Opinions

Environmental Rights as Constitutional Rights: Nigeria’s Legal Evolution, by Collins Okeke

The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 cemented the constitutional status of environmental rights.

Published

10 months ago

January 17, 2025

OCHEFA

237 Views

Introduction

The environmental crisis in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region represents one of the most severe cases of industrial pollution in human history.

Since oil’s discovery in 1958, this once-pristine delta ecosystem has endured systematic degradation through oil spills, with conservative estimates indicating between 9 and 13 million barrels of oil released into the environment.

Between 2020-2021 alone, the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency documented 822 separate oil spills, releasing 28,003 barrels of oil into sensitive ecosystems.

Nigerian courts have developed an innovative constitutional framework for environmental protection in response to this ongoing environmental catastrophe.

This jurisprudential evolution marks a significant departure from traditional common law and statutory remedies, establishing environmental rights as fundamental human rights deserving constitutional protection.

Changing environmental rights from mere policy objectives to enforceable constitutional rights represents one of the most significant developments in Nigerian constitutional law.

Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection

The Nigerian Constitution establishes environmental protection through several interconnected provisions.

Section 20 explicitly mandates that “the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.”

Whilst placed within Chapter 2 of the Constitution, this provision has gained increasing significance through judicial interpretation and legislative action.

Traditionally, Section 20’s placement within the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy rendered it non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution.

However, Nigerian courts have developed two significant exceptions to this principle of non-justiciability.

The first exception arises when the National Assembly exercises its powers under Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List by enacting laws to “promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles” contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.

When the National Assembly enacts legislation relating to Chapter 2 provisions pursuant to Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, the courts have consistently held these provisions to be enforceable.

The second exception occurs when Chapter 2 provisions are interpreted in conjunction with justiciable provisions of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights outlined in Chapter 4. In such circumstances, the provisions of Chapter 2 become enforceable.

Beyond Section 20, the Constitution provides additional environmental protection through fundamental rights provisions.

Section 33(1)’s right to life and Section 34(1)’s right to human dignity have been interpreted to encompass environmental protection.

These provisions within the justiciable Chapter 4 provide direct avenues for environmental rights enforcement.

African Charter Framework

The African Charter operates through a unique dual mechanism in Nigeria, functioning as an international treaty and as domestic legislation through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

The Supreme Court in Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 established that whilst the African Charter is subject to the Constitution, it holds “a greater vigour and strength” than ordinary domestic statutes.

The Charter provides several environmental rights that complement constitutional protections.

Article 4 guarantees the right to life, which the African Commission has interpreted to include protection from life-threatening environmental conditions.

Article 16 establishes the right to the best attainable state of physical and mental health, whilst Article 22 recognises the right to economic, social, and cultural development.

Most directly, Article 24 guarantees the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to development.

These Charter rights gain additional force through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, which mandate expansive interpretation of both constitutional and Charter rights.

The Rules specifically provide for enforcement of Charter rights alongside constitutional rights, creating a comprehensive framework for environmental protection.

Early Jurisprudential Developments Initial judicial approaches to environmental rights claims adopted a restrictive interpretation of constitutional provisions.

Courts generally treated environmental matters as policy issues rather than justiciable rights, limiting remedies to traditional common law and statutory frameworks.

This approach reflected a narrow reading of Section 6(6)(c), treating Chapter 2 provisions, including Section 20’s environmental mandate, as purely aspirational. However, over time, this restrictive approach began to shift.

The Supreme Court established the transition from non-justiciability to enforceability of Chapter 2 rights in the landmark decision of Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) 51 WRN 6. Olafisoye was charged with corrupt practices under Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which addresses the fundamental objective of government to abolish corruption.

Olafisoye challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution was non-justiciable.

After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, he made a final appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice Niki Tobi, delivering the lead judgement, first reviewed the history of Chapter 2 rights and referenced the “raison d’être” of the Constitution’s drafters to explain the chapter’s rationale.

The Supreme Court Justice stated that Chapter 2 rights were established in the Constitution as aspirational goals with future potential for enforceability.

He explained that this was why Section 6(6)(c) provided exceptions to the non-justiciability of Chapter 2.

Justice Niki Tobi held that whilst corrupt practices established by Section 15(5) are not justiciable at face value, these provisions may become justiciable when read in conjunction with Item 60(a) of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly “to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution.”

He stated: “The non-justiciability of Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution is neither total nor sacrosanct as the subsection provides a leeway by the use of the words ‘except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.’

A community reading of Item 60(a) and Section 15(5) results in quite a different package, a package which no more leaves Chapter 2 a toothless dog which could only bark but cannot bite.

In my view, by the joint reading of the two provisions, Chapter 2 becomes clearly and obviously justiciable.”

The Supreme Court dismissed Olafisoye’s objection, with Justice Niki Tobi holding that the indictment fell within the exceptions permitting the National Assembly to legislate the enforcement of Chapter 2 rights.

The Olafisoye decision established the doctrine that whilst Chapter 2 (Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) is generally non-justiciable, it is enforceable within the exceptions permitted by the Constitution.

The Gbemre Decision: A New Direction

The Federal High Court’s decision in Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Ors (2005) AHRLR 151 marked a fundamental transformation in Nigerian environmental rights jurisprudence.

The case concerned gas flaring activities in the Niger Delta region, with communities alleging violations of both constitutional and Charter rights.

The Court’s groundbreaking decision recognised environmental rights as fundamental human rights for the first time in Nigerian judicial history.

In a seminal declaration, the Court held that “the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person provided in Sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution… inevitably includes the right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.”

Significantly, the Court found that gas flaring activities violated these constitutional rights, establishing that industrial activities causing environmental harm could constitute fundamental rights violations.

The decision also bridged constitutional and Charter protections, demonstrating how these frameworks could work together to protect environmental rights.

COPW: Supreme Court Confirmation

The case arose from an oil pipeline explosion that contaminated waterways, destroyed aquatic life, and threatened community health and livelihoods.

The Supreme Court stated: “The present action concerns an oil pipeline that burst, allegedly spilling crude oil into waterways, polluting drinking sources and destroying aquatic life, plant life, and fauna, and also endangering the health and lives of the people of the community.

In this regard, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides for the right to life.

Any act or omission which threatens the health of the people of the community also threatens their lives and is in breach of the guarantee of the right to life provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”

The Court further stated: “Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to life whilst Section 20 of the Constitution provides that ‘the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of the country.’

See also: Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides ‘All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.’

These provisions show that the Constitution, the legislature and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, recognise the fundamental rights of the citizenry to a clean and healthy environment to sustain life.”

This judgement significantly expanded the scope of environmental rights within the context of oil pollution damage, particularly linking the right to life and the right to a clean environment.

Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.

Impact and Current State of the Law

The COPW decision effectively overruled more restrictive approaches to environmental rights, establishing several crucial principles.

First, it confirmed that environmental degradation can violate fundamental rights under both the Constitution and the African Charter.

Second, it established that environmental rights are directly enforceable through constitutional claims.

Third, it mandated a broad and purposive interpretation of environmental rights to ensure effective protection. Subsequent courts have consistently followed and built upon COPW’s constitutional framework.

Most notable are Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ajanaku & Anor (2021) LPELR-52566(CA) and Chief Isaac Obor – Ntito Torchi and Others v. Shell Development Company Limited and Others (Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020).

In the latter case, the most recent case, the court awarded unprecedented damages of Eight Hundred Billion Naira against Shell for environmental pollution – the largest such award in Nigerian history. This represents a decisive shift from the old constitutional orthodoxy that considered environmental rights non-justiciable to the current approach treating them as enforceable constitutional rights.

These developments have significant practical implications. Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.

The broad interpretative approach mandated by COPW and followed in subsequent cases provides flexibility in recognising various forms of environmental harm as rights violations.

These legal developments for multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria present substantial new risks and obligations.

The elevation of environmental rights to constitutional status means that oil companies now face potential liability not just under traditional environmental regulations, but also for fundamental rights violations.

This expanded liability framework has several key implications for multinationals:

First, the constitutional framework allows for significantly higher damages awards, as demonstrated by the Eight Hundred Billion Naira judgement against Shell.

Unlike statutory environmental fines, there are no preset limits on constitutional damages.

Second, the broader standing rules for constitutional claims mean that entire communities, not just directly affected individuals, can bring claims against oil companies.

Third, the constitutional nature of these rights means that companies cannot rely on mere compliance with environmental regulations as a complete defence – they must ensure their operations do not infringe on fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment.

Finally, the constitutional framework creates enhanced reputational risks for multinationals, as being found liable for human rights violations carries greater stigma than traditional environmental infractions.

▪︎Collins Okeke is an Associate Partner, Olisa Agbakoba Legal.

Up Next

Trump: The Man Whom The World Fears and Why

Don't Miss

Propaganda Journalism: Are Image Makers To Blame or The Board ?

Click to comment

Opinions

Soludo’s Historic Victory and the Anambra Renaissance

Published

6 days ago

November 11, 2025

Charles Flames

86 Views

By Christian ABURIME

When the Governor of Anambra State, Professor Chukwuma Charles Soludo, CFR, took the microphone in Awka on Sunday morning to deliver his victory speech, he did so not just as a re-elected governor, but as the beneficiary of something significant in Nigerian politics: an unambiguous popular mandate. His resounding re-election marks not just a personal triumph, but a watershed moment in Anambra’s democratic journey.

With 422,664 votes representing 73 percent of ballots cast, and victories across all 21 local government areas, Governor Soludo’s triumph transcends the arithmetic of electoral politics. It represents a decisive endorsement of governance, a validation of vision, and perhaps most significantly, a repudiation of the cynicism that too often characterises our democratic discourse.

The statistics from Saturday’s election deserve careful scrutiny, for they reveal a narrative far more compelling than mere electoral victory. Four years ago, when Governor Soludo first ascended to the governorship with 112,000 votes amid low voter turnout, skeptics questioned the strength of his mandate. On Saturday, the people of Anambra answered those doubts emphatically. Voter participation broke the historic 20 percent ceiling, reaching 22 percent, a milestone achievement in a state and nation where electoral apathy has become endemic.

Of course, this is not simply about percentages. It represents a fundamental shift in civic engagement, suggesting that when citizens believe their votes matter, when they see tangible results from governance, and when the electoral process inspires confidence, they would participate. The contrast between Governor Soludo’s initial 112,000 votes and his current 422,664 is not just a mere testimonial but a concrete one that the people have spoken emphatically

Governor Soludo’s gracious acknowledgement of INEC’s performance deserves particular attention.

His description of Saturday’s election as “the best election INEC has organised in Anambra so far” is quite significant, coming from a sitting governor with every incentive to remain diplomatically silent about the electoral body. His specific praise for INEC’s ICT department and the real-time upload of results on the IReV portal, with over 99 percent of polling unit results uploaded by midnight, also speaks to the technological transformation gradually reshaping Nigeria’s electoral landscape.

Besides, the transparency enabled by technology has been the great democratiser of this election cycle. When every citizen can download polling unit results in real-time, when the pathway from ballot box to final tally is illuminated by digital accountability, the space for manipulation narrows dramatically. And Governor Soludo’s victory is thus doubly legitimate: won at the polls and verified by digital precision.

An instructive element of Governor Soludo’s victory speech was his praise for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “true democrat” committed to free and fair elections in Anambra. For long, ours has been a political culture where federal might has historically been deployed to influence state elections, but the presidential restraint in the Anambra election represents a form of democratic maturity that should not go unnoticed.

When presidents allow states to choose their own leaders without federal interference, when ruling parties accept defeat gracefully, when the machinery of state remains neutral in electoral contests, these become the building blocks of democratic consolidation.

In another dimension, Governor Soludo’s margin of victory, defeating his closest rival by more than 320,000 votes, creates an interesting political dynamic. Such comprehensive victories can be double-edged swords. They provide governors with the political capital to pursue ambitious agendas without the constant distraction of defending narrow mandates. Yet they also eliminate the moderating influence of competitive pressure, potentially fostering complacency or insularity.

But the governor’s gracious words to his fellow contestants, acknowledging that “sixteen of us were on the ballot, and obviously, one person will win”, suggest an awareness of this dynamic. His extension of fellowship to all contestants and his description of politics as “a contest of ideas, not enmity” reflects a maturity that Anambra’s political culture increasingly demands.

Yet, here lies the paradox of overwhelming victory: expectations would now soar proportionally to the mandate received. When nearly three-quarters of voters endorse your leadership, the burden of delivery becomes correspondingly heavier. Governor Soludo’s closing declaration, “you ain’t seen anything yet”, is both promise and prophecy, both aspiration and obligation.

In fact, as a leader who is fondly called ‘Oluatuegwu’ (one who doesn’t fear work), Governor Soludo had already got back to work before his victory declaration, calling the Commissioner for Budget for briefing while awaiting election results! For him, there is no luxury of time to indulge in any victory celebration. As he said, “It’s time to get back to work!”

He now has the leverage to go all the way and turn Anambra into an axis of sustainable flourishing of the African-Dubai-Taiwan-Silicon Valley

The broader significance of Saturday’s election may lie not in Anambra alone but in what it represents for Nigerian democracy. When electoral technology works, when results reflect genuine popular will, when incumbents are judged on performance rather than partisan or sectarian loyalties, when voter participation increases, we glimpse the democracy Nigeria could become.

Yes, Governor Soludo’s victory is historic not only because he won in all 21 local government areas but because of how he won: through a process widely acknowledged as transparent, through a mandate clearly expressed, through civic participation notably increased.
Indeed, Anambra has spoken. And in a democracy, that is both the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega verdict.

As the formidable ‘Oluatuegwu’ begins his second term with this strengthened mandate, the people of Anambra have sent an unmistakable message: we have employed you again. In response, the governor spoke of moving “into high gear to deliver more for the good of Anambra.” A new era begins now.

Opinions

Positioning Nigeria Towards a N1 Quadrillion Economy, By Dr. Olisa Agbakoba

We currently have one of the highest currency volatilities in Africa, with the naira depreciating by over 40% in 2024 alone, ranking among the continent’s worst performing currencies.

Published

1 week ago

November 9, 2025

OCHEFA

66 Views

• Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN

Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) is offerring insights on how Nigeria can achieve a ₦1 Quadrillion economy in 10–15 years.

Dr Agbakoba, in a letter: IDEAS FOR A QUADRILLION NAIRA ECONOMY IN 10 to 15 YEARS, dated November 7, 2025, and addressed to the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr. Wale Edun, propose three transformative reforms that could create the fundamentals and unlock over 1.5 quadrillion Naira in economic values.

The document reads: “

Dear Honourable Minister,

“I refer to your recent statement, “Nigeria Turns Towards Prosperity.” You highlighted the Tinubu government’s significant achievements including GDP growth, declining inflation, stabilized exchange rates, increased foreign reserves, and improved oil production.

Despite these successes, exchange rate volatility remains our most pressing challenge.

We currently have one of the highest currency volatilities in Africa, with the naira depreciating by over 40% in 2024 alone, ranking among the continent’s worst performing currencies.

With 1 billion naira worth less than 1 million dollars, demand naturally tilts toward the dollar. The root cause is simple.

The naira lacks fundamentals—tangible economic pillars that give people reason to hold and use.

To reverse this, we must create fundamentals to back the naira. I propose three transformative reforms that could create these fundamentals and unlock over 1.5 quadrillion naira in economic value.

The first is land and real estate titling.

1. Land and Real Estate Titling Reform

Studies done by the World Bank, PwC, and my firm OAL show that 90% of Nigerian land and real estate have tainted, defective, or no titles.

This creates “dead capital”—assets that cannot be traded, serve as collateral, and cannot be indexed to the financial system.

Economist Hernando de Soto demonstrated in his book “The Mystery of Capital” that converting dead capital into productive assets through formal property rights revolutionizes developing economies.

Margaret Thatcher called De Soto’s work a potential “enormously beneficial revolution” that addresses the fundamental weakness of Third World economies: the lack of property rights and enterprise frameworks.

Property titling reform transforms dead capital in land and real estate into legally recognized assets. Owners can use their land or homes as collateral to access credit. Banks become willing to lend because the property now represents secure collateral with enforceable legal backing.

This process releases the equity locked in land, converting illiquid assets into financial capital that can circulate through the economy.

The result is substantial new liquidity—more individuals and businesses gain access to loans, properties become tradable assets, and dormant wealth enters productive use.

The foundation for reform is already being laid. Your administration is implementing the National Land Registration, Documentation and Titling Programme, which aims to digitize land records and create a unified, transparent system. What is needed now is acceleration and scale.

By indexing property values to the financial system through digital integration and legal harmonization across federal and state systems, we can create an instant credit market worth potentially thousands of times our GDP.

The money flow would then be available to finance development across the nation.

Unlocking trapped property assets that are presently dead capital will encourage investors who currently prefer to buy properties abroad to buy in Nigeria.

This will deepen naira denominated asset markets, reduce dependency on dollar denominated assets for wealth storage, and strengthen demand for the naira by creating viable local investment alternatives.

Using the World Bank and PwC’s conservative estimates of $900 billion in dead capital, at today’s rate of ₦1,500 to $1, this represents 1.5 quadrillion naira.

The economic impact of releasing 1.5 quadrillion naira into productive use cannot be overstated.

If this is done with the same strategic approach as the tax reform, it will transform Nigeria’s economy, provide sustainable backing for the naira, and create the foundation for long term prosperity.

By creating a vast, liquid real estate market indexed to the financial system, land titling reform establishes a critical fundamental that anchors the naira’s value and dramatically reduces exchange rate volatility. I must also acknowledge challenges of inflationary pressure. Let me now move to the next coequal fundamental, and that is a credit economy.

Naira-denominated credit will boost domestic consumption of locally produced goods and services, reduce import demand and foreign exchange pressure.

2. Credit Economy Expansion

Nigeria operates a cash economy. This limits the economy’s potential because people can only buy what they can afford.

By contrast, a well-developed credit system allows people to buy what they cannot afford provided they manage their debt. For instance, 90% of Americans cannot afford a house without a mortgage.

In the same vein, any Nigerian who can pay rent can afford a mortgage, but this is not possible without a legal framework.

A robust policy and legal framework to support a credit process will be transformational. 200 million Nigerians, each with ₦300,000 in credit facilities, would inject ₦60 trillion into the economy.

Naira-denominated credit will boost domestic consumption of locally produced goods and services, reduce import demand and foreign exchange pressure.

A thriving naira credit market will deepen domestic financial markets and make the naira more attractive as an asset and reduce the speculative attacks that drive exchange rate volatility.

When citizens can access credit in naira to own homes, start businesses, and build wealth, the currency gains intrinsic value and stability.

This credit infrastructure becomes a vital fundamental—a reason for people to hold and transact in naira—thereby reducing our vulnerability to exchange rate shocks.

3. Agricultural Mechanization

In the United States, only 2% of the workforce are in agriculture, yet the sector contributes 5.5% to GDP and generates $1.5 trillion annually. In Nigeria, by contrast, 30 to 38% of the workforce, 15 to 19 times more workers proportionally, is employed in agriculture.

With our GDP at approximately $188 billion, the sector contributes 25 to 26% to GDP but generates only $47 to 49 billion annually, less than one thirtieth of America’s agricultural output despite having a vastly larger workforce.

This stark disparity reveals a fundamental truth: productivity, not the number of workers, determines agricultural success.

America achieves higher output with fewer workers through mechanization and a fully developed value chain: cold storage facilities, food processing plants, packaging companies, logistics networks, agricultural equipment manufacturing, fertilizer production, warehousing, quality control laboratories, marketing and distribution channels, agricultural finance services, and export infrastructure.

Nigeria, meanwhile, remains trapped at subsistence level using manual tools: hoes and cutlasses.

The transformation we need is mechanization, and the potential money flow would be tremendous. With a well developed policy and legal framework, capital will flow into the economy.

The agricultural sector is badly impacted by the titling challenge as defective and tainted land titles are precisely why we remain at subsistence level. Farmers cannot access capital for mechanization without proper collateral.

Moving from subsistence to mechanized agriculture will increase productivity, reduce post harvest losses, enhance food security, and position Nigeria as a net agricultural exporter.

Agricultural exports will generate substantial foreign exchange earnings, increasing FX supply and strengthening the naira.

More critically, food self sufficiency will eliminate the need to import basic staples, currently a major source of FX demand.

Reducing food imports alone could save billions of dollars annually, directly stabilizing exchange rates and reducing imported inflation. When a nation feeds itself and exports the surplus, its currency strengthens naturally.

Agricultural transformation thus creates a powerful fundamental: robust FX earnings and reduced import dependency that provides lasting stability to the naira and shields it from volatility.

What I have done here is to show that if these three reforms are implemented, along with many others like oil and gas, maritime sector optimization, and manufacturing, and are fully developed to back the naira, the naira can exchange at optimal rates because there is a fundamental backing it.

If well handled, we will see significant improvement in the next few years with reduced volatility and a stronger naira.

Honourable Minister, this is not going to be easy work. It is painstaking but doable.

The success of the tax reform shows it can be done. I project a timeline of 10 to 20 years, which is not too far-fetched.

During my lifetime, I have witnessed three presidents whom each served 8 years, so it can be done.

The difference between incremental improvement and transformative change is ambition matched with execution.

These reforms would not merely stabilize the naira; they would fundamentally restructure our economy and create sustainable prosperity for generations.

I have attached for your consideration Olisa Agbakoba Legal’s October policy paper, “Devolution is the Solution Foundational Reform Agenda for Nigeria’s Transformation.”

Opinions

Setting The Record Straight on Recent False Reports About Sylva, by Julius Bokoru

While the Defence Headquarters has already debunked the swirling rumours of a coup in Nigeria, it is important to state emphatically that Chief Timipre Sylva, CON, has no involvement whatsoever—either in planning or in logistics—with any such plot.

Published

3 weeks ago

October 29, 2025

OhiBaba

81 Views

• Timipre Sylva
In the past forty-eight hours, I have been inundated with calls from members of the press, political associates, and concerned individuals regarding a circulating report alleging that His Excellency, Chief Timipre Sylva, has “fled” the country in connection with certain purported matters.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is true that the residence of His Excellency, Chief Timipre Sylva, was recently subjected to a raid by individuals believed to be operatives of the Defence Headquarters.

During the said operation, considerable damage was inflicted upon the property.
Despite sustained efforts, I have been unable to ascertain the reasons or authorisation for this raid.

To the best of my knowledge, the officers involved did not provide any categorical explanation for their actions, either at the time or subsequently.

It is important to state unequivocally that His Excellency, Chief Timipre Sylva, and his esteemed wife, Her Excellency, Alanyingi Sylva, were both outside the country at the time of the incident.

As at my last communication with His Excellency, he was engaged in a routine medical check-up in the United Kingdom, after which he was scheduled to proceed to Malaysia to attend a professional conference.

The next development I was made aware of, regrettably, were reports circulating across social media and other platforms concerning the raid on his residence.

Chief Sylva is a thoroughbred democrat, whose entire political journey has been defined by his faith in democratic processes and institutions.

From the 1990s, when he was first elected into the Old Rivers State House of Assembly, to his tenure as Governor of Bayelsa State, Sylva has achieved every milestone through transparent, democratic engagement and the will of the people.

His unwavering support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a matter of public record.

It remains fresh in memory how he mobilized the entire Bayelsa APC structure to unanimously endorse President Tinubu at the APC Bayelsa Expanded Stakeholders’ Meeting.

These rumours are nothing more than the handiwork of desperate and narcissistic politicians, already consumed by ambitions for 2027, who see Sylva as their last real obstacle—a man whose political presence and credibility continue to expose their dark, self-serving ambitions.

• Julius Bokoru
Special Assistant on Media and Public Affairs to H.E. Timipre Sylva