civil service, editorship for journalism, ambassadorship for the diplomatic service, managing directorship or the position of a CEO for the private sector, or being a field marshal in the military.
You canât be made permanent secretary and not work in the civil service, an ambassador and not work in the diplomatic service, an editor and not work for a media organization, a CEO and not be associated with the company that made you CEO, or a field marshal and be away from military service.
Pantami is a âprofessorâ who doesnât profess, who doesnât teach, research, or render service at the university that supposedly conferred the title on him. Thatâs a down-the-line intellectual scam that he should be ashamed of. Itâs one of the most intellectually violent vandalisms of time-honored academic conventions Iâve seen in a long while.
As a religious cleric whom many young people look up to, Pantami should know better than to perpetrate fraud, promote it through third parties, and then swank it himself with unabashed hauteur. If he has any honor and really desires a professorship, he should disclaim this fraudulent âprofessorshipâ and earn it the right way.
After his tenure in 2023, he should go back to either ATBU or the Islamic University in Madinah and spend at least 6 to 8 years teaching, researching, and rendering service. Then he might legitimately earn a professorship. Different universities have different criteria for promoting academics to the position of professor. Some prioritize teaching over research. Others prioritize research over teaching. Still others strike a happy balance between the two.
If he is too impatient to follow the conventional route to professorship, he can get the Federal University of Technology, Owerri, to make him a professor of practice in cybersecurity AFTER his ministerial tenure. This will, of course, require him to relocate to Owerri and actually teach students there. Professors of practice donât have to go through the traditional protocols of academic promotion because it is their industry experience, not their scholarship or pedagogy, that is the basis for their employment.
My friend Kingsley Moghalu was a professor of practice at Tufts University in the United States. Although Nigerian universities donât have a tradition for appointing professors of practice, there is always a first time. If Pantami can bludgeon a university into âpromotingâ him to the position of âprofessorâ even when he has zero formal association with it, he can cause it to do anything.
But to pretend to be a âprofessorâ when he isnât qualified to be oneâand when he doesnât teach and has never taught at the university that conferred the position on himâis the sort of self-debasing fraud a religious leader shouldnât be identified with.
To be sure, Pantamiâs fraudulent âprofessorshipâ isnât new. As I pointed out in my June 25, 2011 column titled âNdi Okereke-Onyiukeâs Fake Doctorate and Professorship,â former Nigeria Stock Exchange boss Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, whose PhD is fake, got her âprofessorshipâ the exact way Pantami got his: through intellectual legerdemain. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka made her âprofessor of capital market studiesâ in 2007 without having ever taught a course at the university before and after her conferral.
The late Dora Akunyiliâs path to professorship was less fraudulent than Okereke-Onyiukeâs and Pantamiâs but it was also unusual. As I wrote in the June 25, 2011 column, âAlthough she taught at [UNN] for long, she left for public service when she was many ranks away from a professorship. Curiously, however, it was while she was officially away from teaching, research, and university service that she mysteriously skipped several ranks and became a âprofessorâ.â
In my December 5, 2020 column titled âGanduje and Fraudulent American âProfessorshipsâ for Nigerian Politicians,â I called attention to the growingly maddening titular vanity among Nigerian politicians that causes them to want to be known as âprofessors.â âYou see, bought honorary doctorates have lost their gravitas and the âDr.â title has now lost its sheen among Nigerian politicians, so they are moving to the next level, which is bought âprofessorshipsâ,â I wrote.
A U.S.-based Cameroonian academic by the name of Victor Mbarika used to routinely scam Nigerian politicians into thinking they had been appointed to âprofessorshipâ at a historically black Louisiana university called Southern University. Ike Ekweremadu was told that he had been appointed âprofessorâ at the university. Ganduje was also scammed by the same guy until his scam was unveiled.
Pantami appears to be leading a detour back to home universities for the conferral of fraudulent âprofessorshipâ on politicians who can pay compromised university administrators. Fortunately, the NUC is now headed by Professor Abubakar Abdulrasheed, a conscientious, ethically sound, thoroughbred academic who has a reputation for doing the right things.
I hope Professor Abdulrasheed will cause the NUC to sanction the FUT, Owerri, for the intellectual fraud it has perpetrated in âpromotingâ an undeserving non-employee to its highest academic rank and ensure that other mercenary university administrators donât replicate this swindle in the future.
I also hope Pantami has enough decency left in him to renounce the professorial fraud he wearsâ in the interest of the sanctity of what remains of Nigerian university traditions.
President Muhammadu Buhari is a magnet for both extravagantly flattering myths and stubborn falsehoods. Here are the top five:
Muhammadu Buhariâs very name is wrapped in a curious omission. In most parts of the world, peopleâs last names are usually either their family name or their fatherâs first name. Not for Buhari. Muhammadu (which his teachers spelled as âMohamedâ when he was in secondary school) is his first given name and Buhari is his middle name, not his surname. He was named after prolific ninth-century Persian Hadith compiler by the name of Muhammad al-Bukhari who was born in a city called Bukhara in what is now Uzbekistan.
Bukhari isnât a personal given name; itâs a demonym, that is, a name given to people who come from a particular place, such as Nigerian, Briton, American, Lagosian, New Yorker, etc. Bukhari simply means a native of the city of Bukhara in Uzbekistan, a West Asian nation that used to be a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
In Muslim and Middle Eastern linguistic traditions, the letter âiâ is usually added to the end of the names of villages, towns, cities, and countries to form demonyms. Thatâs why someone from Pakistan is called a Pakistani, someone from Israel is called an Israeli, someone from the UAE is called an Emirati, and so on. If the demonym of Bukhara were to be given in Hausa, it would be Danbuhara. In Yoruba, it would be Omobuhara. In my native Baatonu, it would be Buharagi. (My last name, Kperogi, is a demonym, and it means someone from Kperu, the short form of my hometownâs name, Senru Kperu, but which Yoruba people call Okuta).
So how did Muhammadu Buhari come to be known by his names? Because of the immense reverence that Muhammad al-Bukhari enjoys among Sunni Muslims, Muslims have historically honored him by naming their children after him, so instead of just calling them Bukhari (which they may literally not be since they may not be natives of Bukhara in Uzbekistan), they typically combine the manâs first and last names: Muhammad Bukhari.
Most Nigerian languages, including Hausa, donât have the phoneme âkh,â which sounds almost exactly like the sound you produce when you are discharging mucus from your throat. The closest phonemic approximation of that sound is âh,â which explains why âBukhariâ is rendered as âBuhariâ in many African languages.
Our Muhammadu Buhari doesnât bear his fatherâs name even though he is so proud of his paternal ancestry that he gratuitously flaunts it. For instance, in his October 18, 1961 âApplication to sit for RNA Qualifying Examination,â he called attention to his ethnic identity even when it wasnât warranted. âI have the honour to apply for regular service in the Royal Nigeria Army. My name is Muhammadu Buhari and I am a Fulani. I am eighteen years old and I am in Form Six at the Provincial Secondary School Katsina,â he wrote.
Buhariâs father who gave him the Fulani bloodline he brandishes (his mother is Kanuri) was called Adamu Bafallaje (or Bafalle in Hausa). In fact, Buhariâs older brother who died in a car crash in the late 1980s and whose Buhari-lookalike son, Fatuhu Muhammad, represents the Daura/Sandamu/MaiAdua federal constituency in the House of Representative was called Mamman Danbafalle. (Danbafalle means son of Bafalle in Hausa, and Mamman is the Hausa domestication of Muhammad. Itâs common in Muslim families to have many siblings named Muhammad, but theyâre often differentiated with their middle names).
If you ask most Nigerians where Buhari is from, they will most likely say heâs from Daura. But he is not. His hometown, by which I mean the town where he was born and where his father lived and died, is called Dumurkul. Itâs a sleepy roadside village in Katsinaâs Maiadua Local Government Area, which is about three kilometers from Daura and about five kilometers from the last village in the Niger-Nigeria border.
A March 16, 2019 Daily Trust report on the village said Dumurkul is a Fulfulde word, which means ââsettlement for herdersâ, especially for those who stay for at least a year.â After his fatherâs death when he was little, Buhari lived with his motherâs Kanuri relatives in Daura and adopted the town as his hometown.
But he hasnât severed his umbilical cord from Dumurkul. During this yearâs Sallah festivities in July, he was knighted (or âturbanedâ) as the Hakimi (or district head) of Dumurkul even though the village wasnât officially a district.
In order to reconcile the contradiction of making someone a district head of a non-existent district, on July 27, 2021, Buhariâs village was mysteriously upgraded to a âdistrictâ and taken out of Koza District of which it was a village after âan emergency plenary to consider the request from Governor Aminu Bello Masariâ was convened!
The notion that Buhari is ascetic is another lie that has refused to go away. Ascetics practice such self-denying habits as sartorial modesty, resisting lascivious temptations, shunning epicurean indulgences like drinking and smoking, etc. But Buhari has always been a flamboyant dresser and, until recently, a smoker, drinker, and a philandererâlike most everyday people.
In Dele Sobowaleâs book titled Letting a Thousand Flowers Bloom (Ibrahim B. Babangida 1985 â 1992), Buhariâs past notoriety for unrestrained libidinal impulses was described this way:
âHe must have been some sort of a sexual athlete. One officer who served with him in two stations had this to say: âYou can leave your money, bottle of hot drinks or packets of cigarettes with Buhari, go away for several months and return and find nothing would be missing. But leave your girlfriend or sister with him and you might return to find her pregnant.â That might be an exaggeration but he had that reputation.â
As the reader can see, even in describing his sexual indiscretions, this quote couldnât help but perpetuate the lie that Buhari didnât smoke or drink. There are public photos of Buhari smoking and people who are close to him said he drank alcohol on the sly.
That Buhari is a brutal, uncompromising, ethically untainted truth teller is another enduring lie about him that appears to be nourished by his taciturnity. But he has told many big lies in the open. As a military dictator in the mid-1980s, he said Nigeria was the only country we had and that we should all stay in it to salvage it, but by his own admission he had never trusted the Nigerian healthcare system to take care of his health since 1977. He had always gone to London for his medical needs and is in London as I write this.
In 2014, he lied that he was too poor to afford his own presidential nomination form and had to take a loan from a bank. A few months later, however, in a ridiculously opaque, half-hearted asset declaration, his spokesperson said Buhari had ânot less than 30 million nairaâ in his account (even N100 billion naira is ânot less than 30 million nairaâ!) without explaining how someone who couldnât afford a N25 million-naira nomination form in October 2014 suddenly had ânot less than 30 millionâ when he took over power in May 2015.
Also recall that at the time he claimed to be too poor to afford his nomination form, several of his children were studying at UK universities whose tuition costs add up to tens of millions of naira.
Plus, as Petroleum Minister in 1977, he couldnât account for $2.8 billion, which the legendary Fela sang about. And a probe of PTF, which he headed, showed that he squandered N135 billion. Newswatchâs report of the probe revealed that N500 million mysteriously disappeared from the coffers of the agency. It also showed that Buhari used N800 million on his âpersonal estateâ and used N28 billion to buy âexpired HIV/AIDS kits.â
It is now widely believed that Buhari has no school certificate, but he does, and it isnât fake. One of Buhariâs surviving classmates in Katsina (who, by the way, doesnât like him) swore that Buhari did take and pass his West African School Certificate. Although I had no reason to question the authenticity of his claim, the late Abba Kyari caused Cambridge Assessment, which administered the WASC exam in Nigeria in 1961, to release Buhariâs result. He had 5 credits in the following subjects: English (C5), History (A3), Geography (C6), Hausa (C5) and Health Science (C6). He also had a P7 in English Literature. His grade in Mathematics didnât show in his certificate because got an F9. That was a great result for the timeâand even now. He could have gone to the university with the result if he wasnât in a hurry to enroll in the military while he was awaiting his WASC exam result.
LAST WEEK, I commenced a discussion on the statutory regime of extradition in Nigeria, with the case of the suspended DCP Abba Kyari in perspective. As already discussed, extradition of a fugitive criminal is premised on either international comity or by the provision of an existing treaty between nations, and in Nigeria, all extradition proceedings must be negotiated through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation. It must be emphasised that for the purposes of extradition proceedings, a warrant of arrest must be issued by a court of law in the foreign country. Only then will the person be deemed to be wanted for trial, and therefore extraditable. In the unreported case of Attorney-General of the Federation v. Lawal Olaniyi Babafemi â Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/132/2013 â the Respondent was wanted for conspiracy to provide support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization in the United States. It was enough to show to the Federal High Court that there was a subsisting indictment against the Respondent as well as a warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge for the Respondentâs arrest. These qualified the Respondent as an extraditable person. Notwithstanding, extradition proceedings are not intended to constitute the trial of a Respondent but are premised on a notion that it is in the interest of every State that persons fleeing from justice must be disallowed from seeking refuge outside the territory of the State where the person is wanted. Lord Russell of Killowen, CJ noted in R v. Arton (No. 1) [1896] 1 Q.B. 108 that: âThe law of extradition is without doubt founded upon the broad principle that it is to the interest of civilised communities that crimes acknowledged as such should not go unpunished and it is part of the comity of nations that one State should afford to another every assistance towards bringing persons guilty of such crimes to justice.â
Since the promulgation of the Extradition Act, Nigeria had received several requests for the extradition of fugitive criminals, one of the earliest being in 1976 when the Australian government made a request for the extradition of one John Rooseriley, a British national, from Nigeria. After due compliance with statutory requirements, an order for the surrender of the fugitive was made by the then Attorney General of the Federation and he was subsequently surrendered. James Ibori, a former governor of Delta State, was extradited from the United Arab Emirates, in conjunction with the Federal Government of Nigeria, to the United Kingdom.
Procedural, operational and jurisdictional considerations in extradition
By the provision of the Extradition Act, only magistrates have jurisdiction in extradition matters. However, the Extradition Act (Modification Order) 2014, promulgated pursuant to Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution, has now vested exclusive jurisdiction on extradition matters on the Federal High Court. This position was well taken in Orhiunu v. Attorney General of Federation (2005)1 NWLR (Pt. 906) 39 where the Court of Appeal held that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by the constitution cannot be limited otherwise than by the same constitution.
Upon the receipt of an extradition request, the Attorney General of the Federation may either exercise his discretion to apply to the Federal High Court for the exercise of the courtâs extradition jurisdiction or refuse the request without giving any explanation for the refusal. In George Udeozor v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 499, the court held that the Attorney-General of the Federation, and not the court, is vested with the responsibility and powers to ascertain the condition for acceding to an extradition request. By the provisions of the Act, the Attorney-General, who is the Chief Legal Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, has the discretion to exercise the power to initiate extradition proceedings. While by sections 6(1) and (2) of the Extradition Act, it is the duty of the Attorney-General to receive the request for the surrender of a fugitive criminal in Nigeria, section 6(2) reposes the discretion in the Attorney-General to signify to the court that such a request has been made and he does that only after he satisfies himself on the basis of the information accompanying the request, that the provisions of section 3(a) to (i) are complied with. It will be noted, however, that nothing in the Act gives the court the powers to question the exercise of the discretion of the Attorney-General.
Notwithstanding, the question of whether the Attorney-General has complied with the provisions of section 3(a) to (i) of the Act is a question of fact which can be brought to the attention of the trial court only by affidavit evidence. The applicable procedural rules in the Federal High Court in extradition matters is the Federal High Court (Extradition Proceedings) Rules 2014. The application for extradition shall be in a format provided in the form contained in the Schedule to the Rules, and supported by: 1. Particulars of the fugitive whose extradition is requested; 2. A request for the surrender of the fugitive by the requesting state; 3. A duly authenticated warrant of arrest or certificate of conviction issued in the requesting State; 4. The particulars of the offence specified in the extradition request; 5. Particulars of the corresponding offence in Nigeria; 6. Supporting affidavits 7. Written Address and 8. Any other relevant document.
The rules require that the application and supporting documents be served on the alleged fugitive offender who is at liberty to employ the services of legal practitioners. Thereafter, the Respondent may exercise his right to either consent to the extradition or file a counter affidavit in opposition to the extradition application, within five days of the receipt of the application, subject to such further extension as the Court may permit. In addition, the fugitive may file any other application within the time allowed for filing the counter affidavit. In accordance with the provisions of section 17(1) of the Extradition Act, the courts shall take judicial notice of the documents supplied by the representatives of the State making the extradition request, and such documents require no additional proof whether by means of oral evidence or otherwise.
While extradition proceedings are required to be public, the Extradition Proceeding Rules empowers the Court to impose reporting restrictions, withhold information from the public or order a hearing in private. As earlier noted, extradition proceedings, not being a trial of the alleged offender, does not require any arraignment. Consequent upon the grant of an extradition order, the law requires that the fugitive shall not be surrendered until after the expiration of a period of 15 days from the date of the order. As I noted last week, the existing extradition treaty between Nigeria and the United States of America came into force in 1935 when Nigeria was still a British Colony. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Valentine v. US 299 US. 5, 57 S.Ct. 100, extradition treaties between countries are executory in character, and the existing treaty with the United States of America is binding on the courts in Nigeria. This therefore connotes that the courts will regard extradition treaties as being equivalent to local legislation, however subject to the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1966. However, the determination of whether the offence for which a surrender is sought is sufficiently proved, or whether the offence comes within the statutory extraditable offences and the applicable treaty, are matters to be left to the courts.
Conclusion
No doubt, DCP Abba Kyari has a pending criminal charge and a warrant of arrest issued against him by a court in the United States of America. However, the exercise of the discretion of the Attorney General of the Federation in accordance with the provisions of the Extradition Act, upon the receipt of a request by the US government, will result in DCP Kyariâs extradition or not. Crucially the office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation has stated that it is yet to receive a formal notification as required by the Act. Much therefore remains to be seen in the coming weeks not only in the determination of an impending request for the extradition of DCP Kyari, but even in the determination of bilateral relations between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the United States of America.
AARE AFE BABALOLA, OFR, CON, SAN, FCIArb., FNIALS, LL.D (Lond.)
LAST week, the Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Professor Ishaq Oloyede, revealed the success and failure rates from the recently concluded UTME, which is the only means of securing admission into higher institutions in Nigeria. For the year 2021, over 1.3 million candidates registered for the examination which began on June 19 and ended on July 3 in over 700 accredited Computer Based Test (CTB) centres nationwide. According to the Registrar, only 0.06 per cent representing about 803 of this number scored above 300 marks. Reproduced below are the scary statistics from the recent examination, from the Registrar, through news coverage monitored on the National Television Authority.
âHe noted that statistics of the results in the last four years, 2018 for example, showed that those who scored 120 and below were about 99.9 per cent of the candidates, 99.65 in 2019, 99.80 in 2020 and this year, 99.65, a drop of .25 per cent from that of last year. He added that those who scored 160 and above, last were 69.89 per cent, while this year is 45.62 per cent, disclosing further that those who scored more than 300 over 400 last year were .26 per cent of the candidates, this year .06 per cent, and in 2019, .16 per cent of the candidates scored above 300.â
Many parents have been thrown into perpetual agony every year, due to the inability of their wards to secure admission into any tertiary institution, such that there are youths in Nigeria who have been on the JAMB radar for over five years, waiting for their letters of admission from the âalmighty JAMBâ, as it is now known. The JAMB Act was enacted to commence on December 7, 1989, with a mandate for the agency to perform the following functions, under and by virtue of section 5 (1) (a) â (c) and (2) thereof:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, the Board shall be responsible for â (a) the general control of the conduct of matriculation examinations for admissions into all Universities, Polytechnics (by whatever name called) and Colleges of Education (by whatever name called) in Nigeria;
(i) the vacancies available in each tertiary institution;
(ii) the guidelines approved for each tertiary institution by its proprietor or other competent authority;
(iii) the preferences expressed or otherwise indicated by candidates for certain tertiary institutions and course; and
(iv) such other matters as the Board may be directed by the Minister to consider, or the Board itself may consider appropriate in the circumstances.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the Board shall be responsible for determining matriculation requirements and conducting examinations leading to undergraduate admissions and also for admissions to National Diploma and Nigerian Certificate in Education courses, but shall not be responsible for examinations or any other selective processes for postgraduate courses and any other courses offered by the tertiary institutions.â
What section 5 of the JAMB Act reproduced above has done is to place the destinies of candidates in the hands of a government bureaucracy, which partly accounts for the number of youths trooping out of Nigeria for greener pastures. By including the phrase âby whatever name calledâ in the reference to tertiary institutions covered by JAMB, it means even universities and polytechnics established and funded by States and private entities have to go through JAMB for admission, through such mysterious criteria like federal character, educationally disadvantaged states, catchment areas, etc. Paragraphs 27-30 of the Part 2 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution place matters of university, technological or professional education on the Concurrent Legislative List, with power granted to the states to legislate thereon. So, the issue is why JAMB has become the only institution regulating admission into tertiary institutions.
Section 10 of the Act deals with the fund of the Board of JAMB as follows:
â16. The Board shall establish and maintain a fund which shall consist of â
(a) such sums as may be provided by the Federal Government for the running expenses of the Board; and
(b) such other sums as may be collected or received by the Board from other sources either in the execution of its functions or in respect of any property vested in the Board or otherwise howsoever.â
From the above, it is clear that the primary source of funding for JAMB activities and the discharge of its functions is through government subvention and not to milk hapless candidates and their distressed parents. In reports monitored in the media, JAMB has however turned the establishment Act on its head and transmitted itself into a cash cow for the government.
âThe Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) says it has made an interim remittance of N3.5 billion to the federal governmentâs purse after the conduct of its 2020 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) ⊠In 2017, the agency said it remitted more than N5 billion to the government. In 2018, the Board remitted N7.8 billion to the federal government. In 2019, JAMB remitted N5 billion to the federal government.â
For clarity, the Act setting up JAMB does not confer on it the power to raise funds for the government, as it is not an agency of government set up to generate revenue but rather to co-ordinate admissions into tertiary institutions. If this can be done free of charge to the candidates who are mostly teenagers, the better for us all, rather than focusing on how much is to be declared in financial terms every year. Section 10 (a) of the JAMB Act states clearly that the Board is to âestablish and MAINTAIN a fundâ, which connotes a permanent and operational fund, not to be transferred or remitted. According to the learned authors of Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to maintain is âto keep in an existing state, preserve from declineâ, such that if JAMB has reached a stage that it has funds in excess after the discharge of its functions, then it should declare its examinations free for a particular period of time until the fund is exhausted to entitle it to charge fresh fees. We cannot have an institution set up mainly to assist young people to activate their careers and turn itself into a money-spinning entity such that it has become one of the main sources of income for profligate politicians who in turn convert these funds to sponsor their own children in highbrow institutions abroad. It is totally unfair.
Nigeria is a member of the United Nations, which has established the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), primarily to promote education for all, with a mandate to lead the Global Education 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Development Goal 4. It is prescribed by the UN that all member states shall make reasonable efforts to allocate not less than 26% of their annual budget to education. This is so because the UN and indeed all of humanity now consider education a human right. This stems from several declarations and conventions, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises the right to free, compulsory primary education for all, an obligation to develop secondary education accessible for all and an obligation to develop equitable access to higher education, by the progressive introduction of free higher education, as encapsulated in Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and replicated in Articles 13 and 14 of International Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights.
It is in the light of all the above that Nigeria declared its educational objectives in section 18 of the 1999 Constitution as follows:
â18. Government shall direct its policy towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels.
Government shall promote science and technology.
Government shall strive to eradicate illiteracy; and to this end, Government shall as and when practicable provide:
(a) free, compulsory and universal primary education;
(b) free secondary education;
(c) free university education; and
(d) free adult literacy programme.â
Nigeria has always made feeble attempts to implement the UN charter on education. Indeed, in the early 1970s, we had the Universal Primary Education (UPE), through which most governments in the regions adopted free education. In the South-West in particular, Chief Obafemi Awolowo made free education his priority programme, with tremendous results in human capital development. Till date, most states in the South-West of Nigeria have compulsory free education at the elementary stages. In Lagos State for instance, section 9 of the Education Law of Lagos State provides that âtuition in either a primary or a secondary school shall be free of chargeâ, and it imposes a jail term of eighteen months upon anyone who receives or obtains any fee or levy as tuition. In 2004, the Federal Government of Nigeria enacted the Universal Basic Education Act, which makes provision for basic education. The Act also provides for the establishment of the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), to coordinate the implementation of the programme, at state and local government levels, through the State Basic Education Board (SUBEB) and the Local Government Education Authority (LGEA). The Education Tax Fund was also established.
In spite of all the above, we now have a government institution (JAMB) that prides itself in taxing the poor in the guise of offering their wards admission, when in fact, it has become a money gobbling agency of the government. The worrisome part of this is the failure rate of candidates who partake in these compulsory examinations, going by the figures released for year 2021. While commending the lofty reforms being introduced by the Registrar since he came on board, there are many areas that deserve primary focus, in the overall interest of the candidates. For instance, constant orientation programmes should be organised for potential candidates online, which should be directed towards making them become familiar with the procedure of the conduct of the examinations, counselling lessons on choice of courses and guidance on career opportunities, especially in courses that most of them are not familiar with, in order to reduce the pressure on the major courses. There should also be constant interactions between the tertiary institutions and JAMB, for the purpose of eliminating the usual hiccups associated with admissions.
In a nation where educational institutions have become endangered by bandits, terrorists, kidnappers and rapists, there is a need to fashion out deliberate policies that will reduce the battles that Nigerians face just to acquire meaningful education. If this had been the attitude of governments in times past, certainly many of us would not have dreamed of ever going through any tertiary institution in Nigeria. Funding of education should be a deliberate policy of the government, which should not be abandoned to greedy institutions and agencies that seem to have misplaced their original priorities for placement to be ranked among revenue-making agencies of government.
(I write this article to commemorate World Environment Day 2021 (June 5, 2021)
Agroforestry is the management and integration of trees, crops and/or livestock on a single plot of land and can be an integral part of productive agriculture. Agroforestry emphasizes integration and interaction between a combination of elements rather than focusing on just one particular. The elements can be either trees and crops or trees and animals on the same piece of land. It is a flexible concept, covering both small and large sized holdings.
Some benefits of agro-forestry
There are many benefits of agroforestry for the environment. First and foremost agroforestry helps prevent soil erosion as well as aids in water retention. In addition, promoting soil fertility and helping to provide solutions for areas where rainfall irregularities occur due to climate change. Finally, high dense plantings of trees act as a carbon sink and regulate the temperature (microclimate).
Agroforestry also has immense useful benefits for the farmer as some crops that love shade do very well and thus bring more yield and more income after selling it. Also the farmers rest under the tree within the field thus enjoying the micro climate under the tree. Finally, the tree may produce fruit that the farmer can feed on or animals may browse on the leaves of the trees during the dry season when there is a lack of foliage.
Nitrogen stabilization
Some tree species have the ability to fix nitrogen in the soil and are referred to as nitrogen-fixing trees. In a place where the nitrogen in the soil is reduced and more nitrogen is needed as the plant requires, there is a need for certain species of wood that can fix the nitrogen in the same plot of land.
Maintaining soil fertility and soil erosion
Agroforestry helps in maintaining soil organic matter and biological activity at a level satisfactory for soil fertility. Trees have the ability to increase nutrient uptake by lower soil horizons and recovery from weathering rock. The decomposition of tree leaves and pruning residues also contributes to maintaining soil fertility and, in addition to these, high quality tree pruning leads to a major improvement in crop yield. In addition agroforestry controls soil erosion, consequently reducing the loss of water, soil content, organic matter and nutrients in the soil.
Akinfolahan Oluwasegun Peter is a final year student of Forestry and Wood Technology at Federal University of Technology Akure Ondo State Nigeria and he is a man full of passion to serve humanity. An enthusiastic tree planter and tree like tree who uses every opportunity to plant trees. An agro-forestry, forest management and climate change researcher who loves farmers and seeds as incentives for farmers to tackle climate change and hunger in Ondo State, Nigeria. He is a professor encouraging people to plant trees and volunteers for the International Forestry Students Association IFSA FUTA LC as Treasurer, President and former regional representative of IFSA North Africa akinfolahanfwt166997@futa.edu.ng
I love the word âbiodiversityâ. Why? Perhaps, it is because the concept is so magnificent, wide and thrilling. The International Day of Biodiversity is here! Biodiversity (coined from Biological Diversity) simply refers to all of the different kinds of life on earth, which includes us, humans too. Biodiversity can be considered the foundation of human health, as if underpins the operation of the ecosystem on which we depend for water, food, shelter, clothing, balanced climate, and the prevention and treatment of diseases.
Biodiversity also provides recreational benefits, economic development, offers aesthetic and spiritual enrichment.
This yearâs theme: âWe are Part of the Solutionâ aims to spread awareness about our how we can be part of the solution to biodiversity loss and our environment as a whole. The loss of biodiversity has been a serious threat- which portends danger for each and every one of us. According to the United Nations (UN), 1 million animals and plants are currently threatened with extinction. Undoubtedly, humans have contributed largely to this problem. The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres said that, âAs we encroach on nature and deplete vital habitats, increasing numbers of species are at great risk. That includes humans and the future we wantâ.
What can we do? We must all see ourselves as part of the solution. Yes! You! All species and organisms are like a complex web linked together that works for the overall benefits of our ecosystem. If one gets extinct, other species will be in danger too. The United Nations rightly says âwhen biodiversity has a problem, humanity has a problem tooâ.
We need to save biodiversity and act as fast as we can. With some simple changes, we can lessen the disastrous activities of humans on biodiversity: ✅ Avoid plastic use as much as possible Buy organic foods from local farms ✅ Reforestation ✅ Plant flowers and tress ✅ Switch to renewable energy sources ✅ Reduce, reuse and recycle ✅ Conserve water ✅ Buy and use environmentally friendly products such as ecofriendly appliances, conserving light bulbs, rechargeable batteries, and cosmetics products from natural oils. ✅ Car pool and other sustainable means of transportation ✅ Volunteer for environmental causes ✅ Donate to environmental projects and organizations such as tree planting projects and restaurants that use recycled products ✅Push for policies that protect biodiversity.
These simple highlighted activities can go a long way in protecting biodiversity. We need to commit to practices that consider our diverse ecosystem and habitats. Protecting biological diversity is one course of action we can adopt to create the sustainable future we want â it is in our self interest. Our need for pieces of nature is very important, as ecological services will be costly or absolutely impossible to replace. The vast array of interactions among the various components of biodiversity makes the planet habitable for all species, human inclusive.
Professor E.O. Wilson, often called the âfather of biodiversityâ stated in his 1985 seminal paper: âEach higher organism is richer in information than a Caravaggio painting, a Bach fugue, or any other great workâŠWe should preserve every scrap of biodiversity as priceless, while we learn to use it and understand what it means to humanityâ.
Just like I stated in my World Earth Day post, Iâm reiterating here: just as humans are deemed the greatest contributor to biodiversity loss, we can also be the greatest solution to the problem.
Aanawureyi Ohine Joy is a Bachelor of Laws graduate from the prestigious Obafemi Awolowo University. She is a passionate environmentalist who loves celebrating international days. She can be reached via ananwureyijoy01@gmail.com
I remember the last line of my undergraduate project thesis; of course, my project thesis was on âEnvironmental Lawâ. It goes thus: âIf we heal the Earth, we heal ourselvesâ.
Simply put, if we restore the earth, we are restoring ourselves. Every year, the 22nd of April is set aside to celebrate âEarth dayâ across the world.
Its main aim is to raise awareness about critical issues that the world is facing and pledge support to environmental protection.
According to earthday.org, Earth day aims to build the largest environmental movement to drive transformative change for people and the planet. Indeed, Earth day is widely recognized as the largest secular observance in the world.
Wow! Undoubtedly, beyond all differences, the Earth is what we all have in common. This yearâs Earth day, with the theme; âRestore our Earthâ, is the 51st Anniversary of Earth Day, after the first Earth day was observed in 1970.
The historic Paris Agreement, which is a necessary environmental protection treaty was signed on year 2016âs Earth Day. Earth day acknowledges our collective responsibility in promoting harmony with nature and the earth to achieve a balanced earth, which will meet our needs and that of future generations.
Basically, as humans, we need earthâs resources to live. Despite the clamor for adaptation and mitigation, these will not be enough to tackle environmental problems and their consequences.
This is why this yearâs Earth Day is to show that we can restore our ecosystem through natural processes, emerging green technologies and innovative thinking.
The United Nations has rightly declared 2021-2030 as the âUnited Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restorationâ. What can we do to restore the earth?
As simple as closing the tap when not in use, or turning off the lights, these small actions which you might not see as a big deal, can make huge differences.
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; the 3 main Rs of environmental sustainability is a good way to go. All over the world, there is a growing neutrality of environmental policies which need to change and put the Earth first.
You can also restore the Earth by donating to conservation initiatives, raising awareness about the need for environmental restoration, buying energy efficient appliances such as low watt bulbs, switching to alternative renewable energy sources such as solar energy, disposing refuse appropriately: because every litter counts, getting creative with upcycling, eating less processed foods and going organic, planting a tree before and after you cut one down, reducing car emissions through car pooling and other sustainable means of transportation, and spending time with nature.
Emerging green or sustainable technologies, such as green roofs, sustainable energy generation technologies, electric vehicles, green computing, molten salt storage, biofuels, green architecture, green walls, plastic roads, plant based packaging and sustainable phones, are good ways for slowing down global warming, reducing green house effects and restoring our earth.
Undoubtedly, we all have our part to play in restoring the earth because we live in it. We all have the power to bring about changes. Letâs celebrate this day by doing our bits for the earth. We have only on earth.
We all need a healthy earth, which isnât an option, but a necessity. Real earth day starts when we all begin to make conscious efforts to restoring our earth and making it a safer place.
Humans allegedly contribute the most percentage to degradation; I have no doubt that humans can also contribute the greatest to Earth Restoration. Make serving the earth your first priority.
Ananwureyi OhineJoy is a Bachelor of Laws graduate from Obafemi Awolowo University. She is a lover of the environment and loves celebrating International days. She can be reached through ananwureyijoy01@gmail.com.
Mallam Isa Pantami is no ordinary Nigerian. He is a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Pantami is also no ordinary Minister. He is charged with the sensitive portfolio of Communications and Digital Economy. Before his ministerial appointment, he had headed the very sensitive and delicate position of Director-General of the National Information Technology Development Agency. As Minister, Pantami oversees the critical agencies of NCC, NITDA, NIPOST, NIGCOMSAT and GALAXY BACKBONE. In this digitalised world, Pantami by his office has access to Nigerians’ private communications, NIN, identities, etc.
Ordinarily, this would not have posed a problem at all, since someone, a Nigerian, out of our 210 million population, must head the Ministry any way. But, his antecedents are quite worrisome.
That is what has led to the sudden bedlam and ruckus by Nigerians generated through the traditional and social media routes. How? Why? I will tell you. Isa is an acclaimed Islamic fanatic, fundamentalist and supporter of extremist Islamic sects.
Taught in Saudi Arabia by fiery Muhammad Inn Uthaymin (nicknamed “giant of Islam, a Cleric who once opposed women driving for fear of mixture of men and women at petrol stations, traffic lights and Police checkpoints), Pantami as a Graduate Assistant, started preaching and leading prayers in mosques right from his days at the Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, where he had graduated from.
He is said to be the Chief Imam of the Al Mannar mosque, Abuja, where he preaches. There is nothing wrong about one being close to his maker, including his present tafsir teaching during the Ramadan fasting season (Ramadan Kareem).
So, I do not begrudge him of his passionate pastime. To me, it is even a plus that as Minister, he still finds time to worship his God. After all, the Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be on to him), when asked by the pagans of Mecca (Makkah) to worship their gods, answered: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion” (Surah Al-Kafirun109:1). What he was simply emphasising was the freedom and individuality of religion and conscience between a person and his God. We call this secularity. It is entrenched in section 10 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
But, does Isa Pantami realise this in his earlier fiery teachings of extremism and religious intolerance, and bigotry, even as far back as nearly 20 years ago? I think not. Let me show you a sample of his expressed mindset and why Nigerians are united, in reactions that have since gone viral, are calling for his immediate resignation or outright sack.
Amongst other in his Salafist ideology and spine- chilling teachings in support of two of the globally most acclaimed deadliest terrorist groups in the world (the Taliban and al-Quaeda), some years ago, Patanmi had said unapologetically, “Oh God, give victory to the Talibans and to the al-QuaedaâŠ
This jihad is an obligation for every single believer, especially in Nigeria”. He also reportedly endorsed the killings of “unbelievers” (non-Moslems).
In a video that has since gone viral (which he was later forced to own up after initially denying his previous incendiary and inflammatory statements), he openly castigated then President Goodluck Jonathan, for sending the military to kill boko haram insurgents whose blood he regarded as “our Muslim brother’s blood”.
Hear him: âWe are praying to God to answer all our prayers. It is our right and obligation before all Muslim leaders, politicians, government appointees, academics. All of us should not fold their arms and watch helplessly how they shed our Muslim brothersâ blood and cheat them in vain.
Even if the Boko Haram fighters commit a crime but can we justify the way and manner they are being killed? Just look at how they are killing people as if they are shooting pigs, even though they committed a crime why the extrajudicial killing?
Take them before the law for a fair trial. You caught someone sleeping and you killed them. If it is not Muslims that undergo such treatments who else?
The Niger Delta people did something similar to this. They massacre people, stole weapons, killed expatriates and kidnapped some of them, yet you still accept them back, opened a ministry for them, gave them a minister and put them on a monthly salary pay without work.
The militants did more harm compared to what Boko Haram boys did. But why will they do something like this? Why selective justice?
He even prayed for the day when the images on the naira notes and the “Gregorian date, the Calendar of the infidelsâ, will be wiped out: “And therefore, we are praying to God, that based on our understanding, we pray for a day when the images on the notes in our pockets will be removed. No Muslim Cleric has ever spoken against these images as forbidden. May be self-sufficient enough not to need this currency. It is against the Religion to put even the images of Companions of the Prophet on the currency. May Allah help us to see that day when the Gregorian date, the Calendar of infidels that on the notes âŠ.”
Boko haram was thereby given the necessary muscle and many Muslims were innocently led to believe that Killing boko haram insurgents amounted to Killing Muslims. Nigerians have today, witnessed the corrosive and deadly consequences of boko haram’s killings, maiming, arson and the general insecurity enthroned and watered by such dangerous hate preachments. Boko Haram has since abducted the Chibok, Dapchi, Kankara, Kagara and Jangebe girls; blown up the UN headquarters; engaged in serial cases of maiming, killings and kidnaps in Kaduna, Maiduguri, Bauchi, Damaturu, Madalla, Mubi, Gamboru, Yola, Gombi, Kano, Baga, Bunu Yadi, Konduga, Gwoza, to mention just a few places.
Reeling under the weight and yoke of damning public criticisms by a wide spectrum of Nigerians, Pantami (who had earlier denied making the statements), summersaulted and claimed that he has since changed his views and extreme religious ideology, which he claimed had been based on youthful ignorance. Said he: âSome of the comments I made some years ago that are generating controversies now were based on my understanding of religious issues at the time, and I have changed several positions taken in the past based on new evidence and maturity,â
âI was young when I made some of the comments; I was in university, some of the comments were made when I was a teenager. I started preaching when I was 13, many scholars and individuals did not understand some of international events and therefore took some positions based on their understanding, some have come to change their positions laterâ.
Has he really changed? What has changed? Can a leopard ever change its spots? In saner climes, Pantami should have resigned immediately without more. Or be sacked forthwith. Lifting the veil off his purported transformation or assumed transfiguration is so easy when viewed against the background of his new acts even as Minister. Only recently, On March 22, 2021, Patamiâs Ministry hosted a virtual flag-off ceremony for a capacity development programme empowering 600 people with VSAT Installation Skills. Patami himself was present and he even spoke at the event. It was a Virtual Flag-off Capacity Development Programme on VSAT Installation Skills and TVRO Systems for 600 youths by Patami.
The ceremony was not covered by AIT, Channels, NTA, TVC, ITV, or even FM Youtube channels. Rather, a very little-known Islamic TV channel called Al-Afrikiy was contracted to relay an event organized by a whole Federal Government of Nigeria. It must be borne in mind that Al-Afrikiy is not merely an Islamic-influenced learning TV station, it is also an Islam-only TV channel. It broadcasts strictly religious matters.
Why did President Muhammadu Buhari nominate Patami in the first place? Can he, as Commander-In-Chief, claim not to have access to information regarding Patanmi’s dangerous antecedents? I think not. Or, don’t you know the reason? Simple: his usual infamous inclination towards prebendalism, cronyism, sectionalism, tribalism, favouritism, religiosity and mediocrity.
By the way, where was the DSS which was supposed to screen Pantami before his name was sent to the Senate? Why did it turn its focus away from these destructive extremist views of the very Minister in charge of Nigerians’ information data, with unabridged access to same, including NIM, BVN, biodatas, etc?
What about our fawning rubber stamp “take-a-bow” Senate that was supposed to do a very thorough screening of Pantami? Why did it simply allow the Carmel to pass through the needle’s eye? When will it winnow out the chaff from the real wheat? Why has it turned a sacred duty on behalf of Nigerians into a “yes sir” party affair, which suggests that President Buhari can do no wrong, or make any mistake? This is reminiscent of Boxer’s slogan of “Napoleon is always right”, in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. For me, Mallam, (Sheikh, Dr, Cleric) Isa Pantami should honorably resign, as Mrs Kemi Adeosun, former Finance Minister, once did. Where he fails to do this, Buhari should immediately relieve him of his ministerial position. His antecedents loudly proclaim him as a clear and present danger to Nigeria’s asphyxiatingly fragile unity, harmony and religious and ethnic tolerance. I know Buhari will not do it. At least, make we âsiddon lookâ.
On 12 June 2020, Mr. Alex Saab, a Special Envoy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant”) was arrested by Cape Verde while undertaking a humanitarian Special Mission to purchase basic foodstuffs and medicines from Iran. Cape Verde claimed that because it was not notified in advance that the Claimant was a passenger on the aircraft that made a technical re-fueling stop and as a result was not obliged to respect the relevant United Nations Special Missions Convention of 1969. Venezuela has highlighted that given the state of Venezuela-US relations and the fact that the Claimant was travelling from Venezuela to Iran, the Special Mission was necessarily secret and, in any case, Venezuela invoked his immunity a few hours after his arrest in the early hours of 13 June, 2020.
As the Claimant’s arrest and detention could not be justified, he approached the ECOWAS Court for the enforcement of his human rights to dignity, liberty, fair hearing and freedom of movement guaranteed by articles 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights respectively. While the case was pending in the Court the Bolivarian Republic also appointed the Claimant as its Alternate Permanent Representative to the African Union on 24 December 2020. In the unanimous judgment delivered on 15 March 2021 the ECOWAS Court declared that the Claimantâs arrest was illegal because at the time of his arrest neither an INTERPOL Red Notice nor an arrest warrant had been issued against him and that he be freed immediately. Having found that the Red Notice was not issued (at the request of the United States) until the day after the Claimant was arrested, on 13 June 2021 the ECOWAS Court went on to say that as a result of the illegal arrest, then the entire extradition process initiated at the request of the United States was also illegal and must be terminated immediately and ordered Cape Verde to pay US$200,000 in compensation.
CAPE VERDE BOUND BY SUPPLEMENTARY PROTOCOLÂ
The Republic of Cape Verde has refused to comply with the decision of the ECOWAS Court on the ground it did not sign the Supplementary Protocol of the Court. Such contemptuous conduct has been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Cape Verde which has purportedly ratified the request of the United States for the extradition of Ambassador Saab. This is a violation of Article 5(3) of the Revised Treaty which provides that, “Each Member State undertakes to honour its obligations under this Treaty and to abide by the decisions and regulations of the Community” as well as Article 15(4) which states that, “Judgments of the Court of Justice shall be binding on the Member States, the Institutions of the Community and on individuals and corporate bodies.” The language of the Supplementary Protocol of the ECOWAS Court, however, is precise and clear. Article 11(2) thereof states that the âThis Supplementary Protocol shall definitively enter into force upon the ratification by at least nine (9) signatory StatesâŠâ In this case 14 out of 15 ECOWAS Member States signed the Protocol. Thus, the Supplementary Protocol came into force since January 19, 2005.
In justifying its decision, the Supreme Court said that Article 210 of the Constitution of Cape Verde “cannot fail to be interpreted as meaning that the recognition by the State of Cape Verde of the administration of justice made by these courts presupposes the consent of the State of Cape Verde, not only to the creation or existence of the Court, but also to the respective rules of jurisdiction and procedure.” We submit that the Supreme Court of Cape Verde fell into a grave error of law in replying on article 210 of the Constitution because the provision recognizes justice administered by courts like the ECOWAS Court instituted through international treaties to which Cape Verde is a party. In a desperate move to undermine the decision of the ECOWAS Court the Supreme Court said that as “the State of Cape Verde has not even signed the Protocol of 2005, there is no basis for it to be considered linked to such an instrument and, therefore, to the decisions of the Court of Justice handed down under the powers conferred on it by such an instrument of which it is not a party.”
With respect, the Supreme Court deliberately refused to apply the doctrine of estoppel to the facts of this case which would have proved, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Cape Verde has demonstrated its commitment to be bound by the provisions of the Supplementary Protocol of the ECOWAS Court. We submit that in public international law, the doctrine of estoppel protects legitimate expectations of States induced by the conduct of another State. The term stems from common and Anglo-American law, without being identical with the different forms found in domestic law. It is supported by the protection of good faith (bona fide) in the traditions of civil law. Despite varying perceptions and definitions in doctrine and practice, the features and essential components of estoppel in public international law are generally accepted today. As it is most commonly described, âestoppel is a rule of international law that bars a party from going back on its previous representations when those representations have induced reliance or some detriment on the part of othersâ. According to Professor Ian Brownlie in his book âPrinciples of Public International Law, [Seventh Edition, Oxford University Press, 2008]â, estoppel is a general principle of international law, resting on principles of good faith and consistency. The essentials of estoppel are:
A statement of fact which is clear and unambiguous,
This statement must be voluntary, unconditional, and authorised; and
There must be reliance in good faith upon the statement either to the detriment of the party so relying on the statement or to the advantage of the party making the statement.
In glossing over the ratification of the Supplementary Protocol by the conduct of Cape Verde the Supreme Court said that its conclusion “is not undermined by the fact that the State of Cape Verde has appointed Judges who had or have a seat in that Court, or even by the fact that the President of its Supreme Court is inherently a member of the Community Council of Justice, in so far as that the country is part of the Court, whose initial protocol was signed by the Head of his Government, and it is still certain that there is no evidence that he has refused to accept the commitments, but only those, which result from that signature.” But beyond the nomination of candidates as judges of the ECOWAS Court the Republic of Cape Verde took part in the discussions of the relevant organs of the ECOWAS which led to the expansion of the mandate of the ECOWAS Court to hear and determine human rights cases.
“It was noted that the Protocol on the ECOWAS Court of Justice did not provide the Community Superior Court with adequate powers to contribute sufficiently to the acceleration of the regional integration process. The Authority consequently amended the said protocol.
The amended protocol enables the Court to adjudicate in disputes arising from the interpretation and application of supplementary acts annexed to the Treaty, decisions, regulations and directives of the relevant Community institutions. The amendment permits individuals and corporate bodies to seek redress in the Court. The amendment also establishes a procedure for the execution of decisions of the Court and for ensuring compliance therewith.” See the Final Communique of the 28th Summit of the ECOWAS Heads of State and Governments held at Accra on 19th January 2005.)
It is on record that The Gambia was the only member state of the ECOWAS that had proposed certain amendments to the Supplementary Protocol in September 2009. In the amendment The Gambia sought for the provision of an appellate division of the ECOWAS Court and exhaustion of domestic remedies before the institution of cases by victims of human rights abuse. The amendments were rejected by all the member states of the ECOWAS including Cape Verde. Thereafter, Cape Verde has actively participated in the discussions leading to the restructure of the Court. In fact, at no time in the eleven years since the Protocol was signed has Cape Verde ever raised any concern about the binding nature of the Supplementary Protocol. It therefore appears that this is the first, and to date, the only occasion when Cape Verde has felt the need to challenge the binding nature of the Protocol in order to perpetrate the illegal arrest of Alex Saab.
As noted earlier, former Minister of Justice of Cape Verde, the Honourable Justice JanuĂĄria Tavares Silva Moreira Costa (âJustice Costaâ) was one of the 3 members of the panel of the Court which deliberated and ruled on the matter between Mr. Alex Saab and Cape Verde. In fact, the Judge had the honour of reading the final judgment on 15 March 2021. Before Justice Costa, Justice Benfeito Mosso Ramos (âJustice Ramosâ) was a panelist and Vice-president of the Court 2009 to 2014. Justice Ramos currently serves as Advisory Judge of the Cape Verdean Supreme Court of Justice. Justice Ramos is a member of the Judicial Council of the ECOWAS Court â a department which is responsible for the recruitment and discipline of the judges of the Court â and before him Justice Fatima Coronel had fulfilled the same role
WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITYÂ
Alex Saabâs defence team has put forward the view that apart from participating in the proceedings of the Court in the case of the Claimant, Cape Verde has continued to derive maximum benefit from the existence of the ECOWAS Court. To that extent, the defence argues, Cape Verde is bound to comply with the judgment and orders of the ECOWAS Court of 15 March, 2020 contrary to the misleading impression expressed by the Cape Verdean executive and judicial authorities. The Defence goes on to make the following observations demonstrating Cape Verdeâs submission to the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court:
Cape Verde recognised the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court by fully participating in the process by the presence and conduct of its legal representative, Dr. Henrique Borges. Cape Verde voluntarily exercised its right to participate in the process, filed submissions and was heard by the Court.
It is important to reiterate that the objections of Cape Verde to the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court were heard and rejected by the Court. This approach is an element of the customary international law called âforum prorogatumâ and is enshrined, for instance, in Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
While ruling on the application for provisional measures on December 2, 2020, the ECOWAS Court had ordered that the Claimant be removed from prison custody and placed in a house arrest because of his status. After initial defiance of the order Cape Verde the Attorney-General of Cape Verde secured an order of the Constitutional Court to placed the Claimant in a house custody!
Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court and participated in the proceedings of the ECOWAS Court in the case the Republic of Cape Verde cannot turn round to claim sovereign immunity. In African Reinsurance Corporation v Abate Fantaye (1986) LPELR-SC.1/1986, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that âNow the basic rule at common law as regards the jurisdiction of English Courts over sovereigns or sovereign states was that a foreign sovereign or sovereign foreign state was immune from the jurisdiction of the courts; although the courts would take jurisdiction if the sovereign submitted to their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that sovereign or diplomatic immunity can be waived.â In the instant case, Cape Verde submitted to the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court. Thus, by submitting to the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court Cape Verde decided, suo motu, to waive its sovereign immunity. We submit that Cape Verde cannot turn round to challenge the competence of the Court or question the valid and substituting judgment of the Court. Notwithstanding that Cape Verde has not signed the Supplementary Protocol we submit that it is bound by the judgment of the ECOWAS Court in the case of Alex Saab v Republic of Cape Verde.
NO BILATERAL TREATY BETWEEN CAPE VERDE AND UNITED STATES
In confirming the judicial authorization for the Appellant’s extradition to the United States the Judges of the Supreme Court failed to advert their minds to the fact that there exists no bilateral treaty between the Cape Verde and the United States to justify the request for the extradition. The detention of the Applicant based on an extradition request by the United States is illegal in every material particular. It is trite in international law that every extradition request has to be anchored on the applicable legislation itself and a specialized text. See Nicholls Montgomery and Knowles, The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). No doubt, both Cape Verde and the United States of America are parties to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crimes. But after the ratification of the Convention, the Senate of the United States resolved that “For the United States, the Convention will not provide an independent legal basis for extradition, which will continue to be based on U.S. domestic law and applicable bilateral treaties.” See https://www.govinfo.gov/co ntent/ pkg/CRPT-109erpt4 /html/ CRPT-109erpt.htm.
It is submitted that the United States is legally bound by publicly stating [through official statements] that âthe Convention will not provide an independent legal basis for extraditionâ, as this reflects its intention to apply in all cases its domestic law and applicable bilateral treaties. See for this proposition, the Nuclear Tests case (Australia v. France), ICJ Reports (1974), 253, at 267-71. Since there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Cape Verde, the request for the extradition of the Applicant to the United States is precluded by reason of its expressed intention, from relying on the Convention as a substitute for a bilateral extradition treaty. In other words, it is no longer open to the US, to rely on the Convention, having expressly indicated an intention not to use the Convention as a substitute for a bilateral extradition treaty. See Arbitral Award by the King of Spain, ICJ Reports (1960), 192 at 213.
In Attorney General of the Federation v. Kinglsey Edegbe (Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/ 907/2012) an application was made for the extradition of the respondent before the Federal High Court, Abuja upon a request by the Authorities of the Netherlands in relation to offence of traffic in human persons. The Applicant contended that even though there is no existing bilateral extradition treaty between Nigeria and the Netherlands, the offences for which the surrender of the respondent is sought, is provided for by the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crimes and its Protocol which Nigeria has ratified and that such forms the legal basis for the extradition request. In refusing the grant of the extradition request the court held that an extradition agreement must be domesticated pursuant to section 12 (1) of 1999 Constitution and section 1(1) Extradition Act before the extradition provisions of the treaty can be invoked in Nigeria.
As the US will not grant any extradition request without subjecting it to its domestic legislation it cannot be permitted to request the Government of Cape Verde to extradite the Applicant on the basis of the provisions of UN Convention contrary to its expressed intention. By picking and choosing which legal framework to apply, the US is acting contrary to its expressed intention and clearly in bad faith. To allow the US to get away with this will seriously undermine the integrity of international law and the rule of law, and amount to a travesty. In view of the decision of the United States to subject the United Nations Convention Against Organized Crimes to her domestic law it is undoubtedly clear that the extradition of the Applicant cannot be based on the same Convention. In other words, since there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Cape Verde the United Nations Convention Against -Transnational Organized Crimes cannot form the basis of the legal extradition of the Claimant.  RETROACTIVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Curiously, the Supreme Court refused to accord legal recognition to the appointment of the Claimant as the Alternate Ambassador of Venezuela to the African Union with effect from December 24, 2020. The Court knew or ought to know that the doctrine of retroactive diplomatic immunity applies to the alleged criminal cases involving the diplomat. It has been held in several cases that diplomatic immunity acquired during the pendency of proceedings destroys jurisdiction even if the suit was validly commenced before immunity applied. In Abdulaziz v. Metropolitan Dade County, 741 F.2d 1328 (11th Cir. 1984) the issue involved was whether a certificate of diplomatic status granted after the commencement of a suit supports dismissal of the suit based on diplomatic immunity, and whether a grant of diplomatic status is reviewable by this Court. The Court held that once the United States Department of State has regularly certified a visitor to this country as having diplomatic status, the courts are bound to accept that determination, and that the diplomatic immunity flowing from that status serves as a defense to suits already commenced. See United States v Knobrsgadr, 15 F. SUPP. 3d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Knowing fully well that it could not question the diplomatic status of the Claimant notwithstanding that the alleged criminal offences involving him were committed before his appointment last December the Supreme Court decided to behave like Pontius Pilate. Hence, in arriving at a predetermined conclusion the Court refused to pronounce on the status of the envoy when it held that âwhat has been said does not mean a practical and definitive impossibility for the Claimant to have this intended status of special envoy recognised by the rightful person, in the later stages of the extradition process, with decisive consequences on the outcome of the same.â Thus, by asking the ârightful personâ to determine the fate of the Claimant the Supreme Court abdicated its judicial responsibility. Since the appointment of the Claimant as a diplomat has quashed the request of the United States for his extradition the Republic of Cape Verde ought to comply with the order of the ECOWAS Court by releasing him from custody without any further delay.
The ECOWAS has repeatedly expressed commitment to human rights and the rule of law. That commitment is seriously under threat, as Cape Verde continues to act in contempt of ECOWAS and its courtâthe Community Court of Justice in Abuja. The Authority of the ECOWAS must stand up to the abusive tactics of Cape Verde. The ECOWAS and its member states cannot stand aside while Cape Verde is failing to uphold its voluntary commitments to human rights and rule of law.
