I have witnessed many elections since 1979 and I can say without any equivocation that the 2023 election was the best, the most free and fair, the most transparent.
Those who are pillorying the election and INEC, the electoral umpire are simply saying so because the outcome of the election, especially the presidential election did not match their expectation.
May God forgive them, especially the men in cassocks, who in their hallucination, had prophesied victory for their favourite candidate, claiming it was a message from God.
It must be clear to Nigerians that those clerics were not in any conclave with the Almighty God. Their prediction was their personal desires, which went unfulfilled by God.
God surely has other plans for our country and instead chose a man, who has the best leadership pedigree and espouses the best vision to pilot our affairs from 29 May.
Man indeed proposes, God disposes. Our clergymen, not satisfied with the divine and INEC verdict have been all out disparaging the election. The latest of them was Cardinal John Onaiyekan of the Catholic Church.
News reports said the Octogenarian claimed that the election was rigged. He accused some unidentified people of masterminding the rigging and claimed that God knows those riggers.
To Onaiyekan, the alleged machination of ‘those riggers’ made impossible the manifestation of the ‘people’s will’ in the outcome announced by INEC. This lie, nay a malicious propaganda, has been told repeatedly by the opposition parties and their supporters since 1 March when Asiwaju Bola Tinubu was declared as President-elect.
The lie has been sold abroad to people who do not have a first-hand information on how INEC conducted the poll.
The lie is simply vicious. It must stop. It is a lie for which the purveyors, no matter their status, ought to earn the wrath of God on earth and in heaven. It is not true.
Without holding brief for INEC, which has filed its defence at the Tribunal, which begins sitting on 8 May, I repeat again that the 2023 election was the best since the return to democracy in 1999. It was miles ahead of the heavily compromised 2007 election conducted by President Olusegun Obasanjo, wherein the beneficiary of the electoral heist, Umaru Yar’Adua apologised for the embarrassment.
Yar’Adua atoned for Obasanjo’s sin by setting up the Justice Uwais Commission to sanitise our election process.
Since then, our elections have gotten better, election cycle after election cycle.
The introduction of BVAS made a significant difference and made the 2023 election, the most technologically driven poll ever conducted in our country. And the best. BVAS made it impossible for parties to record outlandish numbers in their strongholds. It ensured that only the accredited voters voted. INEC deserves praise not ridicule.
All the critics of INEC, on account of the non-transmission of the results recorded at the 176,000 polling units are purely doing so for mischief.
The criticism is most misplaced as the so-called result transmission was additional to what happened at the polling unit. It is superfluous.
In the presidential and National Assembly elections, all polling units tallied votes cast and each party polling agent was given a copy of Form EC8. Collation of polling unit results was done at the ward level and from there to the council level and then the state level. Political parties usually know how they fared in the election by the time votes are tallied at ward or council level.
Parties do not need to wait for INEC upload of polling unit results on its portal to know the entire result of the election. They do not also need to wait for the results announced at the Abuja Collation Centre. In 2015, President Goodluck Jonathan conceded to President Muhammad Buhari before INEC’s announcement, because he and his agents had the figures from all the states. He conceded because he knew the election was already lost to Buhari.
In a development that is extremely strange to our politics, the Labour Party and the PDP initially sponsored calls for an interim government. When that did not get traction, they mounted vicious attacks on INEC for not uploading the results on time, using this lapse to vilify an election that was the best in our country. It’s like condemning your bank for not printing a receipt for a credit payment, when the money is already sitting pretty in your account and you have received the alert.
The Labour Party and the PDP and their surrogates, some of them lawyers, clerics and some ethnic groups have also mounted desperate campaign for the postponement of the inauguration of the President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 29 May. Some other groups, including the leading labour and partisan unions, the NLC and TUC, in league with some equally partisan civil society organisations are blackmailing the judges that will handle the petitions against Tinubu’e election.
We have never had such post-poll desperation, except this time that we have a Peter Obi on the ballot and an Atiku that is cocksure he has lost his last chance to gun for the nation’s No. 1 seat. Since 1999, every election held has always been disputed by losers.
The winners are allowed to be sworn in, while litigation goes on. This was the case in all elections. This is also the trend in the states. This has been the convention. It was the convention when Labour Party Vice presidential candidate, Datti Baba-Ahmed became a senator, representing Kaduna North in 2011 under the platform of Congress for Progressive Change. His challenger went to court. Baba-Ahmed’s victory was upturned, after some months, when he had been sworn in as senator.
We cannot change the convention now because some people believe that the men who came second and third in the poll, are pursuing cases in court. They should exercise patience for the judiciary to decide whether they have any strong case to invalidate Tinubu’s victory. The judiciary has always supported litigants when they have ‘substantial’ proof that they were rigged out of an election. As the tribunal begins sitting today, let Labour and its senior partner, the PDP stop further blackmail of the judiciary.
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.
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 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.
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.
The management of BUA Refinery and Petrochemicals has denied reports its refinery is 90 percent completed.” (Daily Trust)
“CBN Dismisses Forced Exit Claims, Says 1,000 Staff Exited Voluntary with Full Benefits” (Arise News)
“FCCPC denies claims of halting investigations into Air Peace, other sectors” (The Nation)
” Port Harcourt Refinery begins operation, says NNPC (Premium Times)
“NNPC Ltd Delivers on Refinery Revamp Promise: Warri Plant Resumes Operation with 125,000bpd Capacity in Warri, Delta State.” (Dec 30, Reuters)
Looking at the above headlines clips, what do they have in common?
Managements discredited news reports that emanated from the organizations. Either from the corporate affairs departments duly signed by the company’s image maker or a member of the board of directors of the company.
Also, the information may have been gotten by the reporter or Editor, through an insider ( the CEO himself, a director, driver, cleaner, PRO, etc) in the company.
He hurries to write the story and breaks it as an “exclusive or a scoop”, on his media platform.
However, to promote or project an organization’s image in a positive light to the government, the shareholders, and other stakeholders, some company’s media departments have employed what we call “agitprop” or propaganda journalism, which is coloring falsehood, lies, and misinformation, to look like truth.
It is a powerful tool or weapon to move the crowd to believe what is fake is real and things like that.
Just to sway or pull the crowd to accept that viewpoint.
Advertisers use it often in the marketing of products and services.
Maybe you are familiar with clichés such as these:
“Use this cream and you will look glamorous.”
“Use this toothpaste and…”
“Everybody is drinking this water…” Propaganda journalism or messages are destructive.
It is like you lied to me before, how can I trust you again?
Again, some news sources or makers even employ what is called synecdoche, a figure of speech in English -Literature.
Synecdoche means when you use a part to represent a whole, or a whole for the part.
Therefore, organizations and their image makers had better ensure that the information they are sending out for public consumption is crafted in such a manner that what is written is what is understood, and what is understood is what is meant
That’s what may have played out in the reportage of the NNPCL refineries in Port Harcourt and the Warri Refinery and Petrochemicals.
The NNPCL, in its press releases, made the public believe that they had started working, whereas it was a section of the refineries.
Media reports had it that in November and December 2024, respectively, the NNPCL announced the revamping of the refineries, even if partially, with Port Harcourt at 70 percent level functionality, while the Warri refinery is currently operating at 60 percent.
The announcements led to the government rejoicing, a well-done and for the good works to the NNPCL management, and an encouragement by Mr President to the Corporation’s head to finish the Kaduna refinery and the New Port Harcourt Refinery, too.
However, the praises were soon cut shut, following the outpourings of doubts about the Workability of the refineries.
The doubters include oil, some people in the oil and gas industry, petroleum engineers, as well as Nigeria’s elder statesman, former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
SweetcrudeReports, recently reported: ” Experts, stakeholders and inside sources at the Port Harcourt Refinery are faulting the recent Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPC, claims on the return of the 60,000 barrels per day old Port Harcourt refinery to operations.
They described the claims as amounting to national deceit. Investigations at the refinery showed that the plant currently refines only 6,500 barrels of crude oil some days (not even daily), which can only load 10 trucks. Industry experts say this is insignificant when compared to the refinery’s 60,000 barrels per day refining capacity and its loading capacity of 180 to 200 trucks daily.
According to the experts, a refinery of 60,000 per day capacity that is processing only 6,500 barrels cannot be described as working. “As it stands now, it is only the CDU (Crude Distillation Unit) that refines just 6,500 barrels per day and produces nothing more than 10 trucks maximum per day that is working, ”Alex Ogedegbe, a chemical engineer, expert refiner and former Managing Director of the Port Harcourt Refinery and the Warri Refinery, told SweetcrudeReports.
He added: “It is not the full refinery that is functioning. No refiner can claim that with only one unit running, and for that, the Port Harcourt refinery has begun operations and thus issues fake figures to Nigerians.
President Olusegun Obasanjo also expressed reservations over the workability of the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries.
Obasanjo who spoke recently on a national television, likened the declaration by the NNPC that the crude oil refining facilities are now working to a farmer who lied about the volume of his crops during the planting season, insisting that the truth will always be revealed during the harvest season.
“So if anybody tells you now that they (the refineries ) are working, why are they not with Aliko (in the market)? And Aliko will make his refinery work. Not only make it work, he will make it deliver.
“Whether we announce our government refineries are working or not working, look, it is like they say in Yoruba adage, ‘the man who plants 100 heaps of yams and says he has planted 200 heaps, they say after he has harvested 100 heaps of yam, he will also harvest 100 heaps of lies,” he said in response to a question on the oil assets.
What is the point?
Therefore, organizations and their image makers had better ensure that the information they are sending out for public consumption is crafted in such a manner that what is written is what is understood, and what is understood is what is meant; otherwise, the receivers will read different meaning or give a different interpretation to the information.
In the words of Anuk Kumar, any news that does not contain facts and shades of opinion that allow readers to draw their own meaning is inadvertent propaganda.
▪︎Ichaburu Ochefa, a media professional and communicator, wrote this piece in Lagos.
As we all know, the transportation sector is essential to Nigeria’s economy, providing vital services to millions. Unfortunately, rising fuel costs have made mobility increasingly expensive
Ichaburu Ochefa, writes that Nigeria is racing towards running its transport system on varied energy sources given the government’s push for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) – powered vehicles.
I had a dream.
Let me share it with you.
In the dream, I saw my country, our country Nigeria, became a developed country from developing country.
In the dream, Nigeria has a well- developed transport system- the likes I had seen in China, Tokyo, New York and London .
The potholes on our roads are gone., so are the fuel queues. I saw vehicles running on petrol, Compressed Natural Gas, diesel, and even electric cars.
The railways criss-crossing the country’s cities are superb like the Lagos blue and red lines; also the rickety wooden boats on the waterways nationwide have been replaced with sophiscated boats which are safer and secure to navigate the oceans.
How We Will Get There?
The government of my country, our country, is already working on getting my dream fulfilled! Here’s how:
In 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu unveiled a plan to make vehicles in Nigeria run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) alongside petrol powered vehicles.
The Initiative is aimed at reducing the burden of increase in pump price on the masses, and to deliver cheaper, safer and more climate friendly energy.
President Bola Tinubu, had in a nationwide broadcast, said that the deployment of CNG buses and tricycles and the vision to get at least one million natural gas propelled vehicles on Nigeria’s roads by 2027.
This will mark a major energy transition in the country’s transportation industry.
Following the policy pronouncements, the government sets the machinery in motion towards the successful implementation of the initiative.
First, it established the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas Initiative (PCNGI), headed by Michael Oluwagbemi, an oil/gas expert.
Next, the government earmarked N100 billion for the procurement of 5500 CNG vehicles (buses and tricycles), and over 20,000 CNG conversion kits, alongside spurring the development of CNG refilling stations and electric vehicles charging stations.
President Bola Tinubu, had in a nationwide broadcast, said that the deployment of CNG buses and tricycles and the vision to get at least one million natural gas propelled vehicles on Nigeria’s roads by 2027.
Through the NNPCL, CNG fueling stations and conversion centres are being built at strategic locations across the country.
Recently, as part of efforts to accelerate the adoption of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as a cleaner and more affordable fuel alternative in Nigeria, NNPC Retail Limited (NRL), a subsidiary of the NNPC Ltd, sensitized over 1,000 auto mechanics through a comprehensive awareness initiative.
The sensitization exercise which took place at the National Artisans and Technicians Conference held in Lagos, brought together a large audience drawn from auto mechanics and technicians from across the country.
The engagement aimed to demystify the process of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to CNG and encourage the adoption of sustainable energy solutions.
Ekperikpe Ekpo, the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Gas), had during the distributions of CNG-powered buses to three key transport unions: the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN), and the Nigerian Association of Road Transport Owners (NARTO), said that these buses are not just vehicles—they represent a significant investment in modern, eco-friendly transportation and demonstrate the unwavering commitment of the Federal Government to easing the burden on Nigerian commuters and transport operators.
” As we all know, the transportation sector is essential to Nigeria’s economy, providing vital services to millions. Unfortunately, rising fuel costs have made mobility increasingly expensive.
To address this, the Federal Government has prioritized CNG, which is a cleaner and more cost-effective fuel source.
This is a key part of our Decade of Gas initiative, which leverages Nigeria’s abundant natural gas reserves to support sustainable development, energy security, and economic growth.
With our proven gas reserves of over 209 trillion cubic feet, Nigeria is well-positioned to take a leadership role in the global energy transition, utilizing gas as both a transition fuel and a destination energy source.”
News3 days ago
International19 hours ago
Business20 hours ago
News1 day ago
Business1 day ago
Business1 day ago
News1 day ago